Talk:Josh Kraft

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.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

United States: Massachusetts / Boston Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston.

A section relating to Kraft's 2025 Boston mayoral campaign has been repeatedly deleted for spurious reasons without any discussion, and despite the deletions affecting the entire section, the alleged reasons only relate to individual elements. I strongly believe that members of Kraft's campaign or a public relations team hired by them is attempting to scrub any negative commentary about him, and recommend that the page be locked against further vandalism and deletions. Danrose909 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Removal of the content is justified per WP:BLPREMOVE. Most of the third paragraph under the mayoral campaign section and the text under the photos were poorly sourced (unsourced on one photo) to Reddit. The source on the photo's text (NBC Boston article) makes no mention of Kraft or any connection to the incident mentioned in the article. This and the way Reddit was used is synthesis and original research (see WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH). The only part that might be ok is the last sentence of the paragraph, sourced to a site called Universal Hub, it seems to be a hyperlocal crowdsourcing news blog and sounds similar to Nextdoor. However, it seems like a marginal source at best so better sources should be used for that part of the text (which is even more important as it's a BLP article).

BLP articles require high-quality reliable sources and following stringent guidelines. Additionally, your reason (diff) to revert does not accurately represent the issue. Reddit is used not only in one photo but on the paragraph mentioning Kraft's stance on traffic. "The photo itself authenticates the description" is SYNTH and said description is OR. Reliable sources have to make the connection, editors can't make these interpretations or conclusions ourselves.

Also, assume good faith of other editors, we are trying to apply policies to keep articles as well-sourced and reliable/verifiable as possible and do so as a group effort. So implications that editors are removing the text because we are biased, work for somebody or are vandals is not constructive. The paragraph and photos with the description should be removed due to the reasons I've listed. SlackingViceroy (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I assume good faith of other editors, but when an entire section relating to a current news event is repeatedly deleted without comment or mention on the talk page, one has to question. Thank you for engaging in discussion here, this time.

As for the three citations that were removed, I fail to see why photos qualify as SYNTH: they do not "combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Instead, the photos are described and cited for explicitly what they include: photos of trucks bearing a campaign advertisement regarding traffic mitigation, parked in no-parking zones. Nonetheless, in a good faith effort to address your discussion provided here, I've restored them with explicit description of the photos' contents and nothing that could be considered SYNTH: there are no conclusions included, merely the description of the contents of the photo.

And thank you for identifying the last sentence regarding Kraft's own remarks as okay. To further bolster the paragraph, I've provided a second quotation and source from the Boston Herald, a major metropolitan newspaper.

Please let me know here if you have further concerns before merely deleting the section. Danrose909 (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Do not restore the photos and text that cites Reddit. Reddit is not a reliable source and the text can be considered contentious atop of that, which is not appropriate for a BLP article. See WP:RSREDDIT. The text on the photos do make claims either not sourced at all or sourced to reddit, which is again not a reliable source. And the NBC Boston article again makes no mention or connection to Kraft so adding it is synthesis. Those portions should not be included at all at the absolute minimum. SlackingViceroy (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Danrose909 I've reverted your additions. Reddit is not a reliable source, without wider coverage this is WP:UNDUE, and per this snippet from one of your edit summaries "The photo itself authenticates the description." that is WP:OR and is not allowed.

"Please let me know here if you have further concerns before merely deleting the section." – You've got things backwards, WP:ONUS requires you reach consensus for inclusion, not for others to reach consensus for exclusion. Continued attempts to restore this content without reaching consensus constitutes edit warring and may lead to a block or other editing restrictions. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, in deleting citations to Reddit, you also deleted separate citations to local newspapers. I agree with you that such edit warring, such as blindly deleting any content critical of a politician, should lead to a block. While I've left the photos out in good faith due to the ongoing discussion, I've restored the additional material you deleted. Please be more careful. Danrose909 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edit which added undue information, that is all. It is not my burden to surgically extract the good from bad in this case. You cannot expect to dump a bushel of apples, half spoiled half not, into other editors' laps (for the third time in a row) and ask that they sort them.

I have merged information which the most recent edit repeated, and made edits for concision and accuracy, the diff is here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BABY, "too much trouble to fish out of other edits" is never a reasonable revert rationale, unless the other edits were also demonstrably problematic. An editor with an eye to reverting has a responsibility to make sure the baby is not in the bathwater." To make this less onerous for you though, in the future, I'll endeavor to separate edits into smaller pieces. Thank you for your contributions here. Danrose909 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism and bias

Related Articles