Talk:Kyle Kashuv

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "c/e; remove excessive quotations sourced to Twitter". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Relatedly, I've remove material that is not verifiable in the cited sources and some material based solely on a primary source. Since this is a WP:BLP, the sourcing and adherence to what the sources actually write, must be impeccable.- MrX 🖋 21:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kyle Kashuv

Should we delete the draft of this article as it has been put into the article namespace, or should we keep it? 1bcdbackup (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The content in it is good, it should be incorporated into the current article first and then deleted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be deleted. It only has one useable source and all of the (encyclopedic) content is already covered here.- MrX 🖋 11:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Then vote so here. wumbolo ^^^ 1:03 pm, Today (UTC+2)

Does anyone actually feel this 15 minutes article shouldn't be merged? If so, why? O3000 (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The encyclopedic content from reliable sources is sparse, unless you include a bunch of anodyne quotes. For that reason, I think this could be merged to another article. The same is potentially true for some of the other student activists.- MrX 🖋 12:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This really brings up the question of notability. He appeared on Face the Nation, March 25, 2018, so is mentioned on CBS News. That makes him a one-time flicker, not as a survivor, but a pro-gun activist.

Otherwise, ALL the coverage is from unreliable sources. Fox News does mention him, of course, since they amplify what the fringe says. At best, he qualifies under some of the principles at WP:FRINGE, broadly interpreted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: disagree. I don't see any reliable source referring to him as a fringe figure. Maybe a fringe source refers to him as a fringe figure, but that's what we want to avoid. The other activists were also attacked by fringe sources and accused of plenty of conspiracies, but we have that in the articles because it was discussed in reliable sources. It is still too much to give fringe sources an entire section of the article, especially when that's not nearly the most notable thing about them. IMHO, we should have a list of survivors and mention the conspiracies there, and then remove it from these articles, since as you say, mainstream sources amplify the fringe sources, and we can't have it per WP:BLP. wumbolo ^^^ 18:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

?? I suspect we're thinking of different aspects of "fringe". I'm not referring to "him" as a fringe figure, but to the fact that nearly only fringe sources document him and promote him, all because he promotes a pro-gun POV. That brings his notability into question, IOW whether we should even have an article. Being a survivor of the shooting isn't, by itself, enough for an article here. Being mentioned almost exclusively on unreliable sources is not enough for an article. Being on Face the Nation and meeting Trump...is that really enough? The more I look at this and the sources, the more I see him as a flicker who should not have an article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: why are you even discussing this? Take a look at the Articles for Deletion discussion and the many sources in it. You can scream that they "amplify fringe sources" all you want, but we treat RS as RS as long as we don't have contradictions. Of course being a shooting survivor, meeting Trump and being on CBS is not notable at all, and only increases BLP concerns, thing is that he passes the general notability guideline. wumbolo ^^^ 18:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, and a good point. I looked at the sources we use, and then a current search, which didn't bring up most of those sources (or they are deeply buried). Fringe sources totally dominate the search. Since those RS mentioned in the AfD exist, I'll drop the idea. Let's continue to develop the article. This shows that we need to use more of those RS, as this article is very poorly sourced. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of these individuals are not notable and should be discussed in one page. The only notable individuals seem to be Emma, David and Cameron. We don't need 20+ articles on each individual. CookieMonster755✉ 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Not trying to put him down; but still doesn’t seem to be much here. He “hopes” to graduate high school at the top of his class. Well, lots of students “hope” to do well, and it appears he’s not in his senior year anyhow. And that doesn’t appear to be a quote. It is a statement by the author of a Fox article that starts with an insult thrown at David Hoggs. The MSNBC boycott appears to have been based on a mistake. He claims to have an app “in the final stages of development”. As someone who’s been in the software field likely before Kashuv’s parents were born, when someone says software is in its final stages, it can be years away, particularly when the someone hasn’t any history of software development. Hofstadter's law O3000 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Article for all the survivors?

@MrX: I support creating a sub-20k article for all the kids, except Gonzalez and Hogg (who should be summarized). But could we actually do that? And what would that article even be? It's not a stand-alone list. wumbolo ^^^ 13:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a good title would be. Perhaps Stoneman Douglas shooting survivor activists? Pinging Tomwsulcer, InedibleHulk, CookieMonster755, BrillLyle, The lorax, Thsmi002, and James James Morrison Morrison who have been active in this subject area.- MrX 🖋 13:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: This might define our situation the best: Category:Lists of survivors. wumbolo ^^^ 13:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If any of these kids individually have notability, there should be an article about them. Hogg, Gonzalez, and Kashuv fit in that category. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The best way is a List article, and individual articles for the most notable activists. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think a list article probably makes sense. I'm struggling to find much biographically to write about Kashuv, although it turns out that he was encouraged to "amplify his voice" by an influence marketer and Ben Shapiro.- MrX 🖋 18:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Although we do have a (rather long) article on Ben Shapiro, the other guy doesn't have an article. Merging to a list article seems the only merge option. wumbolo ^^^ 18:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: you can use a transcript for the Face the Nation interview. CBS is RS. wumbolo ^^^ 18:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't really see much usable content in the interview. Certainly, none of it is biographical.- MrX 🖋 19:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I also think there should be separate individual articles for any of the student activists with notability - at minimum that should include David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, and Cameron Kasky. I haven't read too much about Kashuv, so can't give feedback on him. I think we need to wait a few more months to see which of the activists have the most notability. A list of all the MSD activists could be included as a new section in the Never Again MSD article and/or in a separate list article. -JJMM (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Face the Nation interview

The newly added section about the ~four minute Face the Nation interview is way too long. It violates WP:DUEWEIGHT by giving prominence to the subject's views without any analysis.- MrX 🖋 22:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This article is start class, MrX. It has plenty of room to grow, to be changed, improved upon. Griping about every little addition is silly and counterproductive. I know you think the article should have been deleted (hence, your nomination of it for deletion), but please note that there are people working on it, trying to improve it, and it will all balance out in the end. Rome wasn't built in a day and there's no deadline in Wikipedia. Give it a little time, okay -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's silly to create an entire section from one very short interview. It also runs afoul of our goal of being a neutral encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 22:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I would only source major facts to a talk show interview. wumbolo ^^^ 22:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I'd only keep content which is discussed in at least one other source, like this. wumbolo ^^^ 22:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo, since there are several editors working on the article right now and have some obvious buy-in with it, I think the wise and fair thing to do is to try and form consensus rather than just unilateral decision making on what stays and what goes, don't you? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: you might have misunderstood me, I wasn't saying what I would personally like to keep or what editors can or cannot do. MrX placed the undue tag on the article, which I think is ridiculous for such a short article. wumbolo ^^^ 22:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The section on this 4+ minute interview, an interview that was largely ignored by other reliable sources, is disproportionate to the rest of the article. It contains excruciating detail about the subject's non-expert views which are inconsistent with an encyclopedic presentation of the subject.- MrX 🖋 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

