Talk:Cameron Kasky

Floated

probably needs a stub tag.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Just a reminder to all editors, WP:BLP should be excruciatingly studied before adding material on this person, who has already reported threats to his safety. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY, primary sources should not be used, especially ones that include personal details. We should avoid victimization by only including the facts most pertinent and widely reported, or even omitting some reported details as appropriate. The dignity and safety of human beings always comes before writing a meticulously detailed article. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Jewish background

It is important to mention Cameron Kasky is a Jew, just as it has been noted on Emma González’s page she is a Cuban-American. It is not a minority view or POV to state someone is a minority, when there are sources that document it. In addition, readers might be interested to know Kasky is Jewish, given the name of the movement he founded “Never Again” is usually associated with the Holocaust. I can’t see any reason to delete mention of Kasky’s Jewish background, when there are reliable references such as The Forward and Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The New York Times stated last year, “The Forward has chronicled the experiences of Jews in the United States for 120 years.” And in that article, the editor-in-chief stated, “We want to be accurate and fair and passionate in our journalism, but we don’t want to inflame.” The only reason I can think of NOT to mention Kasky is Jewish is if it might increase anti-Semitic attacks against him. Unless there is a more well established source showing The Forward is not a notable, well established, reliable source, I think editors shouldn't delete that reference. WP:BLP, WP:NEWSORG -JJMM (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

References

You need more than this one source to show that this aspect is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article. WP:DUEWEIGHT explains this in more detail. I don't see that his religion has any bearing on his gun control activism. - MrX 🖋 20:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reference also makes it clear Kasky is Jewish - it is an ethnicity, regardless of religious beliefs (FYI, many Jews are athiests). It doesn't matter that it's not directly related to his gun control activism. It is an important aspect of his upbringing. Initially Shaolin Punk added "Kasky is Jewish." I tried to accommodate other editors’ POV by adding "According to The Forward." Instead of all or nothing deletions, please suggest alternatives. So far, there are two editors that want The Forward reference included: myself and Shaolin Punk. And there are two editors that think it should be deleted: Tomwsulcer and MrX. It would be helpful if other editors weighed in, because the concerns of all editors haven’t been fairly addressed. WP:CONS -JJMM (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm open to including this material and the category in light of the fact that the murderer had swastikas carved into the rifle's magazine. But can you find any other sources that mention that Kasky is Jewish? The NYT article doesn't really help.- MrX 🖋 20:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is another reason why it’s important to mention Kasky is Jewish (or not mention it to protect him). Many of the victims were Jews, and the shooter Nikolas Cruz espoused anti-Semitic views. So far, there are two refs showing Kasky is Jewish: The Forward and Jewish Telegraphic Agency. -JJMM (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Brief mention in the background section. Not a defining charactoristic. No strong evidence the killer was targeting jews or was modivated by anti-jewish feelings. Cameron is promoting gun control because his school was shot up not because of his ethnic heritage. Legacypac (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not up to editors to decide whether Cruz was targeting Jews or not, or why Cameron is promoting gun control. But in my opinion, the fact that Kasky named his group "Never Again" inclines me to believe it has something to do with his Jewish upbringing. Regardless of that, the sources clearly state Cruz expressed anti-Semitic views, and that Kasky is Jewish. We need to keep a neutral point of view. I would like to hear suggestions on how we can incorporate this information into the Kasky article. Thank you. -JJMM (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There is still only one reference that says that Kasky is Jewish. None of the other references make that statement, including the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. I won't stand in the way of the brief mention the text, but I think the category should remain out.- MrX 🖋 22:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources don't emphasize he is jewish. Linking Never Again MSD to the holocaust is just OR and needs to be kept out. Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mr. X's proposal sounds fair. I can re-add "According to The Forward..." with that ref, and leave out the category. -JJMM (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, to User:MrX, User:James James Morrison Morrison, and the editors of Forward, I disagree. We need more than one reliable source directly commenting on Kasky's religion/ethnicity before we insert it, in anyone's voice. This kid has received death threats. A particularly contentious personal claim needs better corroboration. If Forward is the ONLY reliable source with a claim, then either the claim is suspect, or is given so little weight that it is not relevant to include. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with taking it out until more sources can be found.- MrX 🖋 20:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I also am fine with leaving it out until more sources can be found, because it's better to protect him. One thing I would like to add, though, is that perhaps we are reading the Jewish Telegraphic Agency source differently. In my mind, it includes Kasky as a Jewish student. The article states, "The grieving parents of Jewish children killed in the shooting rampage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida...Student survivors of the attack, as well as their teachers and parents..." It names Jewish victims Jamie Guttenberg, Alyssa Alhadeff, Scott Beigel, and Alex Schachter - and quotes their parents. The only thing that makes me question using this source as corroboration is that the article is mostly on the grieving parents of Jewish children, and neither of Cameron Kasky’s parents were interviewed for the article, and Kasky was a survivor and not one of those slain. -JJMM (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

