Talk:Joe Kent/Archive 1

Claim about Fauci a potential "charge" and "gene therapy"
Starting here due to a revert/restore cycle with 128.194.2.157: The Mother Jones source,, links to which, although opinion, is generally seen as reliable for direct or near direct quotes has:. As of for the gene therapy quote, it's also in multiple straight news reports such as. I am going to restore the paragraph again and will add additional sourcing. Please discuss here before removing again. Thanks. Skynxnex (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Best lede: “America first”, "Republican", "far-right ", "american candidate"

 * "America First" -- TC is self described and described by media as "America First" candiate
 * "Republican" -- TC is endorsed by and receives major contributions from the republican party (state & national)
 * "far Right" -- TC has made some statements vis-a-vis covid-19 mRNA vaccine and quoted someone called a "white supremacist" . (see User:Fred Zepelin's notes and wider discussion above
 * "american candidate" -- generic term ads little value

Please comment below on which lede is most informative and rigorously cited.

I vote for either "america first" or "republican" Tonymetz (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Republican because Joe Kent has never held public office (even at the state or municipal level) but identifies as a member of the Republican Party. There are other politicians, such as Lauren Boebert (read the lead of her article) whose views are described as far-right but are themselves not described as far-right. I support doing the same for Kent, where his political views are described as far-right, but he is described as something along the lines of "American political candidate from the Republican Party." JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fred Zepelin exactly one? Tonymetz (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@User:Fred Zepelin @User:JohnAdams1800

@Ser! ”america first” is a movement like “Tea Party”– not an “advertising claim”. The source was cited and the Wikipedia page for the movement was linked Tonymetz (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think "America First" is much too vague of a label. It's been used as a tagline by Trump-endorsed and affiliated candidates, but just implies that others are putting America... second? Either way, I'm in favour of either far-right (if there's enough sources calling him as thus to have it there) or Republican (if this isn't the case; we can still cover his beliefs in the body of the article or even have it in a separate sentence in the lede if it's due that weight). ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * America First (trump) is well defined in contemporary politics ie. Trumpist, populist, protectionist, anti-immigration etc . In this case it's also the candidates overt affiliation in references.
 * All political movements suffer from clumsy terminology, including "democrats", "republicans", "tea party", "libertarians", "liberalism". Tonymetz (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * From The Guardian: Gluesenkamp Perez’s win over Trump-backed far-right candidate Joe Kent Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Olympian: Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez defeated far-right Republican Joe Kent Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * From University of Virginia Center for Politics, a non-partisan reliable source: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D, WA-3) to narrowly win the seat over far-right candidate Joe Kent (R) Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Far-right because, quite simply, there are reliable sources that describe him as far-right, and there are even more reliable sources that detail how many far-right positions he's endorsed and how many far-right figures he's endorsed and is closely tied to. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since we're beating a dead horse, what if we take a few days to invest in making the article more complete and contemporary, to the benefit of wikipedia and voter education. Then reconvene to decide on the lede?
 * I added some parts to 2024 campaign. I'd like to learn how to improve the quality bar of a biography as well. we could do a better job making TC's platform more complete.
 * That will also help us all stay true to being neutral Tonymetz (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but when I see an account that was created in 2018, had 6 edits, went dormant for 6 years, and then resurrects itself out of the blue in 2024 and immediately posts on the BLP noticeboard with a remarkable depth of knowledge of BLP policy, my eyebrow goes up. Way up. I don't know if this is COI, or a sock account, but there is no way in hell this account posted all that 10 edits into their Wikipedia career and everything's kosher. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure what can I do to set you at ease? the BLP policy is at the top of every Biography. Tonymetz (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When I look at your talk page, I notice a record of hounding and personal  attacks . So let's try to keep this on topic Tonymetz (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, Tonymetz, you don't seem like a rookie editor. You are already familiar with several policy pages. Have you been editing under another name, or spend some time as a lurker?Dimadick (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * can we keep it on topic, or try to share how it's relevant. if you want to ask personal questions that's fine let's move to talk page. I'm really trying to drive a convo here. Tonymetz 💬  02:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * a couple things. (a) here's more context my talk page (b) can you tag me on personal attacks? (or help me fix the replies not showing push notifs)? Tonymetz (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * also (c) what do you think of helping to improve the page? Tonymetz (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fred Zepelin there is not "exactly one" against. there are three accounts on this page @JohnAdams1800, @Burabshurab and me Tonymetz (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ser! @Woodroar @Fred Zepelin any interest in collaborating on a cleanup project? i'm thinking we can make this page more complete and improve mutual understanding beyond "far right" Tonymetz (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how much help I'll be, since I'd never heard of the subject until you mentioned this article at BLPN. But I'm always willing to try, sure. Woodroar (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * cc: @User:Burabshurab & @JohnAdams1800 maybe we can all divide and conquer. some areas e.g.
 * 1. expanding personal info esp Special forces & military
 * 2. expanding platform to be more complete
 * 3. more relevant stuff -- most of it is from 2022
 * 4. (i may need guidance) how to officially improve the standard up the chain e.g. stub --> C,b,A etc . are there tools?
 * sources: there's probably tons of stuff out there on twitter that will link to the proper citations
 * overall goal is to make it a viable voter resource for 2024 Tonymetz (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks i like the enthusiasm. Tonymetz (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I expanded "political views" to make it more complete. I'm hoping if we raise the bar overall it won't come off as so skewed. Tonymetz 💬  05:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Far-right. This appears to be the term preferred by reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Far-right Since the sources use the term, we use it as well. Though we do have to explain his political positions in a more verbose style. I notice that Kent is a self-described populist, so I would expect that he talks a lot about his opposition to elites. Dimadick (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * sure so is the issue that we haven't collected a fair balance of source e.g. "maga", "america first" etc? I don't think editors have been neutral because "far right" is a "win" . so maybe that's where we invest time Tonymetz 💬  02:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're looking at this in terms of "win" and "lose", Wikipedia is not the place for you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * editors who are loading articles with cliche's like "far right", "conspiracy theory" seem to be vying for a "win" -- otherwise they would be improving article quality more uniformly. are those the wikipedians you are urging to leave? Tonymetz  💬  01:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Be specific. Rather than saying "editors who are loading articles", name the editors and provide diffs that support your contention. If you can't do that, it's a good sign that you should WP:DROPTHESTICK. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My goal in this subthread is rallying support to make this article more complete. Tonymetz 💬  16:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So, apparently you can't do that. So, again, WP:DROPTHESTICK. For my part, my participation in this now dead-end thread is over. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Far-right seems appropriate. DN (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)