But this is a short and incomplete article. wumbolo ^^^ 22:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

An interview on Face the Nation isn't a piss in the wind. For a 16 year old with a less flashy platform, views that are in conflict with the popular kids on the cover of Time, and no big financial backing, it's a big deal. Wasn't some of the commentary at the AfD you started that the kid had no notability? Well, there's a great example of yes, there is notability. Like I said, I know you don't think the article should exist, and you've done your darndest to gut it to the best of your ability, but it's only going to expand, like it or not. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Who said it was? I'm saying that we should mention that he dad a brief interview in which he discussed X, Y, and Z. That's one or two sentences at the most. We should not be a conduit for his non-noteworthy ideas, or give exhaustive detail about his 4+ minute interview. - MrX 🖋 22:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"We should not be a conduit for his non-noteworthy ideas" He is a survivor in the same way David Hogg and the other four students featured in the news (none of them were in the same building as the shooting, either), therefore his ideas are equally as "noteworthy" as theirs for Wikipedia purposes. Just because he's not being covered as much by the press means nothing. Notability has been established, and we are WP:NOTNEWS. We don't judge an article subject's views as noteworthy and we don't write or delete content based on our personal viewpoints about an article subject - or at least we aren't supposed to. I know I'm not... -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"Just because he's not being covered as much by the press means nothing." Actually, it does. We even have a policy for that. The content needs to be trimmed significantly.- MrX 🖋 23:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If that's what you think the policy on undue means, you're misreading it badly. The policy you linked to states: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public...Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." Kashuv's viewpoint has been discussed reasonably in reliable sources, in fact, it's what put him on the reliable source radar to begin with.  -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, but let's not include every single tiny meansy viewpoint which is nowhere discussed. Just because a source talks about one viewpoint doesn't mean we can add  a dozen similar (or less similar) viewpoints. wumbolo ^^^ 23:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for new discussion

MrX, your "trim" of the Face the Nation section was actually a gutting. You unilaterally decided what was important to keep and what wasn't. There are others editing this article and watching it. Such huge removals of content should be discussed rather than done with one knife and one surgeon. Let's start discussing now, okay? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I summarized the key points, as is standard for an encyclopedia biography. Please keep in mind that this is all new material which does not have consensus for inclusion at all. In other words, there was no discussion determining that the WP:UNDUE material should be added in the first place.- MrX 🖋 23:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Time for discussion now, since you unilaterally decided what belonged and what doesn't, don't you think? That is the way it's supposed to be done -- with consensus and cooperative effort -- right? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise that leaves more of Kashuv's words, while not being overbearing on the reader. Do you think there is any other essential points that need to be included, and if so, why? - MrX 🖋 00:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked if you would discuss changes first, instead you removed content again with zero discussion. Please stop removing content when it should be first discussed, especially when there's been an attempt to start discussion. Why are you resisting this simple request? There is no deadline in Wikipedia. I'm asking you nicely to please revert your edit and discuss and come to a consensus instead. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm really trying to collaborate to find a version that is encyclopedic and that captures the essence of Kashuv's interview. I believe my last edit did that fairly well. What specifically do you object to? - MrX 🖋 00:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Above, MrX wrote I'm saying that we should mention that he dad a brief interview in which he discussed X, Y, and Z. That's one or two sentences at the most. I agree with that. A whole section for one interview is undue. -- irn (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That's nice, but it's not really the point. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That is kind of the point and it's why I trimmed the content. I think the result summarizes that very short interview rather well. There's just not a lot to say about it that would appropriate for an encyclopedia article.- MrX 🖋 15:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Meta discussion about consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbolo (talk • contribs) 08:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You're not trying to collaborate at all. You're just snip, snip, snipping away a little at a time. Less conspicuous that way. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC) And you're demanding that everything be discussed first, contrary to policy. That won't fly. Identify specific edits that you dispute and discuss them. You can even revert specific things per BRD, with a decent edit summary, but you can't mass-revert everything because you want to discuss everything first. "snip, snip, snipping away a little at a time" is what enables that approach. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC) I'm not demanding anything unreasonable or against policy. I've tried to get MrX to discuss for a few days now. There's a history here: he dishonestly nominated the article for deletion, after gutting it first. Even after the gutting, the nom didn't fly, so he withdrew the nom. Now he's back to gutting without discussing and acting obtuse about it. I wouldn't have a problem with any of this if: he would actually discuss the article and changes he'd like to see; and the AfD hadn't first existed with him claiming the article subject didn't meet GNG when he clearly does. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Let's focus on your concerns about the content, rather than your baseless attacks on my conduct and character. This is not a contest of the wills. Let's work together to craft wording that accomplishes Wikipedia's goals in service of our readers.- MrX 🖋 00:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Someone else steps in and now you're all ready to discuss? Why not before? Frankly, at the moment, I'm too disgusted with your smoke and mirrors parlor game to discuss calmly. Later. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Why not before? MrX attempted to engage you in discussion here and here, and you snubbed both attempts. His response to that has been more patient than it deserved in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC) He made it seem as if he wanted to discuss but does it after he snips more away with zero discussion, knowing I won't revert anything he's done. That's not an actual attempt at discussion. That's making it look like you're making an attempt. It's gaming the system and, I'm sorry, but it's complete bullshit. As is your participation here when you've never shown an interest in the article or this talk page prior. Why is it that you so frequently show up places I am when you've never been there before, Mandruss? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Why is it that you so frequently show up places I am when you've never been there before, Mandruss? Your ABF pattern continues. I'm quite certain I haven't crossed paths with you "frequently" at all, probably less frequently than would be expected between two highly active editors with overlapping areas of interest. But feel free to prove me wrong with, say, three diffs in the past 6 months. Barring that, comment on content, not contributors, and refrain from casting aspersions without evidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Sure. Whatever you say. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Proactiv and MSNBC

