![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 August 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kimberly Klacik article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not sure how the talk pages work, so please don't scream at me.
Change "klacik" on the title to Klacik for proper grammar. -- Wikilife5656 ( talk) 04:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This appears more of a promotion than neutral point of view. I hope someone with more time than me can expand upon it and remove biased elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.33.171 ( talk) 11:07, August 23, 2020 (UTC)
although at least half of it could easily be described as blighted, without question.This is offensive but if you're going to make such charged statements, please at least do us the favor of providing an actual source (one that isn't right wing propaganda.) Thanks. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, JGabbard, Magnolia677, Muboshgu (picked you four since you have all explicitly reverted someone else's edit): I have fully-protected the page for a week because of the ongoing edit war. I don't especially care who is in the "right" here, you all have been editing long enough to know better. Once you have reached consensus, you may submit an {{ edit fully-protected}} request. Separately, I am placing this article under 1RR under WP:AP2 discretionary sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action (which, obviously, won't really matter until the page protection runs out), I will implement an editnotice and log this shortly. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Perhaps mention that Klacik responded to Trump's twitter attack on Baltimore and Cummings by Tweeting "This just made my day." [1] SecretName101 ( talk) 02:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
20:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies"
The notion that Kim Klacik isn't sufficiently "notable" for a Wikipedia page is nothing more than politically motivated leftist nonsense.
With her widespread current media coverage, Kim Klacik is more relevant than probably +80% of individuals who currently have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them. With her message starting to gain momentum, the political left in the United States wants her silenced to the greatest degree possible. Therefore, any motions made to have this page taken down must be assumed to be politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.211.75.206 ( talk) 04:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This person holds the record for the most viewed congressional advertisement of all time in the United States, that alone gives them significance.
Nate Rybner 21:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner ( talk • contribs)
@ Naterybner: Most-viewed congressional ad as recognized by what source? SecretName101 ( talk) 01:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that her ad alone is not grounds for her having a page, though it absolutely contributes. I am a supporter of maintaining her page, since she is a firebrand who I do not believe is going away anytime soon, and I would rather have the page maintained than deleted and re-created later. That being said, neutrality problems must be addressed immediately, and I don't think it is politically motivated to say so. (I also want to remind everyone that this is not a discussion for the Talk page as much as for the articles of deletion.) PickleG13 ( talk) 09:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
As the son of biracial parents and a Republican I wish to support the existence of the Kimberly Klacic page. RichardBond ( talk) 15:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Kimberly Klacik is currently a well known public speaker and is likely to remain so even if she doesn't get elected. What I have found over twelve years is that politics enters decisions on notability on Wikipedia constantly. There is however an effective bias against Republicans. I wanted to show that there are editors who recognize that Kimberly Klacik is notable if not as an elected official as a professional public speaker. RichardBond ( talk) 22:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, can we get "Kimberly Klacik (born January 19, 1982) is a nonprofit founder who won the Republican nomination in Maryland's 7th Congressional District special primary on February 4, 2020" changed to "Kimberly Klacik (born January 19, 1982) is an American politician who..." It's standard form to have nationality followed by occupation as the first thing in the lead.
Secondly, this is problematic: In 2013, Klacik founded Potential Me to assist underserved women with workforce development. Assisting close to 200 women become gainfully employed, 30 percent went on to obtain financial independence. As the non-profit grew, she employed women re-entering the workforce. This statement is sourced to her campaign website and has some poor wording and sentence structure. This either needs to be deleted or revised with an appropriate secondary source. - Indy beetle ( talk) 00:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Interesting to see the notorious video exhaustively examined in Snopes Jim.henderson ( talk) 19:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not know how this talk page works. However, I signed up for wikipedia to include a picture of Ms. Klacik on her wiki page. At this point, she has spoken at the RNC, been featured as a guest multiple times on cable news, and from a quick Google News search, she has articles about her from NY Post, The Hill, The Baltimore Sun, Fox News and The Washington Times. She is notable due to her news coverage to date. And, she is notable for being part of an emerging wave of African-American Republican politicians in the United States. She is not some random person running for Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki899 ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
El_cid,_el_campeador summarized this
with It's written in a way that is trying to establish notability and should be revised further to be more neutral
. Unspecific is more neutral? I misread Courthouse News and only mentioned the two claims in the paragraph preceding Courthouse News's findings but "those claims" could refer to all four: Klacik contends that her company Potential Me assisted “close to 200 women [to] become gainfully employed, thirty percent went on to obtain financial independence.” “As the nonprofit grew, she employed women reentering society and quickly found out what it took to manage payroll and helping families thrive with opportunities she helps create,” according to biography published on Klacik’s campaign website. Courthouse News could not substantiate those claims.
