Talk:Jason Kessler

Notable
Before we just go around unilaterally deleting articles, why don't we have a discussion about it? Given the fact that this man is the main organizer of a rally that the media has been talking about non-stop for the entire week, I think it is notable, he has a questionable past. I was originally going to include this in the Unite the right page, but there was an objection which made sense to me since the article is long enough already--Rusf10 (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. We could've done this the easy way but you insisted on this. – Mub*oshgu (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen the links pointed out by and I cannot find a cogent argument that applies in this particular case. User Muboshgu seems to use an angry and aggressive tone. What is meant by "We could've done this the easy way but you insisted on this."? It would be useful to calm down and explain your rationale a little more clearly. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not angry, but I doubt you've considered either link I provided. GNG discusses the need for significant coverage over time to make an article. BLP1E says not to make an article for a person when the coverage is only in the context of one event. There are borderline cases, but this is far from it. Both policies clearly demonstrate that this should not be a standalone article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The first clue to your anger is that you doubt I've considered either link you provided. If you doubt my good faith then that indicates to me that you are in an altered state of mind. As I explained to you, I cannot find a cogent argument that applies in this particular case. My browser links for WP:BLP1E to the bottom of the BLP page. I cannot see a cogent argument there. Can you drag+drop the text that you feel applies into this AfD discussion so that everyone is (so to speak) on the same page, please? Thanks in advance. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not copy pasting from that page. That's not appropriate. It's all right there at the links. WP:BLP1E goes straight to the relevant section of that page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I told you that my browser links for WP:BLP1E to rubbish. I am puzzled that you have not taken up my good faith invitation to examine here and now the text that you feel applies to this case so that we and the wider community might come to consensus on this issue. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You should fix your browser then. I don't think it's appropriate, and im on my phone so formatting is lost, but here it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like "the easy way" was the wrong way. Try to exercise some restraint next time.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're gloating, may I suggest you not do that. It's quite petty. My nomination was perfectly valid and all of the initial voters agreed with me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not gloating, you missed the point. It was not the nomination that I objected to, I don't mind having a debate about these things. It was your attitude that you knew better than me to begin with and were bothered that I questioned your inappropriate blanking of the page. Next time, just go though the proper process to begin with.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals. In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.
 * 1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
 * 2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
 * 3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
 * Thank you very much, . Now I can see your point. If we ignore the SPLC, everything goes away and humpty dumpty sat on a wall. Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree let me show you how each of these three condition are met:


 * 1) He was covered more than just the one event, the one source about his assault charge I used was written back in April (I just corrected the date), long before the rally happened.
 * 2) Being that he organized a massive rally, I don't think his intention is to keep a low-profile.
 * 3) The event he is known for is certainly significant and his role in the event as the organizer was certainly substantial (and well-documented)--Rusf10 (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reposting from the AfD page:


 * Except his assault charge was a local one. Not a national one. Remove that charge from the equation, and it still boils down to the same point: he is only nationally notable for the rally. Nothing else. If he starts getting national attention for events other than the rally (a la George Zimmerman), then it can be argued he deserves his own page. Booyahhayoob (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Past Twitter post NOT fake news
The Southern Poverty Law Center which is actually a left-wing group was the first to report that Kessler previously supported left-wing causes and Obama. That's the the article I already linked.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Block quotes
This is regarding this and this revert.

I do not see any benefit to using full-paragraph quotes for one or two sentences. The point of an encyclopedia article is to summarize sources, and nothing in these quotes seems ambiguous enough to need this level of detail. Kessler's claims about white genocide can be more fully explained in white genocide conspiracy theory, so using his own words in place of the wikilink provides a longer platform for him to speak, but provides less context and fewer resources for readers.