@Objective3000: You said you couldn't find a RS for Proactiv pulling ads from MSNBC. Well, The Daily Caller is a secondary source, and Proactiv's twitter statement (linked from The Daily Caller) is a reliable primary source. wumbolo ^^^ 18:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I know I sound like a broken record, but we need to avoid inferior sources like the Daily Caller and Mediaite. BLP's should be based on highly-reputable sources.- MrX 🖋 18:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller has been the source of quite a few discussions at WP:RSN. Basically, it is considered a blatantly partisan source that should be avoided in BLPs. O3000 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: And it was decided reliable, at least at the most recent discussion. Remember, WP:BIASED sources can still be used if they are reliable. wumbolo ^^^ 18:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Not in a BLP for statements of fact. I still remember the claim that ALL Democrats believe that any woman should be able to get an abortion the moment before birth. O3000 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: feel free to inquire at WP:RSN. wumbolo ^^^ 18:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I looked through four pages of Google hits and found only seriously fact-challenged, partisan sites. When you can’t find one good source for a statement of fact, you are on shaky ground for an encyclopedia. More so for a BLP. O3000 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo:, I've already told you that the 2013 RSN discussion is by far not the most recent discussion. Here are some more recent ones which support that the Wikipedia community does not regard the Daily Caller as a reliable source for facts:[1][2][3] - MrX 🖋 18:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: the discussions you provided all either didn't gain consensus, or you took the comments out of context. wumbolo ^^^ 19:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Daily Caller is considered a reliable source. End of (that) discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Sources that are not in widespread use on Wikipedia are not presumed to be reliable. Just as with any content, the onus is on the person wishing to cite such a source to gain consensus for using it, especially when other experienced editors are waving red flags, and especially when it concerns a BLP.- MrX 🖋 20:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not a RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi and others (MrX, BullRangifer, Wumbolo), I just looked at the three RS/N links provided for the Daily Caller, and while there are no specific discussions there on DC that were closed in consensus, there is nothing in there to verify or even suggest that the Wikipedia community considers it a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: well actually this discussion has a "resolved" tag which says that the consensus is that it is reliable. wumbolo ^^^ 18:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but also well actually, you cited only the first few words and left out "blatantly partisan source", for instance, and that it's to be avoided if better sources are available. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Daily Caller is an inferior source, especially for a BLP. So is the Daily Wire, Mediaite, Independent Journal Review, Daily Kos, The Blaze, and many others that editors have been trying to insert into various articles.- MrX 🖋 23:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The Wrap is an inferior source. In fact, I'd consider it even more inferior than the Daily Caller is being portrayed by those who defend use of The Wrap as a source. Unlike The Wrap, the Daily Caller is not focused on Hollywood, isn't a blog, and doesn't refer to its contributors and writers as "Hollybloggers". Yet use of The Wrap in articles that have nothing to do with Hollywood and celebrities is defended while the Daily Caller is vilified and dismissed with quick reversions of content connected to DC as a source. Go figure. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Context-free comments that some other editor, in some other article, defended some other source, used for some other edit really aren’t very useful. O3000 (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The Wrap is a decent source, especially for articles like The Ingraham Angle, an entertainment program. I would steer away from it for a BLP though. To give a sense for how the community feels about these sources, the Wrap is linked more than 5648 times on enwiki, compared with 1977 for the Daily Caller; 1259 for Mediaite; and 154 for The Daily Wire. The Wrap is also routinely cited by other reliable sources which helps affirm its reliability.- MrX 🖋 22:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Trying to determine the penalty I’m going to receive for continuing a discussion that Psi Lambda has considered ended.:) This is a BLP and it talks to other living soles. We require sources generally accepted by the community for such. This week, the NYT received three more Pulitzers (adding to 125) and WaPo two (I think 49 now). Still trying to find the Daily Caller Pulitzers. (Yeah, that’s a bit snarky.) Let’s stick to respected sources in BLPs. O3000 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"Still trying to find the Daily Caller Pulitzers". Funny, I'm still trying to find RS policy that states "Reliable Source = Pulitzer Prize winner". There is, however, this article with this section (and the one following it) which addresses you comments quite nicely. "Yeah, that's a bit snarky", too. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Here it is on the Philadelphia Inquirer, a mainstream newspaper [4] - only a couple of sentences on the bottom, but it's clearly an RS. Also Independent Journal Review and Daily Dot, more indepth, but they're online only. [5][6] which are widely used. --GRuban (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So, it looks like Kashuv mistakenly claimed that Eichenwald worked for MSNBC and Proactive panicked and fell for it according to a quick tweet. The only value I see to this is documenting the sloppiness of those involved. Or, not due to BLP concerns. Is this an encyclopedia or a gossip site? WP:10YT O3000 (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: the other article's premise is a tweet which generated a bunch of controversy. Why? Because it has been widely discussed in reliable sources. Under WP:NOTGOSSIP we need RS and proper attribution. wumbolo ^^^ 22:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:OTHERCONTENT for a moment, the other article repeated a rather large number of documented statements by large corporations. I have difficulty seeing equivalence. O3000 (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's not equivalence. Boycott of The Ingraham Angle gets a standalone article with 3 sections, and 7 paragraphs. This is worth a sentence. --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don’t know if that article deserves to exist, even though 15 companies dropping sponsorship over one episode is quite unusual. I also don’t see the relevance of what's in another article under Wikipedia guidelines. O3000 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

These two boycotts are only very superficially similar. Laura Ingraham is far more prominent than Kurt Eichenwald; her connection to The Ingraham Angle is much closer than Eichenwald's connection to MSNBC or Vanity Fair; the Ingraham boycott drew an immediate response from a significant number of companies; and the whole Vanity Fair angle of this is driven by Shapiro, not Kashuv. The boycotts are very different, and they're being treated very differently by RSes. Arguing that one has an entire article so this one deserves at least a line is clearly WP:OTHERCONTENT. We need to judge this on its own merits. -- irn (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I lean toward leaving the Proactiv/MSNBC pseudo-boycott out. Like Objective3000 said, this does little more than document the sloppiness of those involved.- MrX 🖋 14:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

More gutting of the article

MrX, you stated in the edit summary for this removal of content [7] that the source didn't verify the content. There was a source present earlier today that totally backed up the content. I'm asking you politely to find it (since it was likely removed in one of the earlier content removals), replace it and the associated content. At this time, you're not building an encyclopedia article, you're dismantling it. In so doing, you are being disruptive. I'm asking you to take care of this ASAP. If it's not back in place, along with the headings that were also there, by the time I get home in a few hours, you will have forced my hand into taking your behavior to AN/I. You've truly crossed the line. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

