Jump to content

Talk:Joe Kent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conspiracy theorist category

[edit]

I didn't add that category originally, but I can see why someone did. Conspiracy theories Kent has supported publicly: COVID vaccines are gene therapy, 2020 election was stolen, January 6th was set up by the FBI. Reliable sources (that aren't already in the article) that say he does this:
KUOW: "he's spreading election conspiracy theories...he falsely claims without evidence that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump"
Oregon Public Radio: "His political career has abounded with conspiracy theories."
Seattle Times: Kent said "The COVID vaccines are an experimental gene therapy."
I don't have all day to list the hundreds of results I see. Look them up for yourself. As he hasn't won a single election, I would say the conspiracy theorist description isn't just a defining characteristic, it's the most defining characteristic. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it reflects poorly on Wikipedia quality and neutrality if the bulk of this article is weighted in this way. Can you please put more effort in providing a more complete picture of the candidate? Tonymetz 💬 20:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. The article is not "weighted" any more than the reliable sources that report on Kent are "weighted". Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how about we compromise. For every 4 edits about "far right" and "conspiracy theory", you try to find one on the candidate's platform, military service, personal life?
It's fascinating the subject has been around for 45 years , and is actively campaigning, yet your dozen edits a month all seem to concentrate on these two areas Tonymetz 💬 22:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion of "For every 4 edits about "far right" and "conspiracy theory", you try to find one on the candidate's platform, military service, personal life?" shows that you do not understand how sourcing works, or what WP:PROPORTION means, or really, Wikipedia itself. It's not up to us to "find" sources about specific topics in order to create some sort of arbitrary false balance. It's merely up to us to reflect reliable secondary sourcing, which the article currently does. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are you searching? It's likely then that your searching methods are biased as indicated by your edits. Tonymetz 💬 23:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DROPTHESTICK Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make a proposal that will allow more complete coverage to this article? other editors have tried and are reverted. Until we can resolve the issue with the dominant editor, it's still a pending issue. Tonymetz 💬 00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the coverage is complete. Don't call me "the dominant editor". Don't make up statements like "other editors have tried and are reverted" - you're the only one pushing this POV. The reverts and skepticism about your claims have also come from ser!, Woodroar, Dimadick, and DN. My last advice to you is to drop it, because based on your incredibly short edit history, I don't believe for one second that this is your first Wikipedia account and, in my opinion, you're not here to improve the encyclopedia, you're here to whitewash the Joe Kent article, which already has one COI editor working on it, and doesn't need another. Personally, I am done with conversing with you on this talk page because it's like talking to a brick wall. Have a nice day. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is relevant to Joe Kent, Blake Masters, and anyone listed on WP as Far Right. They represent the ontological sausage factory of overweighting low-quality, left-leaning media sources and having that content syndicated around the internet.
The citations have been curated to focus on "far right" and "conspiracy theory" buzzwords. Even within the citations, very little other content has been cited.
My agenda is to understand if the Wikipedia process even works.
PS: you already made two false accusations about my account that have resolved. Please either submit whatever other false accusations you like or move on. Tonymetz 💬 00:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What context, and from which sources, are you proposing to add to the article?
In regard to the subject of Kent and conspiracy theory, I found this.
"Kent is not the only Republican to repeat the central themes of the racist and antisemitic Great Replacement theory. Sophie Bjork-James, an anthropology professor at Vanderbilt University and an expert in the white nationalist movement, said the theory has been a key tool for white supremacists working since school integration in the 1970s to recruit white conservative Republicans to their cause. A major reason the theory is so popular, she said, is that people can adopt the anti-immigrant and anti-Black parts of the conspiracy theory and instead of blaming Jews, blame the Democrats USA Today May 2022 DN (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here is |an example of content I've proposed . The editors could help propose improving the sourcing rather than reverting content.
If you are interested in helping improve the article with info from existing sources, let me know. I've been trying to recruit other editors to expand the completeness. Tonymetz 💬 01:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have added quite a bit in one sweeping edit. I would suggest proposing single changes here on the talk page, perhaps 2-3 small changes at a time, at most, if they are related. That way it is easier to gain consensus.
What is the most important change in your view at this time? DN (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like your suggestion. I'll test some some smaller edits Tonymetz 💬 03:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other sources besides https://mynorthwest.com that covers those topics? If not it is likely UNDUE. DN (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the parts that say...
  • Kent supports a more aggressive dependency on fossil fuels, saying "We have to get back to being not just energy independent, but a net exporter of energy.".
  • He blames sitting president Joe Biden's cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline for having a negative economic impact.
  • Kent is suspicious of the public school system, and supports a school voucher program funded by a $10,000 per child tax deduction.
DN (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a direct quote from the citation Tonymetz 💬 15:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the answer to DN's question is a no, then. Removing as WP:UNDUE. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you guys speak english . what are you asking about? Tonymetz 💬 00:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be helpful and constructive instead of reverting edits, just state how the standards aren't being met and what it would take to fix.
Your current approach appears to be gatekeeping the content that you've added which almost exclusively focuses on "far right" and "conspiracy theory". Tonymetz 💬 01:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you clarify WP:UNDUE and the expectectations? Tonymetz 💬 17:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a tertiary source, we're here to summarize what reliable, secondary/independent sources have written about the subject. Our due weight policy says that we should try to do that proportionally, so that topics or viewpoints widely covered by reliable sources get more prominence than those covered by fewer sources. That means we tend not to mention things covered by only 1 or 2 sources. Woodroar (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks so it sounds like the issue was only having one citation for the joe biden comment. that's a lot clearer thanks. Tonymetz 💬 18:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as for "prominence" , we already weight "far right" and "conspiracy theory" in this article. Does that mean we cannot add any other information unless we find 5 sources for it? Tonymetz 💬 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily say 5, but at least 1 or 2 decent sources. Note that other factors can affect prominence as well: a national newspaper of record should probably be weighted more than a regional or single town's newspaper, and an entire article devoted to the subject should probably be weighted more than an article with only 1-2 sentences about the subject. It's can be a balancing act, taking all that into account.
I'll also mention that due weight generally affects how the body of the article is summarized. The lead is then a summary of the body, again weighing coverage by prominence, meaning anything in the lead really should be widely covered in sources. There can be exceptions, of course. A biographical article like this one will generally include a full name and date of birth because that's what you'd expect from a biographical encyclopedia article—assuming there's the coverage required by WP:BLPPRIVACY. Woodroar (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good rule of thumb, but in "controversial" articles it suffers from statistical bias.
Of course commercial news agencies are going to favor "far right" etc for clicks.
So we will naturally have a 20:1 precedence of "far right" -- regardless of evidence or significance.
This would happen with any salacious concept Tonymetz 💬 19:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tonymetz it's in the link DN (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks i understand it now. I thought your earlier comment was referring to the source fidelity or quality, and now I understand it has to do with cardinality . Tonymetz 💬 18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The COVID-19 vaccinations provided by Pfizer and Moderna are gene therapies. That's just a fact.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37445690/ DeltaOmicronNu (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2024