That's not "some claims."
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk)
14:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar in practice with 1rr, I reverted an IP for this but meant to restore further back, as this ip also violated NPOV and removed sources here and that isn't what the sources say. Praxidicae ( talk) 12:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
From January to June 2020, the top donors were Anne Johnson and Charles Johnson with $16,800 each, according to the North Baltimore Journal’s report on FEC filings for that period. Does anyone have any info on whether the donors are Ann and Giants owner Charles B. Johnson who previously donated to Cindy Hyde-Smith of "front row at a public hanging" fame and to a SuperPAC that aired a racist political ad? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
We have summarized the Snopes description of the circuitous walking route depicted in the famous video, but we have failed to supply a direct quote for our statement that the video says it was one continuous walk. Have I failed to examine the video (in Youtube) carefully enough? Jim.henderson ( talk) 00:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Rwils, Praxidicae, and Muboshgu: Rwils left a message on my talk page asking for advice regarding a recent edit war, where Rwils removed the following and was subsequently reverted:
In a report, Courthouse News concluded that Klacik's non-profit filed only one tax return since 2013, reporting a revenue of under $7,000 and expenditures under $3,000, for providing clothing to 10 people. [1] The report further found that some of Klacik's claims on her campaign website about Potential Me could not be corroborated. [1]
References
My own opinion is that Courthouse News is a reliable source, and details about expenditures by Klacik's non-profit are notable. However, the second sentence, which states that some of her expenses "could not be corroborated", should be removed per WP:SPECULATION. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
While Klacik lost very badly in both of her races for Congress, she nevertheless serves on the Baltimore County Republican Central Committee. That is an elected position, and seems like it should be in the page's infobox. I want to know folks' thoughts on this. I would add this myself, but I also can't tell when she was elected, what her official title is, or any other details. PickleG13 ( talk) 01:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm unsure. For instance, with Cook County, Illinois articles, I've never seen anyone's position as a Cook County party committeeperson listed as an office in their infobox, despite also being an elected party position. SecretName101 ( talk) 00:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I still think we need to discuss this further. SecretName101 ( talk) 13:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Please remove Klacik was born Kimberly Bray on January 19, 1982
, it's redundant and silly since it's in the lead and sounds ridiculous.
Praxidicae (
talk)
01:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Items in the lead generally NEED to be repeated within the body of an article. Especially if they appear without citation in the lead. SecretName101 ( talk) 00:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Praxidicae: since you INSIST it does without that sentence, tell me where there is prose with all that information located in the body of the article, and where is there otherwise citation backing it. The lead and body are TWO different things. You are supposed to have information in the lead be supported by what the body of the article says, after all. I'm not going to start a edit war over this, but I believe you are mistaken. SecretName101 ( talk) 10:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Look at featured articles like Angelina Jolie and Hillary Clinton, as well as good articles like Michelle Obama, Rihanna, Cher, Miley Cyrus and Bill Clinton. They have similar sentences in their early life sections mentioning the maiden/birth name and dates of birth. SecretName101 ( talk) 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You know what, with those examples of good and featured articles having similar sentences, I feel rather firm in my belief I am correct. Going to restore this sentence (or something similar) to the article. SecretName101 ( talk) 10:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Klacik received approximately 12,000 more votes than the last Republican to run in a regular election
: The number appears to be incorrect.
According to the Washington Post, the tally as of today is 237,084 (71.8 percent) for Mfume, 92,825 (28.1 percent) for Klacik. The numbers for Cummings in 2018 were 202,345 (76.4 percent), for Richmond Davis 56,266 (21.3 percent). The total number of votes in 2018 was
264,438. For 2020, it's 329,983 so far, with 91% of the ballots counted. Compared to 2018, that's 36,559 more votes for Klacik, 34,739 more for Mfume who spent (what - 90 percent?) less than Klacik.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk)
15:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
CharlesShirley, you claim to be removing POV from this page, justifiably so in some cases. In other instances you use the POV claim to remove reliably sourced content, presumably because it is negative; it was restored by another editor. You’re also inserting POV with misleading edit summaries. Here are some examples:
BTW, some of your editing is just sloppy:
As for Rodricks flat-out lied
- what was the tally on 4 November when he wrote the commentary?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk)
14:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kimberly Klacik article. If there are issues with what other editors have written on other pages, take it up there, not here. -- Pemilligan ( talk) 05:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Klacik stated on Twitter that she has been single for three years. [9] I can't find a reliable source that confirms this though. Is her say-so enough to update the article? gobonobo + c 02:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 August 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kimberly Klacik article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not sure how the talk pages work, so please don't scream at me.