First time I remember someone given a deadline. O3000 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to talk about restoring any content that can be reliably sourced. Can you show the content that you think should be restore with the source(s) that supports it? Thanks.- MrX 🖋 22:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing more to discuss. It was there earlier today, it was removed. Do the right thing and look in the diffs, then put it all back. Stop playing games. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If you think there was a source that backed something up, then it would be far easier for you to find it. The onus is clearly on you. O3000 (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. It's on the person who removed it. Why? Because that's what a person without an agenda, without intent to disrupt, someone who actually cares about the integrity of Wikipedia articles, would do. If they simply made an error, they fix it. If they were intentionally being disruptive and have an agenda, they wouldn't. Which is what this scenario has pretty much shaken out to be. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors can freely remove unsourced BLP information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course they can. MrX, I owe you an apology. I should have known better to comment here on this issue when I wasn't on my computer and was on my phone. If I had waited, I could have looked closer to see that I actually forgot to add the source for the content when I was editing the article earlier today. I'm still of the belief that you are pushing a personal agenda with this article and that you are slow tag team edit warring with Irn and gaming the system. But as far as removal of the content, you were correct to do that -- I simply forgot to add the source for the quote and the scenario as told by Kashuv to writer Guy Benson. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to accuse a user of gaming the system or edit warring etc please do so at ANI or somewhere else. Can you please add the source for your quote and scenario though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

ReachOut App

I went to Google Play to see if Mr. Kashuv had yet released his ReachOut app. I found this [8] app with the exact same name and a description that is very similar to that of Kashuv's app, except that it is geared toward college students. At first I though it was his app until I saw that it was released on October 26, 2017. There's also this app on iTunes [9] called ReachOut, but it was released in 2014. This leaves me questioning the accuracy of the reporting about this which seems to originate from this March 8 Daily Caller article [10].- MrX 🖋 11:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the website for the app https://reachoutapp.org/. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Erm. Why did you remove the link with this edit? In what way is it inappropriate? It can't be that the website is easy to find as you yourself struggled to find it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't normally link to product websites of a subject per WP:ELNO#EL4, WP:ELNO#EL5, and WP:ELNO#EL13. We can ask the folks at WP:ELN to get some outside views, if you like.- MrX 🖋 14:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's see if anybody on this talkpage has anything to add instead of rushing to ELN. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine too.- MrX 🖋 14:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: the website is almost trivial to find. Kashuv's Twitter → ReachOutApp's Twitter → the ReachOut website. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Smartphone app

I've removed the section about an non-existent app since it violates WP:CRYSTAL. I have no objection to adding a section if and when an app is released by Mr. Kashuv.- MrX 🖋 18:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I noticed, however, none of us have any idea whether it's non-existent or not. Kashuv's intention to create and work on it is well-sourced, and any Wikipedia editor removing content based on their own perception of Kashuv's honesty/preogress in creating the app is both WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. As to the edit itself, removal of the entire section was inappropriate and disruptive as well as pointy. It needs to be readded. The section was sourced. Just because the app has not yet been released only five months after he started working on it is not reason enough to remove the section. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the section about the app. I have not added the website to the external links section, but the path mentioned above is not longer existing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." is what is written in WP:CRYSTAL. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a product announcement. It's a child who said he was going to make an app. A child can say he's going to build an app, or a great big wall, but until it happens, it's but a dream. In any case, I've moved the content so it doesn't give the announcement undue prominence. That should achieve a reasonable compromise. Any objections?- MrX 🖋 19:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks good in the section you added it to. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Another victory for collegial collaboration. - MrX 🖋 19:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the content. It's good in the section where it's currently located. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The Reachout website is dead. The Twitter account has been dead since Apr 1. There already exists an app with that name which is designed as a support network (i.e. the same type of functionality). I think we should avoid vaporware, particularly from a source that has never produced software, and more importantly as it could be confused with the actual product from another source in a related area. This may also be a trademark problem. O3000 (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

N-word use as a 16-yr old

There are reports that he used inflammatory language, including multiple instances of the N-word when he was 16 yrs old.[11][12] He's also made an apology that alludes to these messages, even though he doesn't say so precisely. Should this be included in this Wikipedia article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine to include something about this now that he's owned it.[13]- MrX 🖋 16:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly more related to his story as an activist, the reason the article exists, than his prom date. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

HuffPost verifies the apology, but WP:NOTNEWS still applies. A whole section is WP:UNDUE if there will be no more coverage (e.g. calls to step down or whatever). Usually this kind of controversy sticks when in good faith like here, even though Kashuv is just a student. I'd say wait a bit and see what is important per the sources. wumbolo ^^^ 21:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would that not apply to the entire article? It's entirely based on fleeting news reports, one event notability, and marginal coverage. I was pilloried when I tried to AfD it before, but if you want to send the article to AfD, I would support its deletion. We can't just delete the unfavorable parts, while keeping the flattering parts like meeting with the Trumps, Clarence Thomas, etc. The bar has already been set low.- MrX 🖋 22:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The other stuff in the article is older and WP:recentism can be avoided. For example, this article from August 2018 mentions the Kurt Eichenwald tweets, which means that they are not as trivial as you might think. This article from July 2018 mentions that Kashuv met Justice Clarence Thomas. This retrospective piece mentions much of the "flattering parts". The article's contents are justified per WP:WEIGHT in a large number of available sources, and I am waiting for them to document the fallout from the racist comments before I know how WP:DUE it is. wumbolo ^^^ 13:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Nebraska prom date

The inestimable Bishonen (talk · contribs) removed the following incident from the article, with the comment This incident has been in the article before, and at that time I removed it as incredibly trivial. I still think so.

In April 2018, a student at Lincoln Southeast High School in Lincoln, Nebraska, who admired Kashuv's bravery in supporting gun rights in opposition to so many of his classmates, asked on Twitter for Kashuv to accompany her to her prom. Kashuv turned her down until she got over 5,000 re-tweets of her posting, with the help of conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. Kashuv didn't have a tuxedo or airplane fare to get to Nebraska, so she set up a GoFundMe account, which raised the necessary money in 2 hours. Kashuv accompanied her to her prom, and met with Nebraska governor Pete Ricketts.

I do think it belongs in the article. Besides the Omaha World-Herald where it might be dismissed as an item of local interest, it got a writeup from the Kansas City Star, which is in neither Florida nor Nebraska. It got notice from Sarah Palin, former vice-presidential candidate and governor of, again, neither Florida nor Nebraska. Here is the story in the Seattle Times, again,....[14] Here it is in Teen Vogue.[15] Heck, this incident would almost meet Wikipedia:Notability as a standalone item; it certainly deserves a single paragraph in this non-overly-long article about Kashuv. Sure it's an incident, but this is what our lives are made of, lots of little incidents. This one is much more notable than most, since it got national coverage. It's a sweet story, Bish, and it got sufficient press. Let it in. --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

References

It's trivial. Keep out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain a little? I listed 4 respected newspapers and magazines across the country (there are more, by the way) that devoted non-trivial length articles to writing about this incident, so clearly they think it's worth while. Why do you think we should ignore them? --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was certainly even more trivial when I first removed it — very barebones.[16] It's got a bit fatter now. I don't really mind either way. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC).

