Talk:Joe Kent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Claim about Fauci a potential "charge" and "gene therapy"

Starting here due to a revert/restore cycle with 128.194.2.157: The Mother Jones source, [1], links to [2] which, although opinion, is generally seen as reliable for direct or near direct quotes has: On the stump, in addition to listing all of those people he would impeach, Kent promised to hold Anthony Fauci “accountable” for the “scam that is Covid.” I asked him what holding Fauci accountable means. “Criminal charges,” said Kent. But what charges, I asked? “Murder,” he replied, as if it were the most obvious answer in the world.. As of for the gene therapy quote, it's also in multiple straight news reports such as [3]. I am going to restore the paragraph again and will add additional sourcing. Please discuss here before removing again. Thanks. Skynxnex (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Best lede: “America first” , "Republican" , "far-right ", "american candidate"

• "America First" -- TC is self described and described by media as "America First" candiate
• "Republican" -- TC is endorsed by and receives major contributions from the republican party (state & national)
• "far Right" -- TC has made some statements vis-a-vis covid-19 mRNA vaccine and quoted someone called a "white supremacist" . (see User:Fred Zepelin's notes and wider discussion above
• "american candidate" -- generic term ads little value

Please comment below on which lede is most informative and rigorously cited.

I vote for either "america first" or "republican" Tonymetz (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Republican because Joe Kent has never held public office (even at the state or municipal level) but identifies as a member of the Republican Party. There are other politicians, such as Lauren Boebert (read the lead of her article) whose views are described as far-right but are themselves not described as far-right. I support doing the same for Kent, where his political views are described as far-right, but he is described as something along the lines of "American political candidate from the Republican Party." JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin exactly one? Tonymetz (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@User:Fred Zepelin @User:JohnAdams1800

@Ser! ”america first” is a movement like “Tea Party”– not an “advertising claim” . The source was cited and the Wikipedia page for the movement was linked Tonymetz (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think "America First" is much too vague of a label. It's been used as a tagline by Trump-endorsed and affiliated candidates, but just implies that others are putting America... second? Either way, I'm in favour of either far-right (if there's enough sources calling him as thus to have it there) or Republican (if this isn't the case; we can still cover his beliefs in the body of the article or even have it in a separate sentence in the lede if it's due that weight). ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

America First (trump) is well defined in contemporary politics ie. Trumpist, populist, protectionist, anti-immigration etc . In this case it's also the candidates overt affiliation in references.

All political movements suffer from clumsy terminology, including "democrats", "republicans", "tea party", "libertarians", "liberalism". Tonymetz (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

From The Guardian: Gluesenkamp Perez’s win over Trump-backed far-right candidate Joe Kent Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The Olympian: Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez defeated far-right Republican Joe Kent Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

From University of Virginia Center for Politics, a non-partisan reliable source: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D, WA-3) to narrowly win the seat over far-right candidate Joe Kent (R) Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Far-right because, quite simply, there are reliable sources that describe him as far-right, and there are even more reliable sources that detail how many far-right positions he's endorsed and how many far-right figures he's endorsed and is closely tied to. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since we're beating a dead horse, what if we take a few days to invest in making the article more complete and contemporary , to the benefit of wikipedia and voter education. Then reconvene to decide on the lede?

  I added some parts to 2024 campaign. I'd like to learn how to improve the quality bar of a biography as well. we could do a better job making TC's platform more complete.

  That will also help us all stay true to being neutral Tonymetz (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me, but when I see an account that was created in 2018, had 6 edits, went dormant for 6 years, and then resurrects itself out of the blue in 2024 and immediately posts on the BLP noticeboard with a remarkable depth of knowledge of BLP policy, my eyebrow goes up. Way up. I don't know if this is COI, or a sock account, but there is no way in hell this account posted all that 10 edits into their Wikipedia career and everything's kosher. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure what can I do to set you at ease? the BLP policy is at the top of every Biography. Tonymetz (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

When I look at your talk page, I notice a record of hounding and personal attacks . So let's try to keep this on topic Tonymetz (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, Tonymetz, you don't seem like a rookie editor. You are already familiar with several policy pages. Have you been editing under another name, or spend some time as a lurker?Dimadick (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

can we keep it on topic, or try to share how it's relevant. if you want to ask personal questions that's fine let's move to talk page. I'm really trying to drive a convo here. Tonymetz 💬 02:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

a couple things. (a) here's more context my talk page (b) can you tag me on personal attacks? (or help me fix the replies not showing push notifs)? Tonymetz (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

also (c) what do you think of helping to improve the page? Tonymetz (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin there is not "exactly one" against. there are three accounts on this page @JohnAdams1800 , @Burabshurab and me Tonymetz (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ser! @Woodroar @Fred Zepelin any interest in collaborating on a cleanup project? i'm thinking we can make this page more complete and improve mutual understanding beyond "far right" Tonymetz (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how much help I'll be, since I'd never heard of the subject until you mentioned this article at BLPN. But I'm always willing to try, sure. Woodroar (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

cc: @User:Burabshurab & @JohnAdams1800 maybe we can all divide and conquer. some areas e.g.