Change "klacik" on the title to Klacik for proper grammar. -- Wikilife5656 ( talk) 04:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This appears more of a promotion than neutral point of view. I hope someone with more time than me can expand upon it and remove biased elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.33.171 ( talk) 11:07, August 23, 2020 (UTC)
although at least half of it could easily be described as blighted, without question.This is offensive but if you're going to make such charged statements, please at least do us the favor of providing an actual source (one that isn't right wing propaganda.) Thanks. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, JGabbard, Magnolia677, Muboshgu (picked you four since you have all explicitly reverted someone else's edit): I have fully-protected the page for a week because of the ongoing edit war. I don't especially care who is in the "right" here, you all have been editing long enough to know better. Once you have reached consensus, you may submit an {{ edit fully-protected}} request. Separately, I am placing this article under 1RR under WP:AP2 discretionary sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action (which, obviously, won't really matter until the page protection runs out), I will implement an editnotice and log this shortly. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Perhaps mention that Klacik responded to Trump's twitter attack on Baltimore and Cummings by Tweeting "This just made my day." [1] SecretName101 ( talk) 02:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
20:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies"
The notion that Kim Klacik isn't sufficiently "notable" for a Wikipedia page is nothing more than politically motivated leftist nonsense.
With her widespread current media coverage, Kim Klacik is more relevant than probably +80% of individuals who currently have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them. With her message starting to gain momentum, the political left in the United States wants her silenced to the greatest degree possible. Therefore, any motions made to have this page taken down must be assumed to be politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.211.75.206 ( talk) 04:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This person holds the record for the most viewed congressional advertisement of all time in the United States, that alone gives them significance.
Nate Rybner 21:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner ( talk • contribs)
@ Naterybner: Most-viewed congressional ad as recognized by what source? SecretName101 ( talk) 01:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that her ad alone is not grounds for her having a page, though it absolutely contributes. I am a supporter of maintaining her page, since she is a firebrand who I do not believe is going away anytime soon, and I would rather have the page maintained than deleted and re-created later. That being said, neutrality problems must be addressed immediately, and I don't think it is politically motivated to say so. (I also want to remind everyone that this is not a discussion for the Talk page as much as for the articles of deletion.) PickleG13 ( talk) 09:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
As the son of biracial parents and a Republican I wish to support the existence of the Kimberly Klacic page. RichardBond ( talk) 15:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Kimberly Klacik is currently a well known public speaker and is likely to remain so even if she doesn't get elected. What I have found over twelve years is that politics enters decisions on notability on Wikipedia constantly. There is however an effective bias against Republicans. I wanted to show that there are editors who recognize that Kimberly Klacik is notable if not as an elected official as a professional public speaker. RichardBond ( talk) 22:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, can we get "Kimberly Klacik (born January 19, 1982) is a nonprofit founder who won the Republican nomination in Maryland's 7th Congressional District special primary on February 4, 2020" changed to "Kimberly Klacik (born January 19, 1982) is an American politician who..." It's standard form to have nationality followed by occupation as the first thing in the lead.
Secondly, this is problematic: In 2013, Klacik founded Potential Me to assist underserved women with workforce development. Assisting close to 200 women become gainfully employed, 30 percent went on to obtain financial independence. As the non-profit grew, she employed women re-entering the workforce. This statement is sourced to her campaign website and has some poor wording and sentence structure. This either needs to be deleted or revised with an appropriate secondary source. - Indy beetle ( talk) 00:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Interesting to see the notorious video exhaustively examined in Snopes Jim.henderson ( talk) 19:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not know how this talk page works. However, I signed up for wikipedia to include a picture of Ms. Klacik on her wiki page. At this point, she has spoken at the RNC, been featured as a guest multiple times on cable news, and from a quick Google News search, she has articles about her from NY Post, The Hill, The Baltimore Sun, Fox News and The Washington Times. She is notable due to her news coverage to date. And, she is notable for being part of an emerging wave of African-American Republican politicians in the United States. She is not some random person running for Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki899 ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
El_cid,_el_campeador summarized this
with It's written in a way that is trying to establish notability and should be revised further to be more neutral
. Unspecific is more neutral? I misread Courthouse News and only mentioned the two claims in the paragraph preceding Courthouse News's findings but "those claims" could refer to all four: Klacik contends that her company Potential Me assisted “close to 200 women [to] become gainfully employed, thirty percent went on to obtain financial independence.” “As the nonprofit grew, she employed women reentering society and quickly found out what it took to manage payroll and helping families thrive with opportunities she helps create,” according to biography published on Klacik’s campaign website. Courthouse News could not substantiate those claims.
