Talk:Joe Kent

Good Article Status

After review, I am satisfied the article meets the Good Article criteria. I'd encourage other editors to continue finding some further illustrations for this page, and as a reminder that I'm sure you're already aware of, they don't need to contain Mr. Kent himself.

Thank you @ElijahPepe for your work on the article and the review, and to all other editors who have contributed here; I appreciate how hard it can be to create encyclopedic entries on US political figures that meet WP:NPOV, and I think this one does an excellent job of meeting the tone and maintaining the quality standards required for biographies of living persons. Best, Kwkintegrator (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The lead still fails to summarize anything from the "Domestic issues" section which ignores MOS:LEADFOLLOWSBODY after this edit was made which I pointed out months ago in a talk page discussion (Rewrite of the article omitting mention of Far Right, white nationalism and espoused conspiracy theories) that was left dormant. Kent is characterized as far-right, and has NOT changed his position to my knowledge. I suppose I should go ahead and add an NPOV banner unless someone wants to fix it. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

"Far-right" is a heavy designation that requires a volume of reliable sources, but that wasn't removed. I did add the campaign allegations to the lede just now, since it marred his campaign, but the article should not be quick to assign labels without said volume. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that section is only due for the body and deserves no mention in the lede because it's too "heavy"? DN (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the lede in specific, but I can discuss that decision as well. I usually don't mention views in the lede because it isn't easy to integrate and often times there isn't much to say. It doesn't violate neutrality to omit it from the lede, and that wasn't my intent; I just don't include it in most, if not all, of my rewrites. I wouldn't oppose including it so long as the content is exactly what the body is covering. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose something here, to this effect...I'll try to make it brief and to the point.

He became involved in political advocacy after Shannon's death.

Spokesmen for Kent described his political philosophy as "inclusive populism". His political views were also characterized as far-right after advocating conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and COVID vaccine. In 2022, Kent was the Republican nominee for Washington's third congressional district.

Does this seem neutral and accurate enough? DN (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

If there's one place to insert his views, it would probably be in that third paragraph. "Inclusive populism" doesn't quite describe Kent's views. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Promotional self-labels shouldn't be uncritically cited at all. Jollyrime (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The lead tends require us to leave out citations, which are in the body, per WP:MOS. DN (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I am looking for clarification. “Kent has embraced the lie that Trump won the 2020 presidential election.” This seems to be unscholarly even politically biased. Not because the claim is true/untrue, but because the linked reference doesn’t seem to provide evidence that Kent believed otherwise. A “lie” requires that the speaker doesn’t believe the claim is true. It is why the word ‘lie’ carries so much emotional weight; it refers to someone who intends to deceive, yes?

I can’t be certain, because the reference is behind a paywall; thus, I am not being rhetorical here. I am legitimately not sure if the claim is properly supported that he didn’t believe the information. However, then in this case the in the current construction, the claim is actually being called a ‘lie’ and Joe Kent’s perception is implied but not explicitly stated as a lie. This seems unscholarly too. It needs to be clear if in the article Joe Kent is being accused of lying or of being deceived. Furthermore, if Joe Kent is not being identified as lying, then whoever is proven to have made the claim without sincere belief needs to be identified and citation given proving it was believed false at the time that person or group made the claim, yes? MaesterGandalf (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The quote from the Times is, "Mr. Kent has heartily embraced the lie that Mr. Trump won the 2020 election and has said that the former president bears no responsibility for the attack." The way I have always referenced to this subject—the way that it was referred to in the GA reviewed version—is "false claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election". I specifically wrote that he "adhered to" those claims because the source was unclear. I don't know why it was changed to begin with. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

In regard to their most recent revert to the lead, I think Jollyrime may wish to join this discussion topic here. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I support the accusations being mentioned With that in mind: white supremacists such as Nick Fuentes or far-militas such as the Proud Boys should not be used for claims of association or support or absolutely anything else.

The claims could very well be true, but do we have a news agency that's half reliable verifying any of this stuff, or just what Fuentes or the Proud Boys have claimed? Jollyrime (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

If you can find one - I won't object. Best, Jollyrime (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

As Kent is in the political arena, his political views and advocation of far-right conspiracies have already been reliably sourced. See my proposals above. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that Kent rejects liberal democracy (which is usually meant by far-right)? We don't have to quote sources uncritically, but American news agencies usually use "right-wing" rather than "far-right" to describe people who have beliefs analogous to the Freedom Caucus, which seems to me where he'd roughly be placed in ideologically. Jollyrime (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at the "Domestic issues" sub-section in the article. Now that Kent is in the news again there may be some new traffic and debate over this longstanding content. A prevalence of sources in the body described his rhetoric as far-right and referred to espousal of conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and COVID vaccine in his statements. DN (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Mainstream Republicans hold identical positions to all of those questions. Most of them believe the 2020 election was stolen and express some measure of distrust in COVID vaccines. I've seen news agencies use "conservative" or "right-wing" far more than "far-right". Jollyrime (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps not for Wikipedia but I think the guy is a nut btw.