From available evidence, the JTA article appears to infer Jewishness based on last name. I would hope that they have better journalistic standards and actually verified the claim. But note that it does not explicitly claim any one person is Jewish. And again, this BLP is sensitive, so we shouldn't be basing anything on inferences. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop this discussion. There is one questionable source and even if it is correct, the whole thing smacks of racism. Cameron Kansky is an American human committed to preventing gun deaths, and that does not require an ethnic label. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with these interpretations. It has been reported elsewhere those students were Jewish, but I don’t think it is necessary to this topic of discussion to get into more details. So I’m not going to link to any other references. Other editors have felt it important to add that Kasky is Jewish (either by adding a reference or category). It is similar to how editors have added Emma Gonzalez is Cuban-American, as I stated initially. I understand her situation is different, since there are more sources confirming her ethnicity. Maybe other editors will weigh in. Let’s leave it that we will wait for corroboration from other sources specifically about Kasky’s Jewish background. -JJMM (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed the heading of this section was changed to "Alleged Jewish Background" without asking for consensus first. I'm not going to contest it. But FYI, here's a Sun Sentinal article stating 5 of the 17 victims were Jewish, and it mentions Jewish Telegraphic Agency: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/fl-jjbs-shooting-0228-20180223-story.html I'm pointing this out so editors don't go jumping to conclusions about sources without doing more research. It reeks of ignorance or anti-Semitism when editors question the accuracy, reliability, and/or notability of sources such as The Forward and Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Thank you. -JJMM (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The religion of the subject is irrelevant, and trying to insert it into this article smacks of anti-semitism and WP:OR.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The Forward writes "One of the most powerful applause lines was delivered by 17-year-old Cameron Kasky. Close to 10 p.m., Kasky, a Jewish senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, made a request of Florida Senator Marco Rubio."[1] Therefore how could it be antisemitic? Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

In The Forward (which is not a mainstream publication but has primarily Jewish-American readers), listing Kasky as Jewish is not anti-Semitic. But describing Kasky as Jewish here in this Wikipedia article, as if his religion is somehow relevant or important in this context, is borderline anti-Semitic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I would see nothing antisemitic in the inclusion of this information in this article. In my opinion we would be merely noting that the subject of the article is Jewish. How could that possibly be construed as being antisemitic? Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Given the context and the long history of violence against Jews which stretch thousands of years, the pogroms, the Holocaust, the rise of alt-right and other fringe groups advocating violence against Jews in this country, etc etc, coupled with the fact that Kasky's religion is totally irrelevant to him being a shooting survivor, and with virtually no mention of Kasky's religion in the mainstream press, then yes it's borderline anti-Semitic to mention his religion here (a BLP violation). More important, it's original research to couple two separate unconnected things: (1) Kasky's religion (2) Kasky's advocacy against gun violence. These two things have nothing to do with each other. That said, all this is about this point in time (March 10 2018); if in the future, Kasky mentions his religion to the news media, or for example cites the Torah as a reason against gun violence, then that would change things.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