That's not "some claims."
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk)
14:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar in practice with 1rr, I reverted an IP for this but meant to restore further back, as this ip also violated NPOV and removed sources here and that isn't what the sources say. Praxidicae ( talk) 12:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
From January to June 2020, the top donors were Anne Johnson and Charles Johnson with $16,800 each, according to the North Baltimore Journal’s report on FEC filings for that period. Does anyone have any info on whether the donors are Ann and Giants owner Charles B. Johnson who previously donated to Cindy Hyde-Smith of "front row at a public hanging" fame and to a SuperPAC that aired a racist political ad? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
We have summarized the Snopes description of the circuitous walking route depicted in the famous video, but we have failed to supply a direct quote for our statement that the video says it was one continuous walk. Have I failed to examine the video (in Youtube) carefully enough? Jim.henderson ( talk) 00:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Rwils, Praxidicae, and Muboshgu: Rwils left a message on my talk page asking for advice regarding a recent edit war, where Rwils removed the following and was subsequently reverted:
In a report, Courthouse News concluded that Klacik's non-profit filed only one tax return since 2013, reporting a revenue of under $7,000 and expenditures under $3,000, for providing clothing to 10 people. [1] The report further found that some of Klacik's claims on her campaign website about Potential Me could not be corroborated. [1]
References
My own opinion is that Courthouse News is a reliable source, and details about expenditures by Klacik's non-profit are notable. However, the second sentence, which states that some of her expenses "could not be corroborated", should be removed per WP:SPECULATION. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
While Klacik lost very badly in both of her races for Congress, she nevertheless serves on the Baltimore County Republican Central Committee. That is an elected position, and seems like it should be in the page's infobox. I want to know folks' thoughts on this. I would add this myself, but I also can't tell when she was elected, what her official title is, or any other details. PickleG13 ( talk) 01:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm unsure. For instance, with Cook County, Illinois articles, I've never seen anyone's position as a Cook County party committeeperson listed as an office in their infobox, despite also being an elected party position. SecretName101 ( talk) 00:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I still think we need to discuss this further. SecretName101 ( talk) 13:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Please remove Klacik was born Kimberly Bray on January 19, 1982
, it's redundant and silly since it's in the lead and sounds ridiculous.
Praxidicae (
talk)
01:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Items in the lead generally NEED to be repeated within the body of an article. Especially if they appear without citation in the lead. SecretName101 ( talk) 00:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Praxidicae: since you INSIST it does without that sentence, tell me where there is prose with all that information located in the body of the article, and where is there otherwise citation backing it. The lead and body are TWO different things. You are supposed to have information in the lead be supported by what the body of the article says, after all. I'm not going to start a edit war over this, but I believe you are mistaken. SecretName101 ( talk) 10:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Look at featured articles like Angelina Jolie and Hillary Clinton, as well as good articles like Michelle Obama, Rihanna, Cher, Miley Cyrus and Bill Clinton. They have similar sentences in their early life sections mentioning the maiden/birth name and dates of birth. SecretName101 ( talk) 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You know what, with those examples of good and featured articles having similar sentences, I feel rather firm in my belief I am correct. Going to restore this sentence (or something similar) to the article. SecretName101 ( talk) 10:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Klacik received approximately 12,000 more votes than the last Republican to run in a regular election
: The number appears to be incorrect.
According to the Washington Post, the tally as of today is 237,084 (71.8 percent) for Mfume, 92,825 (28.1 percent) for Klacik. The numbers for Cummings in 2018 were 202,345 (76.4 percent), for Richmond Davis 56,266 (21.3 percent). The total number of votes in 2018 was
264,438. For 2020, it's 329,983 so far, with 91% of the ballots counted. Compared to 2018, that's 36,559 more votes for Klacik, 34,739 more for Mfume who spent (what - 90 percent?) less than Klacik.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk)
15:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
CharlesShirley, you claim to be removing POV from this page, justifiably so in some cases. In other instances you use the POV claim to remove reliably sourced content, presumably because it is negative; it was restored by another editor. You’re also inserting POV with misleading edit summaries. Here are some examples:
BTW, some of your editing is just sloppy:
As for Rodricks flat-out lied
- what was the tally on 4 November when he wrote the commentary?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk)
14:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kimberly Klacik article. If there are issues with what other editors have written on other pages, take it up there, not here. -- Pemilligan ( talk) 05:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Klacik stated on Twitter that she has been single for three years. [9] I can't find a reliable source that confirms this though. Is her say-so enough to update the article? gobonobo + c 02:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)