It's also idiosyncratic enough to be a distraction. Articles typically do not use this formatting style for very short quotes, because it breaks the flow of the article every time a quote is included. There is nothing wrong with including a quote as part of a longer paragraph. If this content were contentious enough to need quotes (which I don't really see) we should be able to explain why, which would probably mean more than just a direct quote anyway. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The cquotes (not blockquotes) are meant in concert with the sequential nature of the text to report precisely what was said, by whom, and when. Precision, not interpolation, is key to coherent explanation. Spem Reduxit (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Callout quotes
I don't believe that they are needed; pls see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The cquotes (not blockquotes) are meant in concert with the sequential nature of the text to report precisely what was said, by whom, and when. Precision, not interpolation, is key to coherent explanation. We don't want readers to be forced to go to the sources and perhaps to discover that an editor misrepresented things. NPOV would seem to indicate in this case that we adhere as closely as possible to quotation. If Kessler seems to be off-kilter, so be it. It is better to let him hang himself with his own words than to use ad hominem arguments and tactics, which I personally find repulsive. Spem Reduxit (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses summary style, so paraphrasing and in-line attribution is preferable IMO. If ppl want to see "precisely what was said, by whom, and when", they can look up the sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Quotes also risk false precision, as well. Nothing is said in a vacuum, and any non-trivial quote will be changed by surrounding context. It is Wikipedia editors who decide which quotes go in, and where, and this is a potential form of editorial bias. Summaries are at least more honest in that they use Wikipedia's voice instead of 'borrowing' someone else's from an unknown context. Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor stating he is Kessler at BLPN
See WP:BLPN#Jason Kessler. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2018
New information about Jason Kesler surfaced in August 2017. According to the reporter who published this newspaper article many of his old friends say Jason Kesler was, up until 2016, a staunch left wing activist and an Obama supporter who participated in Occupy Wallstreet. If this is true then his new Unite the Right movement is a radical departure from his past, so radical that it seems a little fishy especially when so many of his old friends recall how strong he was about his left wing beliefs. One explanation given is that Jason became disillusioned with the left, partly because he was not liked by the Occupy Wallstreet crowd. Another possibility is that Jason Kesler is actually still a left wing activist, but this time in disguise, inciting Unite the Right in order to create a backlash against President Trump, by political association. If this is true one would have to also conclude that he is not very effective especially given that he could only muster 21 recruits to his most recent rally in August 2018. Wikipedia does not claim to know the whole truth about Jason Kesler, but provides all sides to the story so the reader can decide for themselves what they want to believe about Jason Kesler's radical behavior. Chris (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated description and unwarranted reversion.
The opening paragraph about Kessler identifies him has a white supremacist and a neonazi. However, the linked references do not in any way establish this (other than possibly reference 6 which is behind a paywall and I did not review). The referenced media links do describe him using these terms (except for reference 1 which describes him as a white nationalist, a distinct category from white supremacist) but not specifically citing any evidence for these labels. Finding some media reference that happens to use the title does not establish credible evidence about a person’s ideology. At best it is evidence that there may be a common perception of the person holding these ideologies.

Kessler in interviews denies holding white nationalist, white supremacist, or neo-Nazi ideologies. While not specifically in the descriptor, I could easily find evidence that Kessler is a racist, and that he associates with white nationalists, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis. But words matter and simply assigning these views to him is sloppy work and not justifiable.

My edit retained the relevant fact that Kessler associates with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. I simply omitted the unsubstantiated claim that these were his own ideologies. The edit was reverted with the justification that my views were not relevant. I submit that accuracy is relevant and that the paragraph as it stands now is not accurate and is sloppily documented. It needs to be revised to maintain the integrity of the article. Ignatios2000 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "unsubstantiated" must be different from mine.You want that stuff removed? Get a consensus of editors on this page to agree to it.  Other then that, they're staying in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * great discussion As I am an editor on this page, there isn't a consensus. so I guess that standard ahould apply to the paragraph as it is now written. So what is your definition of unsubstatiated?  it appears to be finding some random media references that use the descriptor without support.  Care to make a cogent defense for keeping them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatios2000 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Have a good look at WP:CONSENSUS. Your desired edit is what requires -- and currently lacks -- consensus.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, there is no support to call him a white supremacist and there is only a little support for him being a Neo-nazi (his collaboration with neo-nazis). Kessler denies these labels and the sources simply throw these labels on him without substantiation. Substantiate is defined as "to provide evidence to support or prove the truth of", however, the sources give no evidence. In fact, the Neo-nazi he hangs out with in one source is a black-advocate according to his platform. I think this article should be edited to state instead that he associates with racists, or actual evidence of his being a racist should be provided. 2603:9000:B90F:DC00:3D98:1321:2E46:60B5 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * We go by what our sources say, we don't look for evidence ourselves. And people like about themselves all the time. Doug Weller  talk 16:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Photo caption
The main photo caption strikes me as seriously WP:UNDUE in referencing the MAGA hat. It looks like an attempt to link this individual to Donald Trump. The photo might be kosher, but I don't think the caption is. I'm INVOLVED as an admin having just protected the page so I can't remove it. But I really think the MAGA reference needs to go. I am not seeing anything in the article linking this individual with Trump. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)