1. expanding personal info esp Special forces & military

2. expanding platform to be more complete

3. more relevant stuff -- most of it is from 2022

4. (i may need guidance) how to officially improve the standard up the chain e.g. stub --> C,b,A etc . are there tools?

sources: there's probably tons of stuff out there on twitter that will link to the proper citations

overall goal is to make it a viable voter resource for 2024 Tonymetz (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

thanks i like the enthusiasm. Tonymetz (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I expanded "political views" to make it more complete. I'm hoping if we raise the bar overall it won't come off as so skewed. Tonymetz 💬 05:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Far-right. This appears to be the term preferred by reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Far-right Since the sources use the term, we use it as well. Though we do have to explain his political positions in a more verbose style. I notice that Kent is a self-described populist, so I would expect that he talks a lot about his opposition to elites. Dimadick (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  sure so is the issue that we haven't collected a fair balance of source e.g. "maga", "america first" etc? I don't think editors have been neutral because "far right" is a "win" . so maybe that's where we invest time Tonymetz 💬 02:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking at this in terms of "win" and "lose", Wikipedia is not the place for you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

editors who are loading articles with cliche's like "far right" , "conspiracy theory" seem to be vying for a "win" -- otherwise they would be improving article quality more uniformly. are those the wikipedians you are urging to leave? Tonymetz 💬 01:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Be specific. Rather than saying "editors who are loading articles", name the editors and provide diffs that support your contention. If you can't do that, it's a good sign that you should WP:DROPTHESTICK. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

My goal in this subthread is rallying support to make this article more complete. Tonymetz 💬 16:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

So, apparently you can't do that. So, again, WP:DROPTHESTICK. For my part, my participation in this now dead-end thread is over. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Far-right seems appropriate. DN (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Improving “Political Issues” section

Can I get help improving this section? Reverting the content makes it difficult to know what the expectations are.

The comment says “9 sections aren’t needed” and I agree. But I also need guidance on the expected format. It would be better to add tags to the section so I can help make improvements.

This article is below “start” or “class-C” level and we could do a better job to make it more complete for voters. Tonymetz 💬 19:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

We're not looking to "make it more complete for voters". We're looking to make it reflect significant information that is referenced by reliable secondary source. As a side note, this URL, which you tried to use 3 times in your expansion of that section, is not a secondary source. It is a primary source. Don't use it without a secondary source that is independently reporting on whatever it is you're trying to add. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't we move a deleted paragraph to a more apt section?

Hey all!

See the revision here - [4]

• Side note - OP of the content removed but have no dog in this fight

Personally I feel like it fits under the section header in an expanded/detailed sense, but assume it doesn't...why delete it entirely because, based on the summary note, it just didn't fit in that specific section. The lawsuit, still active with ties into Kent's political difficulties, is notable and connective to ongoing issues.

Let me know! Shortiefourten (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Kent demanded a response by Sept 5, 2023. The Chronicle stood by their story and didn't retract. Sep 5th came and went and Kent took no further action. Non-story. Hard to see it passing WP:DUE; just my opinion, but I'll wait for anyone else to weigh it. Seems trivial to me though. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to BLPs, I think it's best to leave out allegations (from any side), legal requests/threats, or even arrests, unless [a] they're widely covered by reliable, secondary sources (or maybe a paper of record or exhaustive investigative piece), and/or [b] there's some kind of resolution (the lawsuit was resolved or settled, a person was found guilty or not guilty, etc.). That goes for relationship stuff, too, like engagements. An exception might be if the lack of resolution itself was widely covered. So I'd be inclined to leave this out unless there's coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"far-right political candidate" references do not cite any sources

leading with "far right" (including the banner showing nazi imagery) does not represent the referenced sources. the two references (below) lack any source references for the "far right" claim. It's not a neutral term and does not meet the bar for "Biographies of Living Persons"

This violates the two rules of "Biographies of living persons" : NPOV & V

That guideline specifies to "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced"

Neither of the articles referenced (below) cite sources for the "far right" claim. In both references, They are editorialized claims made by the contributor.

I move to restore revision 17:42, 25 February 2024‎

@Fred Zepelin & @JohnAdams1800

see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Wikipedia

1. Grisales, Claudia (November 7, 2022). "A Washington congressional district is weighing the election of a far-right candidate". NPR. Retrieved November 16, 2022.
2. Watson, Evan (October 6, 2022). "A closer look at the Trump-endorsed Republican candidate for US House seat in southwest Washington". KGW. Retrieved November 16, 2022.

