Talk:Kash Patel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC: Whether to call Kash Patel a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per our policies and guidelines, the determination of WP:CON is WP:NOTAVOTE. There is less than unanimity in this discussion. When this is the case, our policies and guidelines require the closer to close based on whichever argument is supported by "the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians" after first discarding arguments "that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" (see: WP:NHC).

A preliminary pulse check reveals that, in broad strokes, 51 editors oppose the RfC and 18 support it. A very small handful of editors expressed alternate opinions that did not easily fit into either camp.

To determine the view of "responsible" Wikipedians I first conducted a census of which Wikipedians in this discussion were "responsible". To apply this term, I eliminated any Wikipedian topic banned on this subject, as well as obvious WP:SPAs. I, next, began the process of discarding !votes that are "based on personal opinion only" by eliminating all WP:VAGUEWAVEs, as well as any !votes invoking wording or phrases indicative of personal preference, or which made no attempt to invoke even a glancing reference to our policies or guidelines. In all of this I applied a significant amount of leeway, and even the hint of a reference to policy was considered valid (e.g. Black Kite did not specifically invoke WP:WIKIVOICE but I could more or less infer that was the argument being made). This census resulted in the following adjusted totals: 34 Oppose, 18 Support.

Next, I began the process of discarding !votes that were based on such an obvious misunderstanding of policies and guidelines that no one would reasonably expect an editor to even bother arguing against it. This process resulted in no adjustment to the totals.

In general terms, the Oppose camp cited WP:NPOV by reference to our essay WP:ACTIVISM. This was well-rebutted by the Support camp through arguments such as XOR'easter who invoked WP:NOTCENSORED, and others who note a preponderance of WP:RS using the term in question. The Oppose camp also cited our style guideline MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Many of the Oppose camp did not object to including this term somewhere in the article, they objected merely to its inclusion in the first sentence. Others in the Oppose camp cited MOS:LABEL and WP:BLP, as in the case of Jr8825 who said that BLPs should be conservatively written and putting this term in the first sentence, where it might be otherwise appropriate elsewhere, would be a bit much.

The Support side repeatedly noted the existence of WP:RS and, while the Oppose camp did not dispute that RS existed, they maintained their position that the quality of those references did not meet our LEADSENTENCE standard of telling the reader "who" the subject is (to synthesize their arguments with an example — we could have multitudes upon multitudes of references referring to the subject as a lover of rosé wine but copious references alone aren't enough to change the LEADSENTECE to Kash Pael is a lover of rosé wine.). In surrebuttal, Support said, in fact, this is a defining feature of the subject.

At the end of the day we have roughly a 2:1 split of "responsible Wikipedians" making logical arguments grounded in policy who believe this should not be in the LEADSENTENCE versus those who believe it should. The strength of arguments on both sides are equally valid and neither side advanced policy-based arguments stronger than the other in net (though the NPOV argument of the Support side withered in the face of counter-arguments from Oppose). Again, the closing standard does not involve a headcount but is a qualitative assessment of which side has "the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians" [making logical, policy-based arguments]). This is a discussion aimed at satisfying our objective standards by imperfectly reading a reality that is socially constructed, as opposed to a vote; but, it achieves that by divining the sense of the responsible segment of the community -- as opposed to the closer judging which side is "right" or "wrong" -- on occasions when that sense is broadly evident, as it is here.

Per our well-regarded essay WP:NOTUNANIMITY, "Consensus is not the same as unanimity ... [and] after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action ... There is a narrow consensus that "conspiracy theorist" should not appear in the LEADSENTENCE. This RfC addressed only the first sentence of the lead and no determination organically emerged with respect to its use in other sentences of the lead.

Note: The first close has been moved to the bottom of the discussion for purposes of readability and is preserved there. Chetsford (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Should Kash Patel be called a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence? Relisted 16:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC), originally opened by Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I suggest taking a look at MOS:FIRST, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and previous discussion of this topic before commenting

• Oppose I am not denying that there are reliable sources calling him a conspiracy theorist. My problem is that the first sentence should only reflect the most of the most notable and essential things about a person. I do not believe that his promotion of conspiracy theories is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the first sentence. For example, there is an abundance of reliable sources calling Donald Trump a conspiracy theorist, however, it is widely accepted that calling him such in the first sentence would be inappropriate, and I think the same logic should apply here.

Additionally, @RogerYg raised concerns about including this in the first sentence, referencing WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and emphasized the importance of writing in a balanced and neutral manner -- especially for such a sensitive topic.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. There are plenty of RS and abundant reasons why this inclusion does not violate policies and is important enough for such early mention. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Pending Lean toward inclusion I'm going to start with how many years he spent as a conspiracy theorist and whether it compares well to the durations of other parts of his career. EDIT: Okay, I'm back. "Conspiracy theorist" belongs in the lede but not necessarily in the first sentence. However, I think that might not be the real issue. The point that the drafters are trying to make is "this LP is different from other lawyers, prosecutors, and officials in an important way," and I think that needs to be kept. If there is not a better way to express that than "conspiracy theorist," then we should keep it. "Trump toady" is outside our options. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion - I think Darkfrog's argument holds the most water. What distinguishes this person from other lawyers and officials? Either the close attachment to Trump or his conspiracy theories need to be front and center to establish why he's interesting/notable, which is what needs to go into the 1st sentence. It's not just that he was a lawyer, he was a lawyer spouting conspiracy theories, which is supported by reliable sources. Fieari (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Fieari @Darkfrog24 Wouldn't him being nominated FBI director distinguish him from other officials? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, yeah, as an alternative, I would accept a version of the lead sentence saying he was nominated by Trump for the FBI director position, as long as the 1st paragraph still mentions the conspiracy theorist fact, maybe even the 2nd sentence. It's still a huge part of his notability, but the Trump nomination could hold the definitional part equally well as the conspiracy theorist part. I still accept it in the 1st sentence, but I would not object to this alternative. Fieari (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  The two things are connected: he was nominated because he spreads conspiracy theories (favorable to Trump). NME Frigate (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Do you have a source for this assertion? *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC) — *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  No it would not because he is also different from other FBI directors in the same way. The "important way" is that he tied his career to flattering Donald Trump (to use the most polite term I can think of). I could do something like "close associate of two-time U.S. President Donald Trump." Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Why is partisan bickering part of this discussion at all. The tone of these comments are not to “inform in good faith,” they are a passive aggressive attack on a politician.

  Kash Patel is notable because he is nominee for FBI Director. All this secondary and tertiary *speculation* that “he’s only the nominee because he spread conspiracy theories favorable to the president” is no more FACT than Kamala Harris being a DEI pick as VP but nobody attempting to run an objective, unbiased, non-partisan online Encyclopedia would include that in the first sentence or paragraph of her biography.

  If partisan editors really need to vent their political frustration at the expense of Wikipedia’s credibility as a neutral source, just include a separate section on his page outlining his “conspiracy theories” and preferably include non-partisan sources that prove his “conspiracy theories” wrong.

  Step back, read this conversation. If you can detect even the slightest partisan grudge in what is being said, it’s not worthy of inclusion in the first paragraph.

  Wikipedia can do better than that. 47.201.226.178 (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — 47.201.226.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I have no opinion either way on the question, but if others decide to include this, I'd prefer that it's worded as "a promoter of conspiracy theories" instead of "a conspiracy theorist". The latter makes me think that the person has invented their own new conspiracy theory, whereas the usual case is that the person is merely repeating what they've heard from others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  I like that phrasing. NME Frigate (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with this phrasing as there’s no good arbiter of who qualifies as a theorist. Dw31415 (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose in First Sentence. I think adding "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence has multiple issues, mainly per MOS:LEADSENTENCE and WP:BLP. As stated in MOS:LEADSENTENCE The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. And, per WP:BLP Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively. Also per MOS:OPEN The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. I think the first sentence should be neutral essential introduction related to his years of work as prosecutor and in positions in the Trump administration. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to mention "conspiracy theorist" in the second or third paragraph of the lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Reasonable response. Agree. 47.201.226.178 (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — 47.201.226.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Most of the introductions in WP:RS sources do not mention Kash Patel as a "Consiparcy theorist", therefore Wikipedia should also not include it in its first sentence.

  Senate Panel Advances Kash Patel’s Bid for F.B.I. Director Amid Agency Turmoil

  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/us/politics/kash-patel-fbi-senate-judiciary-confirmation-trump.html

  Senate panel approves Trump's FBI pick

  https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/13/congress/kash-patel-trump-fbi-00204035

  Senate panel advances nomination of Kash Patel, Trump’s pick to lead the FBI

  https://apnews.com/article/trump-fbi-kash-patel-61610c5384536667eb112734465b0a19

  Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support This is clearly a large part of who he is and what he's been doing over the last few years. This isn't a few parrotings of QAnon nonsense, he's written an entire book about the so-called "Deep State"! Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not Wikipedia's job to brand evildoers, despite the wishes of certain editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith and base your arguments in policy, not personal attacks. BootsED (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  Good faith is assumed until reason to suspect otherwise is evident.

  That certainly seems to be the case here.

  “Rules for thee but not for me”. Unfortunate.