Well, getting fatter with age happens to most of us. Ba-dum-tss. Hey, US News and World Report covered it? I didn't see that one. That article is much shorter, though. OK, so now Bish doesn't mind, but other objectors showed up. --GRuban (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The US News and Seattle Times articles are dups. And, don't remind me about my girth.O3000 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems trivial for an encyclopedia. WP:10YT I also think the N-word incident in the above section is trivial considering his age. And, I removed the app text in the section above that as the related pages have been dead for a year. There is no reason to believe this mobile app was other than a flight of fancy. O3000 (talk)

Er - thanks for your other opinions, but can we not drift in this section, and focus on this once incident? Thanks. See, honestly I think 10 years from now we might not remember Kashuv at all, except possibly as a footnote (something like "among the many Parkland students activists for gun control, one defended gun rights"). So if we're strictly applying it, we should delete the article down to something like that one sentence. If we, however, decide that we are to have an article about Kashuv, that is worth more than that single sentence, then this incident shows that he had a noticeable impact. A high school student from a state a thousand miles away who had never met him, cared enough about what he said and did, to not only invite him to her prom, but to raise money for it, and thousands of people supported her enough to retweet and fund. That's not trivial. Again, noticeable national news coverage from mainstream sources. (Even international. [17]) --GRuban (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article should be AfDed. But, the AfD would fail. But, just because it's here doesn't mean we should pump it up with trivia. BTW, please don't cite the DM. It has been deprecated as a source (unless that's changed). O3000 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've listed quite a number of respected newspapers and magazines that thought enough of this to dedicate non-trivial articles to it. I've explained my reasoning for what makes it important enough. What is your reasoning for what makes it trivia? --GRuban (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose including this material. It's incredibly routine, personal, and non-encyclopedic.- MrX 🖋 22:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It is quite a trivial thing. All of the news reports are initial coverage. However, I don't understand the idea behind not even giving it one sentence, when there are several newspaper reports. wumbolo ^^^ 13:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources in lead

@MrX: if you ever restore the "pivotal cause" to the lead, do not put it right in front of the citations that do not verify the information. wumbolo ^^^ 19:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with the material being in the body of the article, but his rise to fame is a mystery without that information.- MrX 🖋 19:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm mostly concerned with the accuracy of the claim. Kashuv received some media coverage much earlier than organizing the DC trip. wumbolo ^^^ 19:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. The material in the body of the article seems fine though.- MrX 🖋 21:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Harvard rescission incident

I think we need to prep ourselves for the fact that some edit warring is likely to start ramping up on this page due to the recent news reports about Mr Kashuv's offer from Harvard being revoked due to things he had written when he was younger: Harvard rescinds offer to Kyle Kashuv, pro-Second Amendment Parkland survivor, due to past remarks, he says .

I will make a quick and vain plea to remind everyone of the need to cite reliable sources when considering edits on this sensitive subject.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 20:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There are only 36 page watchers. O3000 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I would hope that we don't see disruption. The reporting is pretty straightforward that his admission to Harvard was rescinded because of his written comments just prior to the Parkland shooting. I don't think any far-right commentary[18][19] would rise to level of being encyclopedic, but these are strange times, so who knows.- MrX 🖋 21:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 

I removed this topic from the lead and restored the word "controversy" instead of racial slurs. I believe there are BLP issues in highlighting this incident, which hasn't received enduring coverage since it made the news cycle a while ago. Additionally Kashuv made these comments as a young teenager and has apologized for them. There is no need to put such a focus on it, and the section name should be neutral. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources on this topic now. starship.paint (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• NY Times, CNN, Washington Post, USA Today, even the dregs of journalism report it. This has certainly achieved WP:GNG, but then I've been in arguments on WP where this would not be adequate coverage. Trackinfo (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Hello. I noticed that you called Fox News "the dregs of journalism." While you have not attacked a specific person, I was wondering if this would almost go against wp:civility's message to use neutral language. While I'm not saying that I disagree with you, I was just a little concerned about the usage of possibly inflammatory language on an already heated talk page. Thank you and happy editing! William2001^(talk) 00:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps not needed, although it does make a point. But, CIV wouldn't apply. O3000 (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. Of course, anyone has the right to express their opinion, but WP:CIV does say "use neutral language" and "don't make snide comments." I guess this only applies to edit summaries? I'm going to assume good faith here, and I do genuinely believe that Trackinfo was simply trying to be helpful by providing sources (thank you for that!), but I was just commenting because the word "dreg" is quite derogatory (in my opinion). William2001^(talk) 02:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources is what I do. [20] [21] [22] My opinion that Fox News is unreliable, or better phrased reliably biased is not without basis, or unpopular.[23] That wikipedia allows them as a reliable source astounds me. With the low bar they set, when even they have to report something against a proponent of their message, its got to be credible. Trackinfo (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@William2001: WP:CIV does not require "neutral language". wumbolo ^^^ 17:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

the racial slurs section as it is now is a blatant BLP violation

As it stands now, the racial slurs section is the largest section in the whole article. This is a violation of numerous Wikipedia policies. Folks, this is the BLP of an 18 years old high school student. What you are doing with it is completely and utterly inacceptable. I will trim the section down to the bare minimum and the references. Wefa (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If the size of the section is your only complaint, you should realize that the article is supposed to proportionally represent how the subject is covered in reliable source. The racial slurs and aftermath have received the most coverage, by far, compared with other aspects of the subject. It only comprises 26% of the article. The age of the subject is immaterial, provided that we adhere to high quality sources and maintain a neutral point of view. Please do not remove references. - MrX 🖋 18:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem here. Indeed, some of the worst comments, anti-Semitic in nature, haven't been included.[24] Also difficult to argue against notability of the event as it is on the front page of today's NYTimes. O3000 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: - that comment with "THE JEWS" wasn't Kashuv. Some of the news sites were wrong. I too fell for that earlier. It was someone else in the Google Document with red highlighted text. [25] Kashuv's comments are highlighted in grey. starship.paint (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahh. Always pays to be careful. O3000 (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

the fact that you seem to be completely blind to the spirit and intention of WP:BLP does not justify your actions. The notability and sourcing is not my issue. The combination of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE should forbid more than a fleeting mention of this. The guy made a comment in private to a bunch of his friends when they were goofing around late at night. He was still a kid back then, for Christ's sake! But you try to completely define him, by that, making it the larges part of his biography in what may be mankind's most read encyclopedia. WP:BLP wants us to

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
(...)
When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
(...)
For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
(... etc ...)