More important, it's original research. No, it is not. WP:SYNTHESIS reads "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." He formed the group Never Again MSD but we are not implying that his being Jewish bears any relation to his formation of that group. And by the way, if it is antisemitic now, why would it not be antisemitic if he cites the Torah? Or would his citing of the Torah compel us to override the intrinsic antisemitism in mentioning that he is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

About anti-Semitism: if contributors add that Kasky is Jewish when there are no mainstream sources identifying him that way or stating that his religion is relevant to his activism, then I would see that as provocative and anti-Semitic and a BLP violation. But if Kasky himself says in mainstream media that he's Jewish, or if he makes anti-gun statements that mention his religion, or if he uses religious arguments to make a case against gun violence, then his religion becomes relevant and it would be okay to include that information. As I said before, right now, as of March 10 2018, his religion in this context is irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please quote the policy at WP:BLP that you feel supports your argument? You are saying that it would be antisemitic for our article to state that he is Jewish. I am asking you why that would be so. The Jewishness of the subject of the article is biographical information. It should be included unless an editor can articulate a reason why the inclusion of that information would be antisemitic or improper in some other way. Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way the Emma González article states that she is bisexual as well as Cuban-American. Do you object to the inclusion of those pieces of biographical information? If not, why the distinction? Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see the second paragraph of the WP:BLP policy which states: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy ... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. In addition, there are issues with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as previously stated. Simply put, Kasky's religion at this point is irrelevant. About other articles, those issues belong on the respective talk pages, not here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree about protecting Kasky according to WP:BLP, but don't agree that referencing his religion/ethnicity by citing a source is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Many Wikipedia articles mention Jewish backgrounds using references, even if that person is not a religious Jew, as part of the person's background or early life history (for example, using the category "American people of Jewish descent"). It's still not clear how The Forward article can be considered anti-Semitic, because antisemitism by definition means hostility towards Jews or discrimination against Jews. As I said before, I am fine with waiting for additional sources that corroborate The Forward. I agree with Bus stop's line of reasoning. A person's Jewishness is relevant biographical information. How is mention that Kasky is Jewish irrelevant to his background? That's a separate section (and issue) from his advocacy. Editors needs to be careful of using WP:BLP policy to bully other editors during editing discussions WP:CRYBLP -JJMM (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Numerous sources have reported that Kasky is Jewish, and claiming that mentioning it is "antisemitic" is baseless confused nonsense. -- Jibal (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If the subject's religion becomes relevant then we may include it; but as of April 1, 2018, religion isn't important -- the media doesn't care, Wikipedia doesn't care -- why do you care?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that trying to remove mention of a person's Jewish identity is offensive. However, it seems part of the problem is well-intentioned ignorance about the use of the term "Jewish." Perhaps I can enlighten editors. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, "among Jews in the youngest generation of U.S. adults...68% identify as Jews by religion, while 32% describe themselves as having no religion and identify as Jewish on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity or culture." Please keep this in mind when editing and commenting. -JJMM (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks JJMM. I'm not religious and identify as Jewish. I am finding references to "his religion" obnoxious.Jewishness is an ethnic category with the Judaism optional. mnewmanqc (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

He's definitely Jewish (see link). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Added in background. Cited tweet by Kasky per WP:TWITTER. Thsmi002 (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed; religious affiliation is irrelevant at this point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Birthday

The page says his birthday is in 2000/2001, but it is November 11, (Redacted). His twitter (https://twitter.com/cameron_kasky) gives the day, and the news always reports him as 18, which gives the year. 134.114.223.239 (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey you're probably right, that November 11th is his birthday, but problem is, there are strict rules on biographies of living persons, please read the WP:BLP, and what we really need is a reliable source giving us his exact birthday; Twitter -- not really a good source as far as I know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

But the source is Cameron himself in a way, it's just that he chose to reveal his birthday via a verified Twitter account rather than mention it in some interview for a big media outlet. --Killuminator (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, yes, if you people want to put in November 11th I'll go along.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, unlike the Parkland papers, The Times article says he’s 17, which would make it November 2000. The cut off in Florida is pretty late, so it’s not unrealistic he’s a senior, just a very young one. 134.114.223.243 (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Twitter just says November 11 it doesn't say the year. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Calling Donald Trump a liar