  This is why, as a high school teacher, we don’t allow Wikipedia as sources for research papers. The bias always creeps in because some people feel obligated to use the “Edit” feature for activism rather than objective accuracy. 47.201.226.178 (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — 47.201.226.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Wikipedia isn't allowed as a resource in schools because it is just a collection of other sources and because it's user-generated, not because it's biased. Feeglgeef (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  What part of his comment do you assert is a "personal attack," and against whom in particular? Personal "attacks" are not such if

  person is neither named nor implied. *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC) — *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support. It should at least be mentioned in the first paragraph, but I think it merits being in the first sentence (perhaps as "promoter of conspiracy theories" per the suggestion above, and I would support even less inflammatory language if there were a brief, accurate way to describe this prominent part of his life) because in addition to what others have mentioned, the body of the article more than once describes a person who was unqualified for the positions to which he was appointed and other people's impressions that he was in those positions mainly to advance Donald Trump's agenda (even at the expense of genuine U.S. interests), which often involved pushing conspiracy theories. See for example the section on his involvement in U.S. policy in Ukraine, which got further attention because Trump was impeached for trying to force Ukraine's president to share a conspiracy theory about Joe Biden. (I would go so far as to say that Patel would not have many of the jobs to which he's been appointed if not for his willingness to push conspiracy theories, but there we run into this conundrum: we'll never know exactly what goes on in Trump's mind.)

NME Frigate (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

(Sorry, that wasn't supposed to be a reply to Thebiguglyalien.) NME Frigate (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This paragraph is incredibly speculative.

Since when were ”other people's impressions that he was in those positions mainly to advance Donald Trump's agenda” considered factual datum to be included in an encyclopedia entry?

That’s academic malpractice.

Personal political leanings of editors should not be factored into the first sentence of an individual’s biographical page. Neither should third hand “impressions”.

That is not to say it is unworthy of mention at all, but rules and guidelines concerning biographical pages and the first sentences/paragraphs of Wikipedia entries are bound to the most critical information.

Sorry, but I just don’t see speculation and “impressions” as worthy of inclusion in the first sentence. It is clearly partisan, the term “conspiracy theory/theorist” is highly subjective as is the supporting evidence that relies not on observable fact but third hand interpretations of events.

This can’t be standard practice at Wikipedia. 47.201.226.178 (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — 47.201.226.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I concur. @NME Frigate should be ignored in this discussion for being captured by their apparent bias. *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC) — *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think you misread that part of my comment, which was descriptive. What I said is that the body of the article (an article I have not edited) already included "other people's impressions that he was in those positions mainly to advance Donald Trump's agenda," particularly as regards Ukraine.

Since the article's body already described Patel that way, I thought it merited mentioning in the lede. NME Frigate (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Just dropping a note that I mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RFC at Kash Patel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Wikieditor662's reasoning. Agree with including it in the lead, but it isn't what makes him notable. kara❈talk 00:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not in first sentence. I'm not doubting that he has promoted conspiracies before, but I do not believe it is significant enough to go in the very first sentence, though inclusion in the lede is fine. Being a conspiracy theorist is not what made him notable, and when discussed about in RS, he is usually not introduced as a conspiracy theorist. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The first sentence should stick to a couple of things he's most notable for and conspiracy theorist isn't that thing. Since the RFC isn't about anything else except the first sentence I won't comment on whether it should be included at all. Nemov (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per RogerYg and ARandomName123. OK elsewhere in the lead and in the body of the article, but not in the first sentence. Vadder (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I did not initally want to contribute to this conversation as I fear that discourse around this area is so fundamentally partisan that I should stay far away from it, but given how divided this talk page appears to be, my thoughts probably wouldn't make a difference either way. It seems completely clear that the way that there is a long list of reliable sources who can prove to us that he has played a part in the dissemination of conspiracy theories. I have read the 'Promotion of conspiracy theories' section of the article, as well as sentence one of line three of the lead section, and these are both well sourced parts of the page which absolutely should remain on this page, contrary to some other editor's opinions in this discussion and elsewhere.

However, I cannot help but feel that to include 'conspiracy theorist' in the lead section sounds exactly like what Thebiguglyalien suggested might be happening (WP:Activism). The inclusion of this descriptor in the lead has resulted in this page being filled to the brim with IP addresses demanding it be removed (amusingly, sometimes with the threat to stop donating to Wikipedia if it is not done). These individuals are most likely also guilty of WP:Activism, and whilst I may agree with what they propose, I do not agree with their reasoning for it.

I feel like there are two main reasons for my belief that this should not be included in the lead paragraph. The first is, as I mentioned in the second paragraph, that this is such a divisive topic that it becomes increasingly difficult to justify keeping these two words in the lead section. I do not follow US politics, but I imagine Patel will be confirmed as FBI Director, and if this expression remains then arguments will continue over it, with both sides antagonising each other more as time goes on. Even right now, I feel that the fact that there is such large disagreement over these two words is because of activism. Whether this is only happening because editors want to promote a certain political opinion is not something I want to consider, but the prospect that it may be makes me seriously consider whether including these two words materially benefits the project. Regardless to the answer to the first question, my answer to the second is that they do not improve the project

The second reason is more conventional. I do not believe you can make any argument to removing all mentions of his work surrounding conspiracy theories on the page, but it does not feel to me like it is notable enough to appear in the first sentence of the lead paragraph. He has been involved with it, yes, but it is simply not notable to appear in the very first sentence, and its inclusion appears off for this regard. I will concede this is a weaker point, and I am not too knowledgable in how to properly address something of this nature, but to me and most people he would be more notable as being the FBI Director nominee, and related political work, rather than his conspiracy theorism. In this regard, I think it should not be included in the first sentence.

In conclusion, I want to note that in a more ideal world, I would support this RfC. However, it seems as if most people believe that "conspiracy theorist" is synonymous with "one who spreads falsehoods", and then form some kind of opinion around the issue on the basis of this definition. Conspiracy theory notes that the expression has a negative connotation, and it is my fear that this is exactly what some individuals may be trying to exploit by including it in the first sentence, and others oppose it on the same basis. I am not saying this is happening, and I will not accuse anyone here of doing as such, but there is a very famous dictum in English and Welsh law that essentially states that even an implicit appearance of bias can be just as bad as actual bias, even when no such bias exists. In this case, I fear that the continued inclusion of this expression fails that test, and must therefore be removed.

I apologise for any mistakes in what I have written, I'm not an expert proofreader. notadev (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC) notadev (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I also quickly want to note that the endorsement of this proposal does not make me comfortable at all, as I acknowledge there are those who will benefit politically from it when my intention is nothing of the sort. I appreciate this topic is very difficult to maintain WP:NPOV on, but I hope I have sufficently balanced and explained my reasoning to avoid myself falling into that trap. notadev (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored: we don't remove material just because it attracts controversy or because IP editors will inevitably come by to complain. This isn't partisan; we don't remove the descriptions of "clickbait" and "false information" from the Occupy Democrats article just because lefty fans might get upset. It's not even restricted to politics — we don't hold back from saying that squaring the circle is impossible, either. Long experience shows that there's no making such people happy, anyway. Take it out of the first sentence, and they'll complain that it's in the lede; take it out of the lede, and they'll complain that there's a section about it.... XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Removing the words from the first sentence is not censorship. No one is seriously suggesting removing any mention of conspiracy theories on the entire page - that would be censorship. My comments address the two main points where WP:REDACTION states that information can be removed, notability and NPOV. Granted, I do partly believe that the removal of these words from the first sentence will have the benefit of stopping continuous discussion on such a minor point, and whilst various users will continue to complain that he is branded a conspiracy theoriest elsewhere on the page, it is far harder to justify removing those parts of the page, so if you are suggesting this will result in some kind of domino effect, I would not be so convinced. In brief, it isn't to stop or prevent controversey, I know that'll continue to exist, but my point in this regard is that the removal will aid the project in other ways.

Anyway as for your mention of squaring the circle, I do not know anything of mathematics, but I find your mention of it interesting. It is currently impossible to square a circle, but quickly looking over some studies makes it seem as if this will not always be the case. I'm hardly saying this image: is true, but it does seem to be a bit of an oversimplification to say it is completely impossible. full stop. I won't stick my head into something I don't understand, but perhaps you may explain why it isn't one. notadev (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The side of the square is ${\sqrt {\pi }}$, which, using ruler and compass, is not possible to construct as a line segment. Actually $\pi$ itself is not possible to construct as a line segment (as it's always possible to construct square roots using Pythagoras' theorem). We do not know of a direct proof of this fact of $\pi$ being inconstructible (using ruler and compass), making it even less digestible for the layman (and un-layman alike). Instead, we must make use of transcendental numbers; once such concepts are understood, a simple proof is via an application of the Lindemann–Weierstrass_theorem although then the onus befalls the proof of said theorem, which is not simple at all. Peptidylprolyl (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC) Peptidylprolyl (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

While fascinating I think this is a bit off-topic. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you just helped prove the opposition point: in both the articles Occupy Democrats and squaring the circle them being false isn't mentioned in the first sentence but later in the lead. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

“Take it out of the first sentence, and they'll complain that it's in the lede; take it out of the lede, and they'll complain that there's a section about it.”

So more advocacy of leaving it in the first sentence based on speculation & hypotheticals. Got it.

Shouldn’t the first sentence of a Wikipedia biography be based on something more than speculation?

What is Kash Patel objectively most notable for? That is what should be in the first sentence.

I don’t bother to look at Occupy Wall Street’s page but are the terms “clickbait” & “false information” included in the first sentence of their Wikipedia page?