The totality of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP together alone should forbid any but the most condensed description of this. Certainly does it not tolerate verbatim quotations and similar details. And even though I noted sourcing not to be my primary concern, note many sources quoted also do not meet the threshold for sources established in WP:BLP

And last, beyond WP policies, many of this articles content are questionable in various jurisdiction. Privacy rules for minors, and generally, for instance might in many cases outright forbid redistributing stolen private material, certainly when there is no overarching public interest involved. etc. I really have trouble to implement WP:AGF when looking at the complete picture of this article. Wefa (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well yes, he was 16 when he made these comments. I believe he was also 16 when this article was created about him. Frankly, I still wasn’t certain this article should exist. But now, this is widely reported and on the front page of The New York Times. He put himself in the public arena when he was 16. WP:BLPPUBLIC applies, and, for better or worse, this appears to be a major part of his story as reported by RS. If you think it should be reduced, you can make a proposal. But, I’m not seeing a reason for taking a machete to it. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So your claim is that a few remarks made by a kid in private as attempted humor should define him forever? And that Wikipedia should even fan the fire by including details that are not included in many articles on the subject?

And, no, Kashuv did not put himself into the public arena. A mass murderer did that to him. WP:BLP explicitly makes allowances for that situation. Furthermore, the idea of a public figure is basically that is someone who can defend himself because fame brings the means do so. Claiming something like that for a normal teenager who was a crime victim seems extremely cynic to me. In front of you guy's refusal to even address my arguments I am at my wit's end. This needs to be deleted. Wefa (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

First of all, everyone here is conscientious about our BLP policy so please don't lecture us about it. It doesn't matter if he made the comments in private (he really didn't), because they are public now. Our job is to factually reflect what is reported by reliable sources, in proportion to everything else they report about the subject, without adding our own emotional take. My estimate is that the sources reporting the racial slurs and aftermath out number all of the other sources about Kyle Kashuv by at least two-to-one. Finally, no, a mass murderer did not put him into the public arena (yes, I saw the same Fox interview. Tsk tsk.) He was put into the public arena by his own social media comments that got noticed by the fringe right wing media, who in turn encouraged him to take a more prominent public role. It's documented right there in the article.- MrX 🖋 20:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion now at BLPN. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No BLP violation per PUBLICFIGURE, and also DUE. Kashuv is an activist who has given speeches about gun rights. He thus falls under BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. The incident is well-documented, sources are below. The incident is relevant because he made the remarks, then he criticized Bill Nye for cursing, prompting his classmates to release the remarks to show hypocrisy. The incident is noteworthy due to the world ramifications for him. (1) Shortly after the screenshots were threatened to be posted, he resigned from his organization Turning Point USA. (2) He was forced to make a statement denouncing his own remarks. (3) He lost his place in Harvard University. starship.paint (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The incident is DUE because it fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. This incident caused him to have his first article that was actually focused on him as the main topic (as opposed to a passing mention) on the news agency [26] Reuters, the American [27] Bloomberg, the British [28] BBC News, the American [29] ABC News, the Australian [30] ABC News, and the Canadian [31] Toronto Star. starship.paint (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

First, have to say I agree with others that calling Google Docs 'chat' is misleading. Maybe some use it that way, but its design etc do not with in with what is ordinary meant by the term.

Second, I'm not convinced this is undue at this time. Even if I look at this version for example [32], the word count is 244. The word count of the base shooting and aftermath section is 169. The word count of the whole article including section headings but excluding lead and captions seems to be 810. So it's not clear this is really dominating the article as much as the initial comment seems to suggest. In part it depends on how we've split the article into subsections.

In terms of coverage, it seems there are 2 aspects of this. The first was when it initially blew up. This coincided with his resignation from Turning Point. While it doesn't seem like Turning Point or Kashuv has explicitly commented on a connection, the timing meant plenty of sources did e.g. in our article as well as others [33]. From a wikipedia standpoint, what makes him notable seems to be the activism after the shooting and the attention and support he received for it. So in some ways, the possible effect this had on that namely his resignation is actually the more significant aspect here. Nevertheless, if we look at the history here it looks like it was actually a much more minor issue as reflected in level of coverage in sources and therefore our article [34].

It was the subject's decision to complain about his offer from Harvard being rescinded that seems to have blown this up. It seems likely from the history here that the subject understood and was hoping this would happen. (Whether they are happy with the result, who knows.) The fact that the subject is the one who seems to have intentional blown this up is IMO of minor relevance. (It does put the 16 comments into context. They're 19 now when they've made the decision they did to blow this up. I.E. while the comments which lead to it may have happened when they're 16, the major attention focused on it came from the decisions of a 19 year old.) Of course, they may come to question their decision. And regardless we should always be careful from a BLP standpoint.

We should especially take care since from the sources I've read one of the reasons why this is a big deal is because of the modern US debate surrounding issues like racism (including alleged tolerance of it etc), Ivy league colleges and the people who attend them and how they get in, what should be accepted as youthful "indiscretions" (including the comparisons to other indiscretion which can have negative life long consequences), entitlement culture and 'white privilege' etc. But such debates are mostly beyond the realms of this article so we need to take care we aren't being confused by attention focused on this matter for such reasons. (A loosely related example would be the recent cases surrounding children of wealthy parents doing things considered cheating to get their children admitted.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That's an astute point Nil Einne - that it wasn't Harvard publicizing his rejection, but Kashuv himself. Seems essentially like an approval for us to cover it (not that we need one). starship.paint (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

As they are crucial to an understanding of this event and per WP:NOTCENSORED, I've restored quotes of his exact remarks, as they are DUE, being covered by the New Yorker, BBC News, Buzzfeed News, New York, The Atlantic, The Hill, The Guardian, boston.com, and Le Point. starship.paint (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wefa, you're wrong about several issues.