Tonymet (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Good news, that adjective is now supported by references inline. I would resent the accusation that "They are editorialized claims made by the contributor", but you appear to be a new user and are probably unfamiliar with MOS:LEADCITE. I encourage you to give that a quick read, and happy editing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

the two referenced articles lack citation of the claim. “Contributor “ refers to the articles you are referencing , not you 50.39.122.137 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, I feel much better. However, the descriptor "far-right" is not a "claim", as you've framed it, it's a simple matter of fact. In addition to the reliable sources that describe him as such, there are a multitude that describe his endorsement of typical far-right positions (2020 election was stolen, COVID vaccine is gene therapy, etc), his close associations with other far-right figures (Tucker Carlson, Fuentes, Greyson Arnold, etc.), and his overt endorsements of the writings of Sam Francis (dead white supremacist). So no, I don't see any argument for removing that descriptor, but of course, you're free to open a wider discussion about it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

can you elaborate on those two citations ? what evidence do they provide ( sources, research) ? let's try to stay on topic 50.39.122.137 (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I elaborated quite a bit above, and if you're going to WP:DEADHORSE this, I wish you well - I won't be partaking. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

the NPR link is just an intro to a transcribed interview that makes no mention of "far-right" . the intro just adds "far right" to the title and summary for click-bait. Tonymet (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

the watson, evan , KGW (local news affiliate) is also an editorialized claim lacking citations.

this is about living up to wikipedia standards Tonymetz (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

who else can we involve to help reach consensus on the two complaints

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joe Kent

I believe a disinterested / neutral third party should be involved. I don't believe edits to this page are being made in a neutral way. Tonymetz (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

So you say that he’s an extremist for expressing a belief, that alone can be considered extremism in itself, and then you go ahead and claim that he is close with nick Fuentes and Grayson Arnold (both of whom’s endorsements he rejected BECAUSE they were extremists) and then say Tucker is far right? I’d like to know what “extreme” views he support's. Also if you say that he’s a white supremacist himself, then why did he endorse black candidate for governor Semi Bird? Burabshurab (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's stick to facts. He didn't "reject" those endorsements. He specifically said he didn't seek them out. As for your last question, when did I, or anyone, say he's a white supremacist himself? Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

how low is the bar? David Duke Endorses joe biden. should we put "Joe biden endorsed by KKK" in Joe Biden's lead?

The bar needs to be much higher than you are presenting. Let's assume your claims are true. The bar for "JK is a far-right candidate" is far higher than your case so far. Tonymetz (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That article doesn't even mention Biden. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

sorry, It was Richard Spencer . You get my point.

Perhaps we can invest in other areas while we are blocked by the lead? Adding more relevant & contemporary content? I'd like to see the passion put to positive efforts. Tonymetz (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

so, i may have implied something wrong, when i said "if you say he's a white supremacist himself" i meant "if you were to say he was a white supremacist himself", so i do apologize for that. However, you said that he just didn't seek out those endorsements, which is correct, but i do still believe i'm right on the "rejected" part. When Joe was endorsed by Nick Fuentes early on, he later found out about his real political beliefs and REJECTED the endorsement, now Grayson Arnold. After Joe was being interviewed and from my understanding endorsed by Arnold, he said he assumed he was a local journalist, and he no idea who he was. So my opinion still stands. Burabshurab (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin exactly one? Tonymetz (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Besides having reliable and independent citations, a politician usually does not merit being described as far-right merely for having hardline right-wing political views, unless such views include clearly far-right ideologies such as Nazism. They usually also have to have engaged in or openly supported actions such as: supporting authoritarianism (i.e. overthrowing the government), supporting white supremacy or ethnic cleansing, or having views literally far to the right of mainstream views in a country or region.

Joe Kent can be described as far-right for his support of white supreamcist Sam Francis (writer) and his conspiratorial views regarding COVID-19 vaccines (i.e. vaccine skepticism).

