This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kyle Kashuv article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 sourced must 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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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)
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)
Does anyone actually feel this 15 minutes article shouldn't be merged? If so, why? O3000 ( talk) 13:28, 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)
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.- Mr X 🖋 22:22, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
@ 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)
Daily Caller is considered a reliable source. End of (that) discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:28, 4 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)
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)
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].- Mr X 🖋 11:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
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.- Mr X 🖋 18:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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.
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
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)
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)
@ 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 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 plenty of reliable sources on this topic now. starship .paint ( talk) 02:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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 ...)
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.)
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)
Noteworthy for only one or two eventsand
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 friendsand
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)
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)
money on the streetThere 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)
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)
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)
late at night?Source for
someome opposed to his politics? starship .paint ( talk) 00:18, 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)
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)
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
|
---|
|
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: 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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kyle Kashuv article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 sourced must 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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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)
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)
Does anyone actually feel this 15 minutes article shouldn't be merged? If so, why? O3000 ( talk) 13:28, 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)
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.- Mr X 🖋 22:22, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
@ 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)
Daily Caller is considered a reliable source. End of (that) discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:28, 4 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)
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)
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].- Mr X 🖋 11:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
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.- Mr X 🖋 18:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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.
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
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)
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)
@ 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 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 plenty of reliable sources on this topic now. starship .paint ( talk) 02:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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 ...)
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.)
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)
Noteworthy for only one or two eventsand
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 friendsand
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)
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)
money on the streetThere 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)
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)
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)
late at night?Source for
someome opposed to his politics? starship .paint ( talk) 00:18, 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)
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)
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
|
---|
|
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: 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)
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)