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)

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)