Tomwsulcer added Kasky criticized president Donald Trump, whom he described as a "professional liar" who will "say anything to appease whatever crowd he's at", after Trump addressed the annual NRA convention in Dallas in May 2018. [2], and I removed because it's trivial. ("Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are.") Tomwsulcer reverted it, with the explanation "this is not trivial but an important part of Kasky's advocacy." What about this is significant? How is calling Trump a liar an important part of his advocacy? -- irn (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Irn We have a prominent anti-gun activist (Kasky) criticizing a person who has tremendous power to influence gun legislation, the president (Trump), who recently addressed the prominent pro-gun lobby (NRA). It was CNN's top story on May 5th. Trivial is what type of flowers Kim Kardashian likes in her hair. This is not trivial -- it is a prominent issue of national importance: guns, gun policy, a president who lies about his "position" on gun policy -- how can that not be trivial?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

All this amounts to is Kasky's opinion, with no repercussions or greater significance. And that opinion is merely that Kasky thinks that someone he disagrees with (and who is widely criticized for lying) is a liar. It doesn't even address what Trump is lying about. Or why Trump lying would be relevant to Kasky. All we know is that Kasky thinks Trump is a liar. That's not even advocacy. That's just his opinion of one other person, and a widely shared opinion at that.

What makes this particular criticism relevant? Is every criticism he has of Trump relevant? And should we include, then, every criticism he has of any one else who similarly has a tremendous power to influence gun legislation? -- irn (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Relevance is because Trump addressed the NRA -- the gun lobby -- and Kasky is an anti-gun activist. Trump has power to influence legislation, and what Trump says, unfortunately, matters, even if its lying -- so Kasky's front-page-of-CNN criticism of Trump matters. If Trump was lying about, say, Melania's hair style, or crowd size, well that would be irrelevant, but here, Trump is lying regarding his position with gun policy, so it's relevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump is lying regarding his position with gun policy That's not what the article says. All it says is that he called Trump a liar. There is no critique present of any of Trump's positions; it's merely an ad hominem attack. If you want to bring in a critique Kasky has made of Trump's positions, we can talk about that, but that's not what we're talking about. Right now, it's just Kasky calling Trump a liar. -- irn (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The greater concern here is that it doesn't appear that Kasky's statement is made in context of his gun advocacy. He made a general statement after Trump spoke at an event, but per post hoc fallacy, it isn't clear he's said Trump is lying about his statements on gun control, merely that he considers Trump a liar in general. Such vague statements can't be connected to his gun control advocacy per WP:SYNTHESIS unless it is clearer in the source text. --Jayron32 15:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Here's the lede paragraph of the CNN story -- Parkland shooting survivor and student activist Cameron Kasky called President Donald Trump a "professional liar" following the President's speech at the National Rifle Association convention in Dallas on Friday. Trump spoke at the NRA convention; Kasky called him a liar. CNN synthesized those two things, not me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

References

• I would leave this out until there is consensus to include, which there isn't currently.--Malerooster (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • How about an RfC?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. If there is consensus for inclusion, then it should be added. --Malerooster (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC about statement

There is a clear consensus that the statement should be included for being relevant to his activism and being widely covered by reliable sources.

Cunard (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following statement be excluded or included?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Kasky criticized president Donald Trump, whom he described as a "professional liar" who will "say anything to appease whatever crowd he's at", after Trump addressed the annual NRA convention in Dallas in May 2018.