If not, apples to oranges. 47.201.226.178 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — 47.201.226.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well thought and sound contribution.

As stated here, this absolutely looks like activism in opposition to Patel as an extension of activist opposition to Trump.

I have yet to read a single suggestion that his efforts to propagate “conspiracy theories” be omitted completely, only that it should not appear in the first sentence (& to a lesser degree, should not appear in first paragraph).

Those in favor of its inclusion have based their arguments on two main points: 1) He is a notable individual *because* he is a “conspiracy theorist” &/or 2) He is only notable because he was nominated by Trump as FBI Director because of these “conspiracy theories.”

Point 1 is demonstrably false as all conspiracy theorists don’t have wikipedia pages & actual individuals who have become notable specifically due to their promotion of conspiracy theories & little else were not nominated for FBI Director. For example, Alex Jones was not nominated FBI Director despite his conspiracies promoting Trump for a decade.

Point 2 is pure speculation, and while activists may point to “reliable sources” agreeing with the speculation, this is an “appeal to authority” fallacy—- the fact that a “reputable source” believes Patel to have been nominated purely due to his support of Trump via conspiracy theory doesn’t make this assertion any less speculative. Even “reliable sources” can & do speculate.

Speculation is unworthy of inclusion in the first sentence of a notable figure’s Wikipedia biography & activism should not be hidden behind the speculation of “reliable sources.”

Again, this is comparable to calling VP Kamala Harris a “DEI Hire” in the first sentence of her biography. It would be academic & intellectual malpractice despite a “reliable source”—- Joe Biden, the president who selected her—- stating explicitly he would only choose a Black woman as his Vice President. Vice President Harris is no more universally known because “reliable sources” speculate that she is a DEI hire than Kash Patel is universally known for being a “conspiracy theorist.”

Pejorative terms have no place in the first sentence of a biographical page of a living, acting political figure, especially when the basis of such an attack is founded in speculation.

~~AlpacaShakur 47.201.226.178 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — 47.201.226.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I disagree 110%, Harris was a legitimate choice, Patel isn't, no prior political experience and the production of a song for convicted felons to raise money. (Not to mention advocating for the deaths of members of the Biden family, which should've been completely disqualifying). SionOFheaven (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — SionOFheaven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense pick Neil H. McElroy did not have previous experience either, picked at the height of the Cold War too! Peptidylprolyl (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

There's a difference between, "his conspiracism is the locus of his notability" and "he is only notable because of his conspiracism." Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support on the grounds that the existing text of the article makes "conspiracy theorist" (or "promoter of conspiracy theories") an aspect of his biography that must be included in any summary thereof, and that (as argued above) it is a distinguishing feature. At the very least, it's first-paragraph material, not something to be tucked in at the end of the intro. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per RogerYg, NotADev and ARandomName123. Mention in the article based on RS, but inclusion in the first sentence isn't appropriate. GoPats (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. A quick review of reliable sources describing Patel , , , found none using that language and only one explicitly linking him to "conspiracy theories". It is simply not what he is known for. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Several provided sources extensively describe how he supports conspiracy theories. I'm not sure what you mean by there being only "one" linking him to conspiracy theories. BootsED (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  Only one of the mainstream media profiles that I found in a quick google search and linked from my comment used the term conspiracy theory. I know that there are reliable sources explicitly describing his promotion of such theories, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, but it is not what most mainstream profiles of him highlight. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not write "mainstream media profiles". We are not like other encyclopedias or like other media. We have unique rules and our leads are based on the body of the article. When an aspect of a person's life, beliefs, and actions is significant enough that RS often mention it, and we then create a whole section for it, it deserves clear mention in the lead. In this case, we are not disputing the need to mention this in the lead, but just discussing whether to do it in the first sentence.

That RS media profiles may not always mention this defining aspect of who he is has no bearing on whether we should mention it in the lead or first sentence. It certainly does not speak against our doing so as what they do is irrelevant to us. Just sayin'... -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment Fair enough. My full position is that while "conspiracy theorist" is not defining enough to be in the first sentence, it or similar phrasing like "promotes conspiracy theories" should certainly be in the lead, probably at the end of the first paragraph or in its own paragraph. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I’m trying to find some consensus. Can you please propose a sentence for the introduction that would justify removing “conspiracy theorist” from the first sentence? Dw31415 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This RfC discussion has brought out several strong arguments to oppose inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence based multiple WP pollicies such as WP:Firstsentence, MOS:OPEN and WP:BLP, among others.

On a quick reading of RfC discussion, the majority of editors oppose its inclusion, in my view.

Further, most of the latest introductions in WP:RS sources do not mention Kash Patel as a "conspiracy theorist", which is another reason why Wikipedia should also not include it in its first sentence.

Senate Panel Advances Kash Patel’s Bid for F.B.I. Director Amid Agency Turmoil

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/us/politics/kash-patel-fbi-senate-judiciary-confirmation-trump.html

Senate panel approves Trump's FBI pick

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/13/congress/kash-patel-trump-fbi-00204035

Senate panel advances nomination of Kash Patel, Trump’s pick to lead the FBI

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fbi-kash-patel-61610c5384536667eb112734465b0a19

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I wasn’t clear. My question is should conspiracy theories be mentioned at all in the introduction? Dw31415 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dw31415: with all due respect, but are we really still discussing this? The consensus for "Oppose" is almost overwhelming (almost 45 "Oppose" against 15 "Support"); do we need to reach 100 "Oppose" to close this RfC? JacktheBrown (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

They said they wanted to wait until 30 days since the RfC started. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as it does not appear to be a defining trait. Sources do not refer to Patel as a conspiracy theorist but instead refer to him as a lawyer or Trump's nomination for FBI director. Content about conspiracies may be included but he should not be labelled as a conspiracy theorist in the opening lead sentence without strong sourcing that supports it being a defining characteristic. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, per Eluchil404. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support there are many RS, and it is relevant to the job as the head of the FBI. Even more so when considering some of the conspiracies he espouses are related to, or even part of, Q-Anon given the ongoing enmeshment between Q-Anon and President Trump (e.g. Jan 6, debate reference to proud boys, etc.) Delectopierre (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support as reliable sources in the lead call him a conspiracy theorist, and he's a fan of QAnon, which is even more of an extreme conspiracy theory than Trump's "the election was rigged". Users saying that sources do not refer to him as a conspiracy theorist are incorrect. Given he published a book managed QAnon-focused social media accounts, and took part in a film, maybe an alternative that people would prefer (that I would also support) would be "promoter of conspiracy theories", or "prominent conspiracy theorist"? Mrfoogles (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

absolutely not! 129.222.45.114 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC) — 129.222.45.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose use in the first sentence, largely per Eluchil404 and Wikieditor662. There are several RS explicitly calling Patel a conspiracy theorist, but a quick survey of RS media coverage shows Patel is not described as a conspiracy theorist foremost, so therefore it doesn't belong first. WP:BLP and MOS:LABEL should also be considered to a lesser extent ("BLPs must be written conservatively"). However, I support mentioning his promotion of conspiracies prominently in the lead and don't object to describing him as a "conspiracy theorist" in wikivoice, as the sourcing on this is strong, clear and prominent. Jr8825 • Talk 01:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose- that is character assassination; especially in the first sentence.

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be bon-biased. This is actually adding your own opinion or spin which should not be included.

You're encouraging and contribiting to the division of this countryStick to the facts, not your opinion. 129.222.45.114 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC) — 129.222.45.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's not character assassination if it's true (and properly sourced). NME Frigate (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@NME Frigate: "true" is subjective depending on the source chosen. JacktheBrown (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No, the truth is absolute. It's getting to the truth that's the challenge. NME Frigate (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@NME Frigate You're semantically right, but what I believe @JacktheBrown was saying is that what you think (or even are certain) is true might not be true.

@JacktheBrown @129.222.45.114 You're more than welcome to show the reliable sources (or in other words, sources accepted as reliable by consensus) stating that Patel is not a conspiracy theorist, if you have them: that would sway the opinion even more towards removing mention of it from the first sentence, which I think we're already leaning towards.

However, if your plan is to not have him called a conspiracy theorist in the lead or even the entire article, then I'd suggest to wait until this RfC is over (but you can still show the evidence in this one), and if it rules in favor of removing from the first sentence, then you can start another proposing it's removed from the rest of the lead and / or article. But again, please only do this if you have reliable sources, and I highly doubt that the community will agree to remove all mentions of him being a conspiracy theorist. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with @Wikieditor662 that you are semantically or otherwise correct. "The truth is absolute" is dogmatic because nothing is axiomatic. *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC) — *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Again, appeal to authority fallacy. Even reliable sources can & do speculate.

If WP:BLP mandates a conservatively written entry, citing speculation (even from RS) using pejorative if not inflammatory language is not writing conservatively & insistence on doing so looks a lot like WP:activism.

It is an objective fact that Kash Patel is known primarily for his nomination as FBI Director & his prior roles in government. If it werent for those roles he would be a little known “conspiracy theorist” on the margins of political discourse & we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now.

That fact that he could potentially lead the FBI makes him a notable person, not the fact that some editors on Wikipedia can wrangle up a few RS referring to Patel as a “conspiracy theorist.”