Just not our place to say it imo. Jollyrime (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think his views are too exceptional or usual for modern Republicans to be singled out like this... maybe if this was the 90s. Jollyrime (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, these arguments seem similar to WP:OTHERSTUFF (correction) WP:COMPARE. This article is supposed to be rated GA, and as such, should meet certain standards to maintain that rating. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

NPOV Lead

Jollyrime, I'm starting a new thread here before adding a tag to the lead to get more eyes on this. The issue is that the lead seems fairly devoid of certain context that takes up a sizeable percentage the body, namely from the "Political positions" section and "Career" section. See WP:LEADFOLLOWS, Elijah and I are trying to remedy this, but you have reverted without much follow-up. Do you have any proposals on how we may come to a consensus? Cheers. DN (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Since there is no response or willingness to discuss I'm adding the NPOV tag. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see the notification, sorry about that.

What do you favor including? Jollyrime (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The Lead should include brief but comprehensive summarization from the "Political Views" section. I have made a suggestion (see above and Elijah's first attempt here. Would you care to propose an example to resolve this? Cheers. DN (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think see enough to tie Kent to it from WP: RS. It wouldn't surprise me if more substantial ties do exist, but this is fundamentally a different situation from something like James Fishback. (Who has leaned into it.) Its fast fading from the headlines makes me worried; it's a WP: BLP page. Jollyrime (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems you haven't read the article, or at least roughly 20%+ of the body of the article which speaks extensively about his political views. "Leaning into it" and WP:HEADLINES has little to do with making and retaining WP:GA status, yet you see fit to remove proper summarization from the lead or offer a solution. DN (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

As far as Fishback....again SEE WP:COMPARE, and realize why that argument carries little to no weight at all... DN (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Also SEE WP:WELLKNOWN...I have decided to go another route with this since you seem to just repeat the same warrantless excuses. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi DN.

We've had a good relationship in the past, so I hope you don't see it as an attack on you. ("Since you seem to just repeat the same warrantless excuses".) I have read those parts of the article, but I don't think that it would be WP:DUE to associate him with white nationalism in the lead. I'm not objecting to it under WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

I'm supportive of others stating their opinion, if need be.

I just used Fishback as an illustrative example on how I'm perfectly okay with including associations with white nationalism on pages if the WP:RS's roll that way. Far-right organizations would be fine by me, since the associations were not just limited to white nationalist.

Far-right would be okay. Sound good with you? Jollyrime (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I was frustrated and I apologize for being bitey, I truly do wish to find some agreement on consensus on this and not just slap far-right in there without any context. DN (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I certainly hope my edits aren't deemed "antisemitic," which they were not intended be

Trump is a controversial figure and I don't trust him.MyGosh789 (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Political views (as of April 2026)

A notable portion of our article mentions his political views, as do the recent citations below... Yet our LEAD makes no effort to mention his views past or present, aside from his resignation as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, but only citing "disagreement". Kent is a very public figure and political contender ie WP:WELLKNOWN. From here, this goes to NPOVN...I will post a link and get it started unless we can resolve this here. Cheers.

BBC 3-17-26

NYT 3-17-26

AP 3-17-26

The Guardian 3-21-26

CNBC 3-17-26

CNN 3-17-26

CBS News 3-18-26

USA Today 3-17-26

WaPo 3-22-26

Politico 3-17-26

The Hill 3-17-26

Mother Jones 4-3-26 DN (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Section on "Political Positions"

"Kent has been described as far-right." "Has been described?" What a nonsense topic sentence. Wikipedia's relentless lack of neutrality is once again betrayed. How about this sentence for the Trump bio article: "Donald Trump has been described as the second coming of Christ." ~2026-21777-12 (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Ask yourself if mainstream reliable sources describe Trump that way, then perhaps it will make more sense to you. DN (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect information

It says he defeated Beutler in the Republican primary. Washington however has a general top-two primary (irrespective of party). Tried to correct this but the page is locked to prevent vandalism ~2026-21892-61 (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I reworded it, you are correct. -- M.boli (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)