Survey

• Include It's referenced, relevant to Kasky's anti-NRA advocacy, non-trivial.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude – WP:NOTNEWS: Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. [...] Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. We can simply change out "match played or goal scored" for "statement made or opinion reported on". It adds nothing to the article. It's just his opinion about a political opponent. It doesn’t even address what he thinks Trump is lying about. There was no reaction and there have been no consequences to him making this statement, and it provides the reader with no insight into Kasky. All it tells us is that he thinks that someone he disagrees with is a liar. That's useless, and all the more so because just about everyone who disagrees with Trump thinks that Trump is a liar. -- irn (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include - Anyone arguing this info is "trivial" doesn't really understand how WP works. We don't get to decide what counts as "trivial" or not. Sources decide that. The fact that three separate sources thought it was worthwhile mentioning this info means that it is not trivial. NickCT (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That goes completely against both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Just because it's in reliable sources does not mean it's worthy of inclusion. -- irn (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

NickCT has been at Wikipedia long enough to be familiar with the core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, which notes, and I quote for clarification, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article...The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. (bold mine) The argument that we must include it because it was printed somewhere else is in no way Wikipedia policy. In fact, quite the opposite, in order to include this, there needs to be consensus that, and I quote from the same page, "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article" This discussion will determine that. --Jayron32 17:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Irn: - I'm sensitive to WP:NOTNEWS, but the fact is that Kasky is only notable for things which occurred in the past year. He effectively is news. NickCT (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose adding the quote as written above. Every utterrance he makes and which is quoted in a source somewhere is not automatically fodder for inclusion here, and the people proposing that we add it have not established that it is relevent or adds to the understanding of the subject. --Jayron32 17:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include "professional liar" but exclude the rest of the quote. Trump is an important figure in these events. wumbolo ^^^ 11:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Revise and include. According to Wikipedia:Quotations, "Editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source." It’s important to look at the context of Kasky’s quote in relation to the sources and Kasky’s advocacy, in order to maintain NPOV. For example, Kasky made the comment during an appearance on CNN (all sources state this), and this must be made clear to readers. This story was not picked up by any other major networks or publications, aside from the two other sources referenced and the Huffington Post. Therefore, it’s not completely newsworthy, but it would be okay to include with revisions. I agree not every quote Kasky makes should be included. If this one is mentioned, it should be revised to something like the following:

After Trump delivered a pro-gun and pro-NRA speech at the annual NRA convention in May 2018 – contradicting statements Trump made after the Parkland shooting that he would be open to gun control reform and taking on the NRA – Kasky called President Donald Trump a "professional liar" on CNN. Kasky criticized the president to point out Trump said what he needed to say to appease the NRA, from whom he receives money. -JJMM (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I like your proposed revision (in the preceding paragraph) better.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@James James Morrison Morrison: from whom he receives money and contradicting statements Trump made after the Parkland shooting that he would be open to gun control reform and taking on the NRA is WP:SYNTH. Can't find it in the sources. wumbolo ^^^ 12:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to revise and summarize in a better way:

• Kasky (as quoted in CNN, Daily News): “President Trump, he follows the money. And as long as he's getting money from the NRA who, in turn, is getting money from the gun manufacturers, I wouldn't expect anything common sense anytime soon from him.”

• Kasky (as quoted in CNN, The Hill, Daily News, Huffington Post): “If he’s in front of families he might say something in support of commonsense gun reform. But then when he’s at the NRA, he’ll say something to get a big cheer.”

• Huffington Post: “Trump staunchly defended the Second Amendment and called the NRA a ‘great organization’ in his headlining speech. It was in stark contrast to the tone he struck (when he also suggested some form of gun control) in the aftermath of the Parkland massacre.”

• The Hill: “In the weeks following the Parkland shooting, Trump suggested that he would be open to action on gun control and taking on the NRA."

• ”Daily News: “Trump's impassioned pro-gun comments at the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Dallas on Friday clashed with the changes he called for in the wake of the massacre at Stoneman Douglas High School.”

• CNN: “The President did not mention the series of changes he called for in the immediate wake of the shooting, which the NRA opposed, such as raising the age of purchase for certain firearms and potentially expanding…Kasky told CNN on Saturday he doesn't expect what he called common sense reform from the President,” -JJMM (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources merely quote the subject. This does not mean we should add it to the article. The sources should be commenting on the quotes for them to qualify for inclusion. See the talk page of David Hogg (activist) for some big discussions about quoting and politics. wumbolo ^^^ 04:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you here, but why, then, include the "professional liar" comment? -- irn (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