~~AlpacaShakur 47.201.226.178 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — 47.201.226.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do not claim that someone is appealing to authority and then immediately do the same: "It is an objective fact that Kash Patel is known primarily for his nomination as FBI Director & his prior roles in government." (This is not an "objective" "fact," this is your opinion.) *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC) — *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support: I originated the somewhat softer phrase promoter of conspiracy theories in the first sentence, which I still prefer, but I find conspiracy theorist also acceptable, as it is abundantly sourced. soibangla (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose in the first sentence per MOS:FIRST. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikieditor662's point above. Any coverage of him being a "conspiracy theorist" is not notable for it to be in the first sentence compared to the other things that are listed such as him being a lawyer, a former federal prosecutor and official, and if he were to become the FBI director. AstralNomad (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No Kash Patel should not be labeled a conspiracy theorist. What is the proof for this statement? 97.82.169.172 (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC) — 97.82.169.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Support Provided RS clearly state that Kash Patel endorses the QAnon theory, regularly appeared on multiple conspiracy theory podcasts such as Stew Peters, hosted a podcast where he espoused conspiracy theories on The Epoch Times, and endorses election fraud conspiracy theories, COVID-19 misinformation, and January 6 attack conspiracy theories regarding FBI involvement. To call him a conspiracy theorist is not only accurate. It is DUE. This is no different than the page for RFK Jr. calling him a conspiracy theorist, which is also well-supported by provided RS. BootsED (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per MOS:FIRST, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, among others. The prominence of the term would also be undue per MOS:LEADREL --FMSky (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• No 2600:6C42:657F:D429:9DA4:91FF:BEF9:3795 (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC) — 2600:6C42:657F:D429:9DA4:91FF:BEF9:3795 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support: Not only are there reliable sources about this, but if the following perspective is taken into account, a conspiracy theorist is part of his profession:

He is the creator of a podcast, a children's book about "King Donald", and a music recording of the "January 6th Choir" (he was the co-producer and promoter of the music he described as from political prisoners). - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs)

His actual titles and accomplishments should be in the first sentence and not what individuals decide to label him. Proving a person is a conspiracy theorist is difficult because you have to have all of the facts. So this should be labeled an opinion and not define Mr Patel. Is Jon Stewart labeled a conspiracy theorist in his first sentence for his COVID Wuhan lab leak stance? A lot of people were “conspiracy theorist” for saying this but suddenly there is a complete change in everyone’s tone when a popular figure with left leaning tendencies connected the dots. If you want to add a section within the wiki for “controversial views” then that is fine. This is basic moderation. Keep your personal views out of it. 73.251.45.21 (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — 73.251.45.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is simply someone's opinion regardless of who is saying it. He has not been convicted of any cry related to misleading people so this cannot be stated with any authority. 2001:56A:F6E2:C700:C5:59B7:6121:60E1 (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — 2001:56A:F6E2:C700:C5:59B7:6121:60E1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. This is clearly partisan. “Conspiracy theorist” is a subjective term with clearly negative, dismissive connotations. If Wikipedia wants to include subjective speculation, unproven accusations or simply dismissive partisan namecalling in the very first line of a political nominee’s biographical page it should allow this type of subjective commentary in the first line of EVERY political figure’s biographical page. If not, it should cease calling itself an “encyclopedia” and just call itself a partisan media outlet. A better solution would be to include a “media controversies” section (or something similar) that can address these types of unsubstantiated, vague, and/or nuanced political issues. The insertion of dismissive, degrading, insulting or other subjective partisan labeling in THE FIRST LINE compromises Wikipedia’s neutrality. This is not the place or the way for bitter partisans to seek consolation by venting on a page intended to inform people, not propagandize them. Is Wikipedia an online encyclopedia or a DNC newsletter? 47.201.226.178 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — 47.201.226.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree, but your criticism is very misdirected (the website isn't a living being, users are responsible for the content). JacktheBrown (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

many readers are often unfamiliar with various Wikipedia policies that prevent political hit pieces here. baseless allegations against a person don't last long, there's little tolerance for just makin' stuff up

the first policy to look at is reliable secondary sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kash_Patel#Promotion_of_conspiracy_theories soibangla (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If there is no material evidence which has been proven but just someone's viewpoint it should not be stated here. As a voluntary donor of Wikipedia I believe this creates a bias in this article. 2A01:4B00:D011:D00:FEB0:D8D1:C06B:629 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — 2A01:4B00:D011:D00:FEB0:D8D1:C06B:629 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment There has been an unusually high number of IP address single-purpose accounts voting against this RfC whose only edits have been to comment on this page. There may be possible sockpuppetry going on. Several of them have engaged in personal attacks. BootsED (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It would also make sense without sockpuppetry: Patel is big on the news, and a link to this RfC is right after where it says conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, so it makes sense that it'll attract a lot of attention.

If you are still concerned: I'm no expert on IPs, but perhaps there's a way to see whether the IP addresses are nearby each other?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe that falls under Checkuser. As of right now, there are twenty-one people saying some version of oppose and eleven with some version of support. There appear to be at most eight IP commenters, though not all of them voted. That's enough to turn a 2:1 and therefore clear consensus into something close enough for qualitative to turn the tide. I note that all the IPs are arguing to oppose. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Just stick the IP in an IP lookup website, or click on geolocate on their contribs page. They geolocate to various places in the US, Canada and Britain. I think what you're describing is correct: people are coming to this page after his nomination, seeing the conspiracy theorist label in the lead, and coming to the talk page. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

It's more likely this causing it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not for the first sentence as outlined by so many above. This is clearly not a large part of who he is. PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, doesn’t belong in the first identifying sentence, lead could say lower that he has attracted attention for embracing certain conspiracy theories. JSwift49 03:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose “theorist” in the fist sentence, but describe his work promoting conspiracies prominently in the first paragraph. Dw31415 (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, There are reliable sources mentioning his conspiracy theory promotion but I believe the first sentence should always only address the notablity reasons for a person. Patel is notable for being an outspoken republican, trump-ally and his positions in the 1st Trump Administration and as a prosecutor, his promotion of conspiracy theories is a mere part of his statements and not his reason for notability. Xoocit 09:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose "Conspiracy theorist" is not a role, except apparently for politically motivated wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.183.191 (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC) — 108.5.183.191 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Support Kash Patel has built much of his public profile by pushing conspiracy theories, so it makes sense to call him a conspiracy theorist right in the first sentence. He was a key figure in spreading false claims about the “deep state” working against Trump and helped push the lie that the 2020 election was stolen...claims that fueled the January 6th attack. He has also spread misinformation about the FBI and the military, painting them as part of some grand plot against right-wing folk. Since Wikipedia’s lead sentence is supposed to tell people the most important things about someone, leaving out his history of promoting conspiracy theories wouldn’t give readers the full picture. Summerfell1978 12:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think it’s important to distinguish between labeling him as a conspiracy theorist and focusing on the impact of those theories. The connection between his claims and events like January 6th is a significant part of his story and may be more relevant in understanding his influence.

  Rather than leading with the label, it might be better to frame the information around the effects of his actions and their broader implications, which can be explored further in the article and even the lead.

  Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the term "conspiracy theorist" in the lead paragraph of Kash Patel's Wikipedia article. Reliable sources clearly document his endorsement of the QAnon theory, his regular appearances on conspiracy theory podcasts like Stew Peters, and his own podcast on The Epoch Times, where he espoused various conspiracy theories. Patel's promotion of election fraud conspiracy theories, COVID-19 misinformation, and claims regarding FBI involvement in the January 6 attack are well-documented, making the label both accurate and due. Patel's activities, such as creating a podcast, writing a children's book about "King Donald," and co-producing a music recording of the "January 6th Choir," establishes his identity as a conspiracy theorist. The lead para should reflect Patel's most defining characteristics, as per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Omitting the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor would fail to provide readers with a 360 degree picture of his public persona. JustinTrooDooo (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's about whether it should be included in the first sentence, not just lead paragraph. Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as per RogerYg and ARandomName123. Not a significant part of the persons life or career. I would support including ties to conspiracies in the body if supported by reliable sources. However I don’t see this as notable enough to be in the first sentence. SKAG123 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for noting my arguments to oppose mention of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence.

  In my humble opinion the above discussion has brought out several strong arguments to oppose its inclusion based multiple WP pollicies such as WP:Firstsentence, MOS:OPEN and WP:BLP, among others. As stated in WP:Firstsentence The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.

  Also per MOS:OPEN The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. And as mentioned by some prior editors, Conspiracy theory has negative connotations and may not pass the test of neutrality needed in opening lead.