• Noteworthy for only one or two events and Kashuv did not put himself into the public arena: Doesn't apply. Since the shooting, he's sought publicity and achieved national prominence (outreach director of Turning Point USA, Fox News, Breitbart, photo op at Oval Office, Twitter, speaking at NRA event, publishing Harvard's rejection letter).
• editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime. RS did not accuse him of a crime, and article doesn't claim that they did.
• The guy made a comment in private to a bunch of his friends and Redistributing stolen private material: Aside from the fact that Wikipedia didn't redistribute anything, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he texted and when he wrote or contributed to the Google doc. Depending on the Google docs settings, he might have shared the document with specific people, anyone with the link, or gone public on the web. Even when collaborating only with specific people, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy unless you make them sign a non-disclosure agreement first. Each one of them could share the document with others.
• He was still a kid back then. He was 16 and a half, making racist, sexist, and anti-semitic remarks, "trying to be extreme and shocking."([35]) Not an excuse, especially for someone with the grades and SAT score to be accepted into Harvard, and followed up by a non-apology when he got caught a year and a half later. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

another variant of the "he has it coming" argument. Which is invalid altogether. This whole debate if full of this very argument in constantly changing form.

as for the reasonable expectation of privacy, I'd argue that this question is mostly unsettled and that there are serious experts who disagree with yo. The term in the US is near exclusively used in a criminal law context, as it governs issues like eavesdropping warrants. But nonetheless, I would argue he has the same expectation as he has when talking to his buddies in person. In the revenge porn debate, e..g. we learn that you do not lose legal control of your missives when you send them to a trusted third party. Wefa (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wefa: - do you have any reliable source saying this was stolen private material? If no, please strike or delete "stolen" - it affects the living distributor of the screenshots, I think in a manner involving WP:BLP starship.paint (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I missed that part until now but it's a weird claim. I haven't seen any other sources make similar claims, even those defending Kashuv. Where is 'stolen' coming from? I've even more confused now by the fact that IIRC Wefa was the one that simplified the Google Docs thing into 'chat'. Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Read it somewhere, but can't find it now. I found it self-evident, given that it is private material not meant for publication and it found its way to reporters via a third party not authorized to publish it; but if you challenge the "stolen"m this argument alone would constitute OR and can not be used. So unless i find something, the stolen part should be replaced by a word that meets consensus. How should we call it when someone takes your private writing and publishes it without your consent? Wefa (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn’t take a high IQ to understand that if you put something on the I’Net, you have lost control of it. Colleges now regularly ask applicants to give them their social media ids. That's why there are so many deleted Facebook pages just before high school and college graduations. Harvard obviously does not look at just GPA or SATs. Let’s not try to turn this into another conspiracy theory. He admitted the statements. O3000 (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn’t take a high IQ to understand that if you put your money on the street someone will take and keep it. Nonetheless the act is theft and the taker is a thief. Widespread thuggery doesn't not make it right and we should not condone it. Wefa (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and you haven't answered my actual question. At all. Kinda symptomatic for this debate. Wefa (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

money on the street There is no indication that anyone hacked the document or the text messages. Also, there are several known witnesses (i.e., not anonymous sources), and Kashuv admitted everything. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wefa: I'm not sure if this is really the best example, but if you want to go there..... If person A mentions they just took out $10000 in sequential notes with a the serial numbers listed, and a few years later person B who is their class or school mate shows up with one of those notes, it doesn't mean person B stole that note from person A (whether finding it on the ground of whatever). In fact if it's known that one day person A was trying to show off how rich he is and gave away some of these notes to his class or school mates and we have no idea if person B could have been one of the people who he gave away the notes to, it would be fairly dumb to automatically come to that conclusion. And even if we do find out that person B was not one of those people, we still have no idea whether person B may have been given the note by person C who person A did give the note to, so again we cannot come to the conclusion it must have been stolen. In other words, even if this was a private Google Doc among a select group of friends, and AFAIK it's not even clear how private this Google Doc is, we cannot conclude it was 'stolen' because we have no evidence that the person who revealed it wasn't one of the 'select group of friends'. Even if we do find evidence that the person wasn't on the group of friends with initial access, it's also still easily possible that one of the group of friends who did have access shared it with the person who revealed it. Since this is all coming from class mates and school mates, it's actually fairly foolish to assume it was stolen. (For example, plenty of sexting reshare victims have found to their peril that the material doesn't have to be stolen for a big chunk of the school to have seen it.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: - for what it's worth, Kashuv was interviewed by the New York Times and he said: He did say he had not spent time since the shooting with the students who had shared in the Google Doc chat that included the comments highlighted in the video, in part because of their disagreements over gun control. “We’ve just drifted apart,” he said. “They don’t like my political views.” starship.paint (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

One more agreement with everyone and their brother. We're not here to judge just how wrong Kashuv was or how young he was or how much it should affect his life. We're here to notice that it got truly impressive coverage in impressive sources. If you are worried about it taking an undue part of the article you can expand other parts of it to add more proportion; for example I tried to add a charming little story about a Nebraska prom invitation above, which also got a lot of coverage. --14:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRuban (talk • contribs)

wrong. We are exactly here to decide such things. That is what editing means. Making proper decisions on how to write an article that best describes the subject at hand. Wikipedia is not the sum of all things that are written in the papers. Wefa (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I continue to propose to replace the text of the "racial slurs" section with following:

At the age of 16 Kavhuv had made a number of racist comments in a private cloud document jointly edited by a small group of friends. He later argued they were made late at night for comical shock value. The comments were published years later by someone opposed to his politics. Harvard University revoked Kashuv's acceptance based on that publication.

Wefa (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE to have so little on the incident he is most famous for. Anyway, source for late at night? Source for someome opposed to his politics? starship.paint (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is that you don't like it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC) For the record, the first "someone" was opposed to his hypocrisy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see at least 3 obvious problems with your proposal. One is that not all of the comments were "in a private cloud document". AFAIK, at least one of the comments was in a message the "niggerjock" comment [36].

Two is that "opposed to his politics" seems to be a simplification. I'm not sure if we know who revealed all this material. But I read the comments from at least one of his school or class mates who commented on K's behaviour and they said they were unhappy with the way K was being publicly presented as a "God-fearing, squeaky-clean type" when the claim is made he was known for this stuff. Was this person also unhappy because of opposition to K's politics? Maybe or even probably, but the fact remains it's still an oversimplification to say it's just about "opposed to his politics".

Finally, saying that K's acceptance was revoked based on that publication is also an oversimplification. We know they asked for an accounting and explanation and seemed to appreciate his "candour" and "expression of regret". They seemed to suggest they were mostly interested in his accounting. Even so, we still can't rule out that they felt his "candour" or "expression of regret" weren't sufficient. And especially, we can't rule out that they weren't happy with the way he publicly dealt with this aftermath. I've read at least some sources suggestion that he seemed to make a more wholehearted apology in his previously private letter to Harvard than he did publicly when it blew up. Of course, we also can't rule out that some of the stuff he revealed to them was actually what pushed them into rejecting him. (Since it's OR anyway, I haven't read his letter to see if it reveals anything more he did that wasn't known or confirmed beforehand.)