My sense is the lying is relevant -- in that Trump has power to influence the debate on guns, and Trump is saying one thing to one group, and another thing to another group, and Trump addressed the NRA and has held contradictory positions on whether he supports or doesn't support gun control, which is why Kasky believes Trump is lying, so in this context it is relevant to Kasky's advocacy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But the justification you just offered is literally the part that Wumbolo wants left out because it's OR. -- irn (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources all comment on Kasky’s quote by stating Trump’s pro-gun speech at the NRA convention was in contrast to his prior call for gun control reform in the wake of the Parkland shooting. That’s relevant to Kasky’s advocacy. Here’s another possible revision:

• Kasky called President Donald Trump a "professional liar" on CNN after Trump delivered a pro-gun speech at the annual NRA convention in May 2018, in contrast to Trump’s prior call for gun control reform in the wake of the Parkland shooting. Kasky criticized the president to point out Trump said what he needed to say to appease the NRA. -JJMM (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Wumbolo's assertion that The sources merely quote the subject. This does not mean we should add it to the article. The sources should be commenting on the quotes for them to qualify for inclusion. And I was posing a simple question to Wumbolo about why that would lead to inclusion of the "professional liar" quotation. -- irn (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include (Summoned by bot) Seems totally relevant to this person's activism, and is hardly an earth-shattering sentiment nowadays. The reasons to exclude are not persuasive. Coretheapple (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include - Seems important to Kasky's overall activism per the sources. The only reason to exclude that I see is that it would be WP:SYNTH, but the article title and article used as a source explicitly mentions that the context of the quote is a response to is DT's statements about guns (AKA Kasky's subject of activism) at an NRA speech. Nanophosis (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include: relevant to the subject's activism; substantially covered in 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include: Subject is involved in activism around gun rights, and his comments on NRA speakers should be included in the article. Hickland (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include not only is it relevent but it's a widely accepted true statement. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include can see no controversy here. widely reported and contributes to a full understanding of the subject of the article. Doesn't seem debatable. It's been stated above that people who vote include should explain how the quote contributes to an understanding of the subject: The quote was given about an NRA convention where the president was addressing an audience. The subject's views on the NRA are a central theme for which the subject is notable. It was a publicly broadcast, widely reported example of how an advocate within a PAC views the presidency and to what extent he holds those views. Its practically the bench mark by which other quotes by this activist should be measured. Some people above called for rewriting/further attribution. Clearer attribution is definitely welcome. Edaham (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comparing Rubio to the shooter

I wish to add a detail with Kasky’s interaction with Sen. Rubio. In the townhall debate, he equated the Republican Senator to the shooter, saying “Senator Rubio, it's hard to look at you and not look down the barrel on an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz.” This is a Source https://www.teenvogue.com/story/a-parkland-survivor-directly-asked-marco-rubio-about-nra-donations-and-the-internet-lost-it. It’s also caught on video through different media. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The need for Reactions Section

I do not see how necessary the Reactons section is for this article. It deeply implies a bias for the subject in question. It only offers opinion pieces on Kasky’s performance at the CNN town hall which I personally found disturbing and offensive. The purpose of a biography is to highlight key events in a person’s life and accomplishments not be a pedestal for a person to grandstand off of. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This talkpage is not a place for you to grandstand about your personal views. The only reason Cameron has an article is because RS noticed and reacted to what he has heen saying. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Regret in the way he confronted Rubio and apology to Rubio

Since the famous CNN Townhall with Marco Rubio, Cameron Kasky has stated he regretted the way he conducted himself towards Marco Rubio and its reported he has apologized to him. He has not changed his stance politically but just wish he approached the conversation differently. Would it be appropriate to add a sentence on that? Dy3o2 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you read Wikipedia's article on Cameron Kasky? Seems like this material has already been included.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm being too nitpicky, my thought was that it isn't clear why he regretted the way he spoke to Rubio. He specifically regretted trying to embarrass Rubio To be clear, he does not regret putting Rubio on the spot Also, doing some more research, I only found articles saying he wanted to apologize to Rubio but none that he had, so I don't think that should be added. Dy3o2 (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)