  Further, as some prior editors correctly pointed that since it is not justified to mention Kamala Harris as a DEI hire in the first sentence, even though Biden promised to hire a Black women as VP; similarly it may not be justified to mention conspiracy theorist for Patel, since MOS:OPEN directs Wiki editors for factual neutral opening; and both DEI hire and conspiracy theorist have negative connotations, and lean more towards opinions than neutral notable facts appropriate for lede sentence. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support. This aspect of Patel's life is significant enough to be worth mentioning in the first sentence, or at least the first paragraph. He is a strong promoter of Trump's Big Lie, and all he does is aimed at promoting that lie. That is why he got his job. Nothing he does can be understood in isolation from that fact. That elevates it to a mention in the first sentence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose — The dispute here is not whether or not Patel promotes conspiracy theories—that part is blatantly clear—but whether that is an important part of his biography to mention it as a role. I do not see evidence of that in this discussion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• The evidence is in the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hiding this exchange because I withdraw my proposal to modify / close. Includes discussion on majority vs consensus. Dw31415 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Wikieditor662, I sense that no consensus is emerging and propose that the RFC is closed or modified to discuss ways of mentioning conspiracy theories in the lead that gain broader support. Dw31415 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dw31415: closing this RfC for "no consensus" makes no sense; your proposal would be 100% wrong, because there are 34 "Oppose" and only 14 "Support". JacktheBrown (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the consensus process is not a majority vote and I don't see editors below attempting to find a compromise. Please see my modified proposal below. "Close this RfC with limited consensus". Alternatively, do you see other points of consensus or path to move forward? Dw31415 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dw31415: there's definitely a consensus; the "Oppose" votes are 34, more than double the "Support" votes. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, that’s a clear majority (which I’m part of). It’s not a consensus as defined here: Wikipedia:Consensus Dw31415 (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dw31415: but in this case "clear majority" means "consensus", because no one has reached a compromise. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It is seldom constructive for two involved editors to argue over what they think the consensus is. Leave it for an uninvolved editor to close when the RFC is done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you read all of the replies again, it seems to be heavily skewing towards the opposition. Those supporting for the most part argued either that it should be added because there's RS (which isn't enough to get on the first sentence) or that he got his role because he was a conspiracy theorist, but it's speculative to say this was the main or only reason. If the supporting arguments were fallacious, then we may have even reached a consensus to remove it.

Also, this is about whether to include it in the first sentence, not the rest of the lead. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I understood the RfC, thank you. I propose that “conspiracy theorist” is removed, and the RfC is modified (or a new one opened), discussing how to handle the subject in the opening paragraph. In my opinion, the narrow question of the RfC limits our ability to find consensus. Thanks for considering the proposal. Dw31415 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to what you're suggesting. Are you saying we should remove it from the first sentence and then discuss whether it belongs in the rest of the lead? Because removing it from the first sentence would require consensus, and preferably an uninvolved editor to close this discussion and cast the judgement of what the consensus is, although if the consensus is clear enough someone involved could close it per WP:IAR and to save everyone's time, but doing so with someone involved would still be controversial. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I’ll try to refine and be more clear. I propose:

1. Open a new Talk topic on conspiracy theories in introduction.

2. Close this RfC with limited consensus to remove "conspiracy theorist" from first sentence, but keeping "promoter of conspiracy theories" in first paragraph.

3. Change discuss tag to new topic.

Reason: the narrow framing of the question is interfering with finding consensus. If I understand correctly, Wikipedia policy does not rely on a vote but rather attempting to find language that addresses good faith few points.

I would be willing to close this RfC because, beyond indicating that I oppose here, I haven’t edited this article or the talk. Dw31415 (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

As I reread the supporting opinions there does seem to be consensus for removing it from the first sentence but keeping it in the first paragraph. I've edited above to reflect that. Dw31415 (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The term "conspiracy theorist" should not be used to describe Kash Patel. This label has been applied by some as a pejorative to undermine his credibility. Patel's work, particularly in national security and intelligence, involves questioning official narratives and advocating for transparency and accountability, which are legitimate functions within his professional roles. Labeling him as such can be seen as an attempt to discredit his investigations and policy critiques without addressing the substance of his arguments. 2603:6011:6500:2A09:1CA0:85C3:33D4:CA38 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC) — 2603:6011:6500:2A09:1CA0:85C3:33D4:CA38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose - Honestly one of the most absurd things I've seen on Wikipedia in decades. All the relevant policies for why it *shouldn't* be in the lede has been cited already. There's just a significant contingent of editors who willfully put their heads in the sand and ignore policy in favor of political brainrot. I can't help but notice that many of the comments with "Support" come from users who have been blocked at some point for edit warring in politics articles, e.g. guy who got blocked an hour after his comment. Not exactly the best that Wikipedia has to offer.Ceconhistorian (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:BLP. Crum375 (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Absolutely not - should be removed. This is not an objective fact. “Multiple sources” saying that is subjective opinion, likely steeped in political bias. 142.147.59.30 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC) — 142.147.59.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose NO 100.35.63.168 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC) — 100.35.63.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose I think conspiracy theorist would be better described as 1st amendment right 2600:8804:8C41:9000:64D3:D5EF:DBC4:E7E3 (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC) — 2600:8804:8C41:9000:64D3:D5EF:DBC4:E7E3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Support. Plenty of RS's describe him, first and foremost, as peddling in conspiracy theories. It feels like hair-splitting to say the standard is "RS describe him as 'conspiracy theorist Kash Patel' rather than 'Kash Patel, who is known for spreading conspiracy theories'" - that is a distinction with no difference.

Those calling it "character assasination" are standing on pillars of sand, demanding Wikipedia be censored. I would ask that if the label is removed from the lede paragraph, it remain in the lede in general. Before his FBI appointment, it was what he was primarily known for. Absurd to remove it completely, as many are demanding. Carlp941 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Strongly oppose — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 22:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It is absolutely abhorrent to editorialize in the first sentence by way of pejoratives. Save it for somewhere else in the article, considering it is an opinion (held by many) but an opinion nonetheless, in stark contrast to the other purely factual information given at the outset, such as his name, date of birth, and occupation. Garrygoulastrange (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC) — *ǵʰeh₁ro- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose Txlonghorn8783 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose 2601:300:4901:DF70:BCA3:31AB:460C:8258 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — 2601:300:4901:DF70:BCA3:31AB:460C:8258 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose 2600:1017:B835:27AB:113F:923E:660E:4E6A (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — 2600:1017:B835:27AB:113F:923E:660E:4E6A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, he believed and perpetuated the conspiracy that Trump won in 2020. 73.13.248.87 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — 73.13.248.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose. This is pure editorializing, inappropriate under WP:BLP and NPOV. 140.211.25.4 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — 140.211.25.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thinks baloney and should be removed 76.171.79.73 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — 76.171.79.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is factually true and we need to stop caving to fascist propagandists 2001:8003:580A:1201:F0DF:30F4:D539:477C (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — 2001:8003:580A:1201:F0DF:30F4:D539:477C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

All of whose theoriez have been confirmed as fact 87.71.67.203 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — 87.71.67.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose 23.31.184.25 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — 23.31.184.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I strongly oppose. It also violates WP:NPOV, specifically in regards to neutrality within the opening paragraphs. Секретное общество (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Do you want to be part of reality or a political narrative. Super Spook Actual (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — Super Spook Actual (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please include. A conspiracy theorist should be mentioned as they are. No changes needed 2405:201:F00A:6948:DD49:F9B1:3CC8:81F (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — 2405:201:F00A:6948:DD49:F9B1:3CC8:81F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose — (strong) — per MOS:LEADSENTENCE and WP:BLP. Absolutely should not be in the first sentence. Definitely some BLP and neutrality issues with it, as well. MWFwiki (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish why did you semi protect this talk page? And are you sure it's necessary? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

For the same reason there are multiple newer !votes with no rationales above older responses, and your query is here in the middle of the response section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to move those comments back down, and an easier way to add a comment rather than having to manually edit the page? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I strongly oppose: "conspiracy theorist" is a loosely used and common pejorative which has no place or justification in any Wikipedia bio, least of all as applied to Kashyap Patel, who has been throughly vetted in long U.S. Senate proceedings to become confirmed as Director of FBI, the first person of color to hold that post. Zade7777 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose.This moniker smacks of partisanship. I believe there was a 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll on 11/22/63. Am I a conspiracy theorist? Escherare (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. He is obviously a conspiracy theorist, and it's a defining feature. This has been in the lead for a long time and reflects the established consensus. Those who want to remove it need to demonstrate a new consensus to remove it. If there is "no consensus" for any change in this discussion, the long-established stable version stays. --Tataral (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Would you accept moving “conspiracy” to a second sentence as: As an author and commentator, Patel has promoted multiple conspiracy theories. Dw31415 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Tataral: This has been in the lead for a long time and reflects the established consensus As far as I can tell, it was first added on January 30/31 of this year (Special:diff/1272965022). This RfC was opened on February 5. I'd hardly consider 5 days a long time, or that we had an established consensus. If anything, those who want to keep it need to demonstrate consensus, not the other way around. The long-established stable version does not make this mention in the first sentence. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah not sure what you mean its been long-established? That is factually untrue, it was added less than a month ago, no consensus would = remove. Obviously. PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for many of the reasons listed above. Plus it makes our website look incredibly partisan by having inflammatory descriptors of cabinet members in the lead. And it's obviously inflammatory and it was put there for a reason. Evidence to this is an entire talk page full of arguing about it. Put it elsewhere in the article, doesn't belong in the first sentence or even first paragraph. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

References

• Oppose The decision to call him a conspiracy theorist is politically biased and the sources used for reference are also biased and written from a far left point of view. --Mike_Delis (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Since he doesn't seem to have have invented or originated any conspiracy theories himself, he has simply spread them. Faolin42 (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  The dictionary definition of "conspiracy theorist" doesn't say anything "inventing" conspiracy theories, it simply says "believing" them. It also defines "conspiracy theory" as "the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people", which is precisely how it used to describe Patel in reliable sources, e.g. , because of his public belief in a "deep state" of powerful people opposing Trump, and his promotion of this view. I !voted against inclusion in the first sentence because the sources describing him as a conspiracy theorist are outnumbered by those focussing on other aspects of his life, such that it doesn't appear to be his most notable/defining feature (for example, his loyalty to Trump seems to be mentioned more frequently). However, the sources that say he is a conspiracy theorist are strong, and the quality of discussion in this RfC has not been high -- there is plenty of evidence it is still lead-worthy material. Jr8825 • Talk 02:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose As this is not a main feature about him, nor what he is most known for. NathanBru (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support Support for conspiracy theories, in addition to a desire to weaponize the FBI against political enemies, is one of the defining features of Kashyap Patel's time since the 2020 presidential election and something he has capitalized on in his writings and public appearances. Lj123 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Inclusion - Most of the arguments here, for both Oppose and Support inclusion, are not exactly in line with WP [policy. However, our guidelines are absolutely clear on this :-
  MOS:RACIST
  Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.
  