Ultimately Harvard are never likely to reveal more info about why they made the decision they did, so we have to be careful that we don't oversimplify what they actually said and did.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify I'm not saying we need to go further than we already do [37]. By directly quoting the only thing Harvard really said, and by not saying they did so based on the publication, it's probably good enough. BTW, as an additional point of clarification on my earlier comment, remember it may not simply be about the regret and sincerity behind it which is often difficult to assess, but whether there appears to be a genuine understand of why the behaviour of a problem and the harm it causes. (A very similar issue is something which comes up a lot in unban and unblock discussions here.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wefa - Here's the word count for the rest of the article (outside of the racial comments) before and after I expanded it (488 words versus 1069 words). The racial slurs incident and aftermath is less than 25% of the article now. I have over 50% authorship of the article at this point, with 22 sources added. Meanwhile, what have you done to expand the article? starship.paint (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes Starship.paint and GRuban have what's perhaps the best point of this whole discussion. If you're concerned that a section is too large and so undue but one of the reasons is because the article is very short, often the best solution is to expand the article rather than reduce the section which is too large. It's very difficult to assess whether something is too long anyway when we can't see how it fits within a more complete article. And ultimately, someone needs to do the work so if you are the one concerned it would be good if you are the one who does the work to fill out the article to show that even when with expansion there may still be concerns however you are fortunate that Starship.paint has done the work and frankly I see even less reason to think the section is undue now. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm done with expanding the article. Outside of the racial comments, it went from 488 words to 1302 words. The racial comments section is now less than 20% of the article. starship.paint (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I've seen it. I'm not sure I'm happy with it, for a number of reasons, but I do recognize the change, and the effort that went into it. Wefa (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A WP:DUE challenge

I assert that the racial slur incident and its aftermath is the incident for which Kashuv has the most coverage in reliable sources in which he is a main subject of the article, thus it is WP:DUE its current weight. So here's a challenge. Find an incident where there is even more coverage of Kashuv in reliable sources in which he is a main subject of the article. By doing this, we may be able to expand the article more and the racial incident will have less weight anyway. Let us proceed! starship.paint (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources with main subject Kashuv for racial slur incident plus aftermath

Reuters Associated Press New York Times USA Today Wall Street Journal Washington Post Fox News CBS NBC American Broadcasting Company CNN MSNBC Bloomberg The Atlantic The Hill boston.com Univision (Spanish language) Telemundo (Spanish language) El Nuevo Día (Spanish language for Puerto Rico) Azteca América (Spanish language) BBC News (British company) The Guardian (British company) Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australian company) Toronto Star (Canadian company) Times of Israel (Israeli company) Le Point (French company, French language) Tencent QQ (Chinese company, Chinese language) O Globo (Brazilian company, Portuguese language) Detik (Indonesian company, Indonesian language) MoneyToday (Korean company, Korean language)

Oh, and by the way, I think most articles on the Parkland shooting itself would not qualify as having Kashuv as the main subject. There are many people of a more important role than Kashuv in the shooting incident. (1) the shooter, (2) the dead, (3) the wounded, (4) those who saved lives, (5) Scot Peterson, (6) those who caught the shooter. (7) those who committed suicide later on as a result of the shooting. starship.paint (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

- MrX 🖋 15:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think many people would seriously dispute that. Prior to this incident Kashuv's profile was fairly limited - he was one of a number of Parkland students who developed a profile as an activist (and probably not even the highest profile of those). However the amount of press coverage he has received in relation to the social media posts effectively dwarfs his former profile. Front page of the New York Times is hard to beat. It's obviously a sad incident, but to me it seems fairly clear that it is the most significant feature of this article now.

If you want to skin the cat the a different way, if you look at various social media portals for threads relating to Kashuv, they are overwhelmingly dominated by recent events (eg., see: https://www.quora.com/topic/Kyle-Kashuv). That may change again in the future, but here and now it is unfortunately what the article subject is best known for.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 16:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd seriously dispute that. This is the tail wagging the dog. Does anyone argue that there would be any front page coverage if Kashuv weren't already known? Or does anyone claim that there is otherwise a shortage of racist comments from teenagers? We had an article on him before this. Clearly the thing that made him known is his activism. Then, as a known activist, he got a moment of infamy. Since he would be notable for the activism without the infamy, but would not be notable for the infamy without the activism, clearly the weight of the infamy should be less than that of the activism. Saying otherwise is like saying that Lewinsky should take up most of the Bill Clinton article. That said, it can certainly be a prominent part, but not most of the article. --GRuban (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly I never thought he was notable before this. But if there's an article about him -- it must include the focus of RS. O3000 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Weasel

@MrX: perhaps I wasn't clear but the WaPo source [38] that supports the content while others have praised the decision. actually states praise from others who maintained admission to the elite school is a privilege that can and should be revoked if it appears not to be deserved. which is not attributed to anyone and doesn't deserve any weight (it is the random newspaper quote editorializing that is the reason WP:NOTNEWS exists). The article wording very clearly violated WP:WEASEL. I removed the entire paragraph because it would be too short (unless Shapiro's quote was included, but you called it "rant du jour"; isn't the unattributed "praise" also "rant du jour"?) wumbolo ^^^ 22:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would "praised by other" need to be attributed? It's a general statement. Are you disputing that others actually did praise the decision? A simple Google news search would resolve that. In any case, I don't really care if we leave reactions out of this. I'm firmly opposed to including any opinions of Ben Shapiro.- MrX 🖋 01:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of racial slurs and revocation of Harvard admission in lead

The lead of the article has, for some time, mentioned that Kashuv's admission to Harvard was rescinded when his repeated use of racial slurs (the n-word, etc) came to light. The sentence was removed in this edit by User:Jmchugh131, with an edit summary saying: "not notable enough to be up here". I restored the material on grounds that it met WP:LEAD criteria, and the material was then removed again by User:Mr Ernie with an edit summary arguing that the material was "undue for the lead."

Wikipedia guidelines state that a lead section should "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies... the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" (emphasis mine).

Kashuv's use of racial slurs and the revocation of his Harvard admission are prominent parts of his biography, as determined by their coverage in reliable sources. By omitting mention of this incident, the lead fails to provide a complete overview of the topic, and fails to mirror the emphases of reliable sources. The fact that the material in question is "controversial" is no reason to exclude it—in fact Wikipedia guidelines specifically mandate the inclusion of relevant controversies in article leads.

I'm opening a discussion to understand why this material is being excluded from the lead. In my view, its inclusion is consistent with site guidelines, and its exclusion violates those guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There is an overemphasis on that material that we ought to revisit. Kashuv was a teenager when he made those remarks and apologized for them - there is no need to devote so much of the article to mistakes a child makes, no matter how egregious. The topic hit the news cycle hard, but the lack of any enduring coverage informs us we don't need to devote more to it, per BLP. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)