This also applies to politicians being described as far-left, which is not usually merited even for having hardline left-wing political views unless such ideologies include clearly far-left ideologies such as communism (i.e. Stalinism and Maoism). They need to have engaged in or openly supported actions such as supporting authoritarianism (i.e. supporting a violent communist revolution), supporting the killing of political opponents (i.e. Reign of Terror), or having views literally far to the left of mainstream views in a country or region. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Far-right politics also covers ultranationalism. Which typically translates to xenophobia, and "policies of social separation and segregation". Ultranationalists do not have to engage in ethnic cleansing in order to be included. Several of the ultranationalist parties that we list, such as the Religious Zionist Party, demand "expulsion of asylum-seekers" or other undesirable foreigners. Dimadick (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

So, i talked to Joe Kent today about Sam Francis, and why he liked Sam Francis. You know what? He had no idea who Sam Francis was. But the page says he cited his works, so i showed him the books he wrote, and he didn't recognize any of the book titles. So yeah, him liking or supporting Sam Francis is COMPLETELY fabricated and shoudln't be on his page. Burabshurab (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The claim is cited to Vanity Fair, a generally reliable source, in the body of the article. If you think the claim is false, you or Joe Kent or anyone else can take it up with Vanity Fair. Woodroar (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you would rather trust "a reliable source" over something that came straight from the horses mouth. It's not a reliable source if they tell straight lies. And if he did cite his works, he probably had no idea who said it and shouldn't be called an extremist. Burabshurab (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Woodroar is correct here, but I do appreciate Burabshurab being truthful about their WP:COI. It's not illegal to edit the article with a COI, of course, but I do wish they had made that clear earlier, it would've explained a lot. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Woodroar, I helped @Burabshurab add Template:User_COI to his page. He's just a new user needing help with this stuff. Tonymetz 💬 03:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's give @Burabshurab the benefit of the doubt. For now it seems his situation is potential COI and not actual COI Tonymetz 💬 03:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

fair enough. Burabshurab (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The Vanity Fair source has zero quotations or reference as to when or how Joe Kent referenced Sam Francis. There is no video, no excerpt, no tweet or social media post -- nothing. It's also the only source on the Internet that makes such an accusation. I really don't think it belongs in the article. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That was my point! How could someone consider something reliable, if they are telling lies and/or not giving good evidence. And once again, i met with Joe, and he said he didn't know who Sam Francis was. Perhaps he did cite his works, but he didn't know who wrote/said it. thank you for pointing that out, @MisterWat3rm3l0n. Burabshurab (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

i recommend BEBOLD , make an edit to improve the article, and put detail in the edit log on why. Tonymetz 💬 20:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, no. Redoing edits that have been contested is edit warring, plain and simple.

That being said, if the Sam Francis claim is only in Vanity Fair, that's a good argument for it not being WP:DUE—and I support its removal, even after the fact.

As far as Vanity Fair not providing evidence, that's perfectly fine. We don't require reliable sources to show their work, so to speak. Reliable sources can investigate who or what they want, interview people, analyze primary sources, synthesize sources, all the types of things that we, as editors, can't. They're considered reliable because they have a history of doing those things well...more or less. Woodroar (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Well they certainly didn't do that article well, as you say they usually do. This is the "evidence" they presented straight from the article: "Joe Kent, another Republican candidate endorsed by Trump this cycle, seems familiar enough with Francis’s writings to reference his work multiple times while running for Washington’s third congressional district seat." THATS. IT. They presented no evidence that he cited his works, not even quotations for what they claimed he quoted, which i would consider to be the bare minimum for evidence. "Reliable sources can investigate who or what they want, interview people, analyze primary sources, synthesize sources, etc". They didn't investigate or interview him at all! I DID! And he didn't even know who he was! This was in public too, with other longtime supporters of him asking for a photo when i asked him about Francis, it would've been stupid of him to lie about it considering that these people would likely be aware of his alleged comments. Also i would like to ask, what makes Vanity Fair a reliable source, in your personal experience? Because not giving any evidence makes something seem not very reliable to me. Burabshurab (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion on VF, but it's considered generally reliable based on multiple discussions at RSN. See WP:VANITYFAIR. Woodroar (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the “reliable” sources list is actually a left wing media list. Of course there are some sources that should be marked in red and gray, such as Breitbart news and BestGore.com (not sure why anyone would use it as a source anyway). However I think it’s funny that this list have a CCP propaganda website on the same level as Fox News (including politics), and The Daily Wire. But MSNBC, one of the, if not THE most left wing mainstream media on the air today, is marked in green. It seems Wikipedia has some media bias itself. After this article from Vanity fair, I would personally rank it in yellow after this misinformation they’ve spread without any evidence to support their claims. I don’t care if they’ve been reliable in the past, they need to be held accountable for the unreliable things they’ve said as well. “Reliable sources don’t need to show their work”. I think that’s a dumb statement (before you say anything, I am not insulting your intelligence). I think that all sources should be treated like yellow. All sources should have their work checked for any potential false, or misleading information, regardless of if they’re claimed as reliable. That Vanity Fair article proves that we should take precautions for ANY article used as a source. I hope you understand why I take this stance on this issue. Burabshurab (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh I’m sorry, my mistake. The CCP propaganda website (China Daily) is actually considered more reliable than the daily wire and Fox News. Interesting. Burabshurab (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

References