  Unless a clear majority of RS use the term "conspiracy theorist" when introducing the person, it should not be included. Going through the sources listed in the article, the "conspiracy theorist" label is clearly not used by anything resembling a "clear majority". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just to point out, even figures like Osama and Baghdadi are not labelled terrorists despite that clearly being the case, simply because the standard of "clear majority" is very high. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Inclusion: Labeling Patel a "conspiracy theorist" in the opening sentence is a clear violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV policy. This is character assassination rather than objective reporting. Per MOS:RACIST, contentious labels should be avoided unless they are overwhelmingly used by reliable sources. The discussion shows that this is not the case. Including this descriptor in the lead injects bias and undermines Wikipedia's credibility as a neutral source. This label should be removed from the first sentence, if not the article entirely. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 08:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. This is a POV issue, he may have advanced some issues in the past that some consider to be conspiracies, but it doesn't need to be in the opening paragraphs. --rogerd (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Just to keep some Neutrality, I have made some edits in the intro. M.Karelin (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please mention whether you support or oppose inclusion of "Conspiracy theorist" in first sentence with reasons. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support Even the US Senate Judiciary Oversight Committee calls this guy a conspiracy theorist. Simonm223 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  You cited a Press release by Democrat Senate members only (Minority rlease), and it is meaningless for WP:RS purpose. Please give some better reason per WP policies if possible. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  How about WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY - the body details his conspiracy theories in detail and with multiple RS. The lead should summarize this. Simonm223 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  RfC is about the first sentence. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY does not justify everything to be mentioned in first sentence. WP:BLP and WP:Firstsentence, along with several other reasons given above strongly oppose its mention in first sentence. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  His being a conspiracy theorist - a qanon podcaster - and then being appointed to the FBI is the locus of his notability. Excluding one of those elements from the first sentence and not the other would violate WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  I just added in some more sources to the page that describe him as a conspiracy theorist (took me about a minute to find several). There really are quite a lot, so NPOV concerns in my view have been met successfully. BootsED (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This is why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously and thinks we’re a bunch of disgruntled unemployed racist editors in our mommy’s basements. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose He is obviously not a conspiracy theorist, and it's not a defining feature. This has been in the lead for a short time and does not reflect the established consensus. Those who want to add it need to demonstrate a new consensus to add it. If there is "no consensus" for adding it in this discussion, the previous stable version stays. --Malerooster (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I think just "conspiracy theorist" could be better specified since it's a pretty broad term. The common factor for most of Patel's conspiracy theories is that they are in favor of Donald Trump or cast him as the hero facing nefarious forces, so maybe "pro-Trump conspiracy theorist" would work better. ^Falling_Gravity 05:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I tried to follow the first source given in the article that calls Kash Patel a conspiracy theorist: a USA Today article that calls him a conspiracy theorist with a link to an AP article , which calls him a conspiracy theorist without elaborating why he deserves the label, merely slily insinuating it, reminding me of a smear tactic. This sort of thing is happening a lot lately in my opinion, and Wikipedia should adapt to this issue appropriately. Indeed the Wikipedia article itself does not offer any convincing evidence that he is a conspiracy theorist. For example, I perceive his book on the "deep state" as an expose of political corruption (although I have not read the book, that is what it seems to be about). I don't view the term "deep state" by itself as sufficient to brand one as a conspiracy theorist. After all, is there any government or institution that is immune to corruption? Nevertheless, the article and the sources make it seem self-evident that he is a conspiracy theorist based on his use of the term alone; and other such weak evidence is offered for the conclusion.

Thus to summarize, I oppose based on how weak the entire argument is. If Wikipedia is to parrot any argument found in any source, it will not succeed in its mission. People misinterpret what WP:RS says: a source is not just the website that hosts the article, but also the article itself. Can, for instance, Alan Suderman and Juliet Linderman's article on July 9, 2024, be considered reliable? In my humble opinion, no because they did not substantiate the claim. Can Rachel Barber and Phillip M. Bailey's article be considered reliable? Again no, because they did not verify their sources.

This is what WP:RS says, that it should be demonstrable to others, such as myself, that the sources are reliable, which I do not find reliable.

References

Peptidylprolyl (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose While he certainly is a conspiracy theorist and that is well-sourced, and it should be mentioned -- and is in volume in the body -- I strongly disagree that's the locus for his notability, which is already well outlined in the first sentence. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose including it in the 1st sentence the way it is currently written, which, in the context, makes it sound like an occupation. It seems fine to me in the 3rd paragraph, as it is. But if there is a consensus to give it more prominence than that, moving the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph up and appending it to the end of the 1st paragraph would be ok. (I have never seen the article before and know nothing about Patel – I came to it to learn something about him and the first sentence immediately struck me as odd.) Nurg (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• RfC reopened per close review at WP:AN. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  I asked a couple of clarifying questions. Adding link in case others are interested User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi#Patel RfC Reopening Dw31415 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - clearly undue for first sentence. agree it is due for somewhere in the lede. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think a compromise is emerging here. I could be on board for it being the second or third paragraph. Carlp941 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Carlp941: I don't see any compromise emerging, and it's not mandatory to find one. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  @JacktheBrown that's cool that you think that but it is not in line with wikipedia's principles, or a cursory read of this talk page, where many editors are making the same suggestion I did. Give this page a read over, and you'll find many editors who oppose it in the first sentence, who may be okay with it in the lede:

  I think the first sentence should be neutral essential introduction related to his years of work as prosecutor and in positions in the Trump administration. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to mention "conspiracy theorist" in the second or third paragraph of the lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk)

  My full position is that while "conspiracy theorist" is not defining enough to be in the first sentence, it or similar phrasing like "promotes conspiracy theories" should certainly be in the lead, probably at the end of the first paragraph or in its own paragraph. Eluchil404 (talk)

  Oppose including it in the 1st sentence the way it is currently written, which, in the context, makes it sound like an occupation. It seems fine to me in the 3rd paragraph, as it is. But if there is a consensus to give it more prominence than that, moving the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph up and appending it to the end of the 1st paragraph would be ok. (I have never seen the article before and know nothing about Patel – I came to it to learn something about him and the first sentence immediately struck me as odd.) Nurg

  I imagine other editors who supported the inclusion in the first sentence may find it acceptable as well. I suggest you make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's core principle of consensus, where compromise is in the first sentence.

  "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision-making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise."

  I am trying to help to find a compromise in a contentious RfC that has been closed and opened multiple times in error. Being uncompromising and grating Making uncompromising comments is contrary to consensus building, surely you're better than that. Carlp941 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Carlp941: I'm definitely not "grating". JacktheBrown (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  @JacktheBrown, alright. Comment stricken. May I ask why you object to the concept of compromise here? Is there a reason why we shouldn't when multiple editors on both sides of the discussion are open to it? Carlp941 (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Carlp941: because I don't think there will be a compromise on this, and if there's it will be in favour of the arguments for "Oppose". JacktheBrown (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  @JacktheBrown, that's not really a substantial argument against compromise. "i think my side will win" is the opposite of consensus building. frankly i am saddened to see this kind of thinking. Carlp941 (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Previous close hidden here while RfC is open. Dw31415 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Discussions consulted. This RfC spawned several discussions, including the starter discussion at Talk:Kash_Patel#"Conspiracy_theorist", six edit requests (fourth) (fifth) (sixth) to remove or add the "conspiracy theorist" label, then Talk:Kash_Patel#RfC_closure (due to a closure by an involved party), Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Kash_Patel_RfC for basically the same reasons, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Heavy_bludgeoning to discuss Wikieditor662's closures surrounding some of Trump's nominees that are known for promoting conspiracy theories, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Large_numbers_of_single-purpose_accounts,_IP_addresses,_and_personal_attacks_at_Kash_Patel_RfC alerting to what may appear as canvassing if not worse, and some bits that should have belonged here, such as Talk:Kash_Patel#Support. Most of the arguments repeat those presented here. GoodDay has suggested that this RfC run for a month - I respectfully disagree, because the newest arguments mirror those that were stated earlier in the RfC and the discussions mentioned above and bring little new insight, and even if they do, do not substantially change the outcome of the discussion.

