This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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]
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]
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]
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.
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 2022DN (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"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.
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 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
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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"
@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]
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]
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)
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)