[edit]

"During his campaign, Kent promoted various conspiracy theories, including the claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental gene therapy." 

: This claim is defamation and not based in any fact or burden of proof; This discredits a member of the intelligence community which operates at the highest levels of fact. NOT SPECULATION. For the best interests of the Wiki brand; A review and removal is imperative to maintain integrity. Disinformation is unacceptable and WILL have consequences.

-T. Kilgore 76.33.163.137 (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is well-documented in reliable sources. That he is a member of the US intelligence community has zero bearing on whether or not his view on the COVID-19 vaccine is reported here or whether it is presented as a correct view. Tollens (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of these reliable sources is cited in the article.
The claim is cited in the article.[1] Please do not make legal threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McYeee (talk • contribs) 05:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Evan Watson (October 6, 2022). "A closer look at the Trump-endorsed Republican candidate for US House seat in southwest Washington". kgw.com. Retrieved March 24, 2023. Kent said the COVID-19 vaccine is "experimental gene therapy," that he opposes any vaccination requirements and wants to defund the FBI.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2024

[edit]

Joe Kent is not far-right. 2600:1700:15DF:C10:90CE:CFBE:6988:63B (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You didn't make a specific request, but there are two reliable sources used in the opening line of the article that suppert the "far-right" descriptor. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

[edit]

The current short desc has 62 characters in total. Per WP:SDLENGTH, the short desc is supposed to be: "short – no longer than is needed to fulfill its functions effectively, More than 80% of short descriptions use fewer than 40 characters (including spaces)., Fewer than 3% of short descriptions are longer than 60 characters, and short descriptions longer than 100 characters will be flagged for attention." Therefore, we should consider shortening the short description to something like: "American far-right political candidate", "American political candidate" (having checked most articles in the Category:American far-right politicians category, they do not contain far-right in the short desc), "American politician (born 1980)", or "American former army officer". I'm proposing it here on the talk page first to avoid potential edit warring. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unknown when he became a resident of the state of Washington

[edit]

It is unknown when he became a resident of the state of Washington 71.36.100.171 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

[edit]

Remove "far right" from the page. Politically divisive language should be prohibited and facts alone should be added such as "republican." The reader should be able to decide if the political candidate is far right or far left. MedicDG (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia articles follow what cited, reliable sources say. It does not categorically reject labels like "far-right" and "far-left" if that is what is supported by the material. Glass Snow (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Kent favorably cited the work of white supremacist writer Sam Francis"

[edit]

@Fred Zepelin Hello, I noticed you reverted my removal of this line from lead, referencing leadcite. However this claim is not mentioned in the body of the article, and the citation in the lead does not support it either. Can you please show me which citation supports this claim? Glass Snow (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original citation was from Vanity Fair that was added to the body and then moved to the lead. Personally, I think it might be best left in the body with attribution to Vanity Fair, for now, since it doesn't seem to be mentioned in other RS that we have. If they can locate other RS that also confirms it, inclusion in the lead would seem more reasonable. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally in both, as far as I can tell, and then removed from the body. Bit of whitewashing there. I reverted that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just found it odd that such a controversial claim was in the lead, apparently unsourced.
However, I don't know how I feel about such a large claim remaining in the lead supported only by a single, highly POV article. I searched for more on Joe Kent's association with Sam Francis and only found one other article on it (History News Network), and it was clearly a derivative of the Vanity Fair article. What are your thoughts? This seems like the sort of claim that ought to be heavily substantiated. Glass Snow (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sam Francis part was removed because of previous discussion, where it was noted that the content had only one source with little to no explanation. Not 'whitewashing' MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no consensus in that discussion that indicates what you say it indicates. Very misleading to put this on the talk page as if it's iron-clad, when in fact it's quite the opposite. Fred Zepelin (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

[edit]

he was not an officer in the ranger regiment. he was enlisted his entire career. Reubengoldstein (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far Right is an outrageous tag

[edit]

Labeling every republican far right is ridiculous slander. Typical of public sources. 2600:1008:B06D:A2B:75E0:AB69:B99B:E24F (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective is used by the sources linked. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Joe Kent is literally every Republican, or do you mean it like that Whitney Houston song? DN (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Kent&oldid=1254632582"