Reasoning. All biographies of living people should be written conseratively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. This principle is repeated in the Manual of Style because conspiracy theorist is a label that has quite strong negative connotations. Ultimately, whether a person is "commonly described" as a conspiracist comes down to the determination whether such descriptor is due, i.e. whether this is how a majority of outlets perceive him that way and in fact believe the descriptor to be important enough as to merit either calling him a conspiracy theorist or at least discussing his conspiratorial views in great detail when presenting the portrait of the subject to the readers. Weight is relative according to the prominence of the descriptor in reliable sources. Editors who want to add, restore or retain challenged content must gather consensus for their cause.

That Kash Patel's conspiratorial thinking is thoroughly documented is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a pretty substantial section describing his conspiracist views with quite ample sourcing, which demonstrates that third-party reliable observers dedicated quite a bit of attention to that aspect of his life. Our guidance on writing the lead tells us that the purpose of the lead is to make a summary of the whole text, so the fact that we have that sustained media attention about this part of his biography is reason enough for this descriptor to stay in the lead (see also WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). Supporters additionally argue that his conspiratorial views are a central part of his identity, as evidenced by the fact that he ran a podcast, wrote children's books that further promoted these views, and ranted extensively about the so-called "deep state". He's not just a lawyer, he's lawyer whose defining feature is being a staunch Trump ally spewing conspiracy theories that align with Trump's views. This, in their view, justifies calling him a conspiracist at the very beginning of the lead.

Opponents point to several articles that are essentially short biographies of Kash Patel, where he is not described as a conspiracy theorist and where his conspiracy views barely figure in these portraits, if at all. Unfortunately, discussion about Kash Patel's portrayal in reliablle sources, as supported by examples of how he is mainly described in the media/academia, was lacking, and that is what resolves the issue of the label being due or undue in the first sentence. Out of just a handful of sources presented here, there definitely isn't a clear majority of sources that primarily or in great detail describe him a conspiracist when introducing him. Neither is there a substantial number of sources, among those cited in the article, that do the same when presenting Patel outside articles that specifically discuss his support of conspiracy theories (which are a fraction of all articles cited). This would suggest that this aspect is not considered vital enough to warrant inclusion in the first sentence.

Both arguments are strong and valid so I can't declare a KO for either "team". For the supporters to succeed, though, they actually need at least something resembling a KO. As of the current state of discussion, they haven't achieved that - the numbers aren't there, and both sides have good reasons. They are free to ask to reopen, and I will, if they bring up substantial new evidence, not present here or in the article, that suggests that not only does a substantial number of high-quality sources present him as a conspiracy theorist, but that this is how the majority introduces him (so please don't cherrypick sources that only agree with your POV). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION Kash Patel correction needed

1. Specific description: Jan. 6 United States Capital was never attacked. This is not a true statement. It did, in fact, happen; if it did not, why did the attackers receive a pardon?

Next, Presidental 2020 election was won by President Donald J. Trump. This is, again, an opinion & incorrect (poor) wording. Then, COVID-19 vaccines were never federally mandated. It is & was illegal for an American citizens to get fired for not getting "shot up." As the entire world now knows, the COVID-19 vaccine caused blood clots & so many physical & mental health issues...so many unnecessary deaths. Continued under #2.

"He founded The Kash Foundation, a charity to assist participants of the January 6 United States

2.Capitol attack in legal costs. Patel has promoted several conspiracy theories about the deep state, false claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, QAnon, COVID-19 vaccines, and the January 6 Capitol attack."

3. Reliable source(s) was requested. None needed. An opinion entered in description. An opinion needs to be removed.

~ Kindly do the right. Stick to facts. Please erase opinion portions. The truth is always best. 2601:40E:8201:EBF0:51B5:1570:9723:D31B (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done — No evidence offered for any of these claims. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say about a subject. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No longer ATF director

While still the FBI director, he appears to have been replaced as the acting ATF director as of Apr 9, 2025 - would advocate modification of this article to reflect the change. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/09/kash-patel-director-atf-bureau-removal 132.239.136.2 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Parent's gift

I removed some "material" about a gift after graduation. It's not really that notable. Malerooster (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Personal Life section

Some editors have deleted the entire Personal Life section without any discussion on TALK page. The section had relevant content and references, and should be restored. Some details are moved to Early Life section, making it unduly long. Also, many details belong to Personal Life sectio per WP:LAYOUT. Thanks. 05:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Satellizer talk contribs, Please try to restore Personal Life section, as you correctly mentioned that these details are more appropriate for this section rather than making Early Life section unduly long. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2025

Remove the word "falsely" from the following sentence:

"In 2023,[127] Patel wrote Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy, a memoir that falsely describes the origins of the FBI investigation into Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign..."

Rationale: Why the word "falsely"? How do you know it's false? Where's your evidence? No citation is provided for this claim. He's the one who conducted investigations into these things, and he wrote a book about it from his own first-hand experience. If you're going to label his book as "false", you need to provide some evidence. I think the claims in his book could be challenged if there's another side to the story or evidence that contradicts him. But even then, a whole court case would be needed to decide what's true. And then the best you could say is, "xyz has disputed his claims", or "so-and-so court case ruled that this claim was untrue". But you can't just label things as "false" without any evidence or citations or proof. 98.53.212.35 (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm going to let someone else decide that, because I've already been told not to edit "contentious topics," as you can see here. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 00:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The sentence in question has a direct citation to the New York Times, a reliable source which backs up the claim that Patel's memoir contains false statements. Day Creature (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2025

The line in the 4th paragraph should be rewritten or removed entirely. " Patel has promoted several conspiracy theories about the deep state, false claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, QAnon, COVID-19 vaccines, and the January 6 Capitol attack." Patel has released documents about Russiagate that has proven it was indeed a 'deep state' operation without any evidence to support the narrative that was based on completely false intel and that was coordinated by FBI leadership in coordination with DNC operatives.

Should be changed to, "Patel has shed light on corruption, including illegal and other unethical behavior within the federal government by previous leadership at the FBI and other agencies as with the regards to the Russiagate investigation and other operations." ScottyJohnson (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

include reliable references. please see WP:RELIABLE and look over list on WP:RSP. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kash Patel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 06:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: PickleG13 (talk · contribs) 21:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Well-written

Starting from the totally solid lead paragraphs, this is a great article, one that meets the Good Article standards and does so despite having a massive amount of prose to go through. The prose deserves praise in itself, easily rising to the level of Wikipedia's standards.

Verifiable with no original research

No original research appears to be present. Sourcing is good, and it broadly relies upon mainstream news sources; there are sometimes more sources than even appear necessary, which is a trait that I will never knock a page for.

Broad in its coverage

There is a high degree of specificity in a lot of sections, but Education shows that attempts were made to keep things broad. Much has been written about Patel's life as a major governmental figure.

Neutral

The prose is very neutral. Patel is necessarily controversial, but controversy is handled well.

Stable

This is the one part of the page that I would dispute, although I think it is still overall of high enough quality as to be nominated. Patel is very controversial, and the usage of the term "conspiracy theorist" has come under Talk Page discussion in the past. It has now received less weight, seemingly to reduce the number of edit wars rather than as a true reflection of its quality. As a result, it's likely that this page will continue to come under dispute throughout the second Trump presidency, something worthy of discussion.

Illustrated

There are a lot of good images that are part of this page. Even his law school is given its own image, something that I believe is a mark of an attempt at a high quality biographical article.

• User:ElijahPepe and User:PickleG13: What is the status of this review? Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Bgsu98 I do not know. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Patel's academic history must be verified, particularly a law degree from Georgetown University which he publicly claims to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azd0815 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

language is obviously biased

The language is obviously biased as someone already noted above 2600:4040:27E4:7D00:41BC:9DF1:7467:F5DE (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2025

Patel is widely considered to be the most successful FBI director of all time 76.69.36.42 (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seercat3160 (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2025

Following reference referencing his career as public defender is not relevant to the section it is: "That month, he participated in a charity auction for Switchboard of Miami.[6]" and should be either deleted or moved Llamabutt (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the information, as his participation in a charity auction seems irrelevant and trivial. Day Creature (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

portrait caption

currently states "keep fighting for us", needs to be changed to an encyclopedic caption Mihir.pethe1 (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kash Patel/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 13:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 04:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this one Czarking0 (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Starting with eligibility nom has 88% of current authorship. Second most edits at 93. Czarking0 (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Earwig has several findings but all are phrases like Directory of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or attributed quotes in the article.Czarking0 (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this but looking at the article's edit history shows that it is mostly stable at least since April which I consider to be a long enough look-back for GAR.Czarking0 (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Kash Patel/GA1 was a terrible review so I am not looking to that much for what should be done in this one.Czarking0 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It would really help the review process, and is good practice in general, to leave edit summaries. To give you some insight into what I would do with them, I see you left "fixed" comments on the review and then I go to the edit history to check how you fixed. However since there are no summaries I have to do all the correlations myself.Czarking0 (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Not as part of the review and not a guideline. However I wanted to share that to me "had" is a word to watch. It almost always gets used to make this very passive past tense. Here is an example I am changing

−

In February 2020, Patel had become a senior advisor

+

In February 2020, Patel become an advisor

It almost doesn't even make sense to say someone had become something at a certain time.

@Czarking0: The formatting of this review is complex. Could you offer a basic summary of what still needs to be done? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Updated the strikes. The table at the end shows a high level summary of how the GAC apply. Everything that is not stricken needs further work. Czarking0 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• According to a questionnaire he sent to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary This is quite the attribution. Can this not just be stated in WP voice? Czarking0 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of citing claims directly from Patel himself, though the questionnaire does appear reliable, at least based on the muted references to Benghazi. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• routing arrest warrants seems like unexplained jargon. What does it mean to route arrest warrants?

Patel sent warrants to judges for approval. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Patel served as a board member of the South Asian Bar Association of North America Can this be attributed to any additional sources? I take this source to indicate that his answers overall are notable but not that each of them is due for inclusion.Czarking0 (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Not any source worth including. I did search for the organization and Patel's name in search of sources that could confirm other very specific details, to no luck. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• but he was allegedly removed over disagreements he had with the office leading the case, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia This is one of those cases where if the allegedly is important then you should note who is doing the alleging if it is not then you should probably drop the allegedly.Czarking0 (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Should be fixed. Patel was punished, but he denies that he was removed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Later, he incorrectly said he had been the case's lead prosecutor. Based on the source I think incorrectly said is not the right phrasing considering he published this in a book he wrote. Not a tweet, not an off the cuff remark in an interview, it was in a book that presumably went through an editing process. To quote NYT

  Mr. Patel has repeatedly made it sound as if he led the government’s overall effort to investigate and prosecute militants involved in the 2012 attack. As Mr. Patel himself acknowledges, he worked at the department’s Washington headquarters, or “Main Justice,” and he did not remain for the duration of the investigation.

  Czarking0 (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• From Rice, "Patel was not in charge, as he has often suggested, but he did play an aggressive role" this seems like a bit of a pattern for Patel. A bit more of this in the sources and I would suggest a small section.Czarking0 (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not the article I wrote. For future reference, the draft I merged is here. Some other users have rewritten sections. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok coming back to this because maybe I did not understand something. In my mind, I am not reviewing your draft, nor have I, nor do I plan to. I am doing a GAR for the main Kash Patel article. I feel like I am missing something here, why are you showing me this draft? Czarking0 (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• legal liaison also seems like unexplained jargon. Would legal council be better for us simple folk? What is the difference? Czarking0 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

A liaison is a coordinator, and that is the term that CBS News used. I imagine that "legal counsel" was not his role, otherwise that would have been used. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Sources consistently discuss how quick Patel's rise to power was. Swan specifically could be used as a source for a claim on this. Is that in the article somewhere? Patel "took few notes in meetings" and was inexperienced for the position Is well sourced. This could be a good place to add the alternative perspective that he is good at pleasing his bosses and rose quickly.Czarking0 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how that's particularly relevant. The reader knows that Patel went from a congressional aide to the director of the FBI in the span of eight years.

I am confused by your use of relevant? It is a notable claim about his career repeated in several RS. The reader could infer a lot of things from the text but stating that Patel's rise to power is quick is not solely a claim about the timeline of his career it is about his career progression relative to the norms of his industry. If you still think that it is undue to highlight his quick rise to power and desire to please his bosses then I think you should also remove was inexperienced for the position because "the reader knows that Patel went from a congressional aide to the director of the FBI in the span of eight years". Given the sources these are two equally notable opinions derived from different views of the same facts.Czarking0 (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe it's undue. It would be helpful to list those sources so that I can understand better. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

1. From CNN kash-patel-government-lawyer-fbi

   Patel, who begins his rounds on Capitol Hill this week as part of his confirmation process, rose rapidly as a star in the MAGA movement, coining a gold-flecked moniker, K$H, to sell merchandise including T-shirts and Trump-adjacent children’s books. That rise has been driven by ambition, an uncanny survival instinct, and a strong sense of grievance toward the government he used to work for, according to people who have worked with him over decades.

2. Barnes "Mr. Patel was promoted to a senior director position unusually quickly."
3. Swan "Patel had enjoyed an extraordinary rise from obscurity to power during the Trump era. Over the course of only a few years, he went from being a little-known Capitol Hill staffer to one of the most powerful figures in the U.S. national security apparatus."

I only checked 5 of the sources that I have already mentioned in this review to come up with these three quotes. From my reading of the sources material during this review I know there are several more mentions. Almost certainly more mentioned of a rapid rise than anything supporting inexperienced. Czarking0 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Congressional testimony by Fiona Hill, a senior director for Europe and Ukraine at the NSC, purportedly revealed that Patel had directly given Trump negative information about Ukraine This is just not good writing it is not neutral phrasing. purportedly and revealed almost never belong. What is negative information? Instead a neutral claim attributed to Hill's testimony should be presented.Czarking0 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that portrayed the country as corrupt is neutral. Ukraine at that time was widely reported in RS to one of the most corrupt countries in the world. As an exaggeration this is like says He gave the president information that portrayed Singapore as densely populated. To me, portrayed is a WTW. Czarking0 (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Should be fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Still think you are struggling to give this NPOV phrasing In July 2019, Patel was appointed as senior director of the counterterrorism directorate of the National Security Council (NSC). Fiona Hill, a senior director for Europe and Ukraine at the NSC, stated in congressional testimony that Patel had directly given Trump information about Ukraine that gave him a negative view of the country. First, why is it directly given instead of just gave. I am not really sure what the informative value is supposed to be here? Are you trying to show that Patel may have lied? That could be more clearly presented by moving the last sentence of this paragraph to the front and then combining most of the rest of it into one sentence to show multiple sources to the contrary. The framing is strange gave him a negative view of the country. Why not gave him an accurate view or a more informed view of the country. Why should the POTUS have anything but a negative view on one of the most corrupt countries in the world? This use of information obfuscates what the information actually is. If it is about corruption maybe you should say ...congressional testimony that Patel informed Trump on widespread corruption in Ukraine. ? Czarking0 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• "very careful" Quotes should be used only when they are particularly notable or there is a reason the article cannot make a claim in WP voice. This is one example of where this article is not meeting MOS:QUOT

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• In August 2020, Patel and Roger D. Carstens, the special envoy for hostage affairs, traveled to Damascus to meet with Ali Mamlouk, the director of Syria's National Security Bureau,[30] and in October, Bloomberg News reported that he had met with an unnamed Syrian official to discuss releasing Austin Tice, an American journalist who was captured in 2012, and Majd Kamalmaz, a Syrian-American therapist who disappeared in 2017;[31] in May 2024, U.S. national security officials told Kamalmaz's family that they had obtained intelligence indicating he had died in captivity. At a glance I think this is a little shy of beating the other one for longest sentence. Still it could use a healthy does of periods.Czarking0 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Patel was involved in the 2020 Nigeria hostage rescue, falsely informing the Department of Defense that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had gotten approval to enter Nigeria's airspace. The plane was close to landing when Secretary of Defense Mark Esper learned that the department had not gotten authorization, although SEAL Team Six was later given permission to land. The incident risked the death of the hostage, Philip Walton, or the deaths of several Navy SEALs. This should almost certainly be in a new paragraph. What was his involvement? It is really odd that falsely is used here and not in other places in this article. Would mistakenly better describe what occurred? Reading this makes me fell like I am left with many more questions than answers. Why is although SEAL Team Six was later given permission to land more relevant than the background on whatever was happening? Czarking0 (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It would not. The sentences are rather clear: There was an operation to secure hostages from Nigeria, Patel told the Department of Defense that SEAL Team Six could enter the country. The source is vague itself on what happened, which is why this is not covered extensively. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear are you simultaneously saying that the sources are vague on what happened and that Patel intentionally supplied false airspace information to the Department of Defense? Czarking0 (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It is unknown whether or not Patel was deliberately lying. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok this section is still not well done. Starting with Patel was involved in the 2020 Nigeria hostage rescue. Maybe this is meant as a summary sentence? The information here itself is too short to warrant a summary sentence. If it is not meant as a summary then was involved should basically never be used in an article because the point is to say what the involvement was. Since it is unclear I would swap falsely informing for told. This carries much less implication. You bend over backwards to not say lied or false in other areas of the article where I think the sources are more much clear that these terms are warranted. Czarking0 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Patel supported an internal proposal this is vague. What did he do to support it? Give a speech? Post on Twitter? Czarking0 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The source does not state how he was supportive. Either of those are unlikely, given that this was an internal proposal. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Well with the Trump team you never know...(humor intended) Czarking0 (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• allege that Patel discussed security It is not clear why this is an allegation? Dicussing security seems like a normal and prudent thing to do during an attack on the capitol. Would state be better? Czarking0 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

These are allegations, because they come from congressional testimony. The Times is wary, and Wikipedia should be cautious here as well. The attack was severe precisely because there was a noticeable lack of security at the Capitol. The suggestion is that Patel knew the Capitol would be attacked or that he advocated for weaker security. It is not quite clear. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

"The suggestion is that Patel knew the Capitol would be attacked or that he advocated for weaker security." The article is not here to make suggestions it is here to state facts and notable opinions. For what it's worth I did not pick up that that suggestion at all from the article. "These are allegations, because they come from congressional testimony." To me, this does not follow. I don't think everything in congressional testimony should be described as an allegation so I won't accept that as a good reason to call it an allegation in the article. Also I have no idea who these Times are you keep mentioning. Is it the NYT? Times is not a sufficiently broadly known abbreviation for a global audience nearly every country has a paper that is referred to as the Times and this article certainly gets global viewership. Czarking0 (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This is applicable to the comment about Meadows below: Patel's activities on and before January 6 are relevant because it gives insight into how the military was involved in responding to the attack. Based on his communications, Patel did play a role in that response, but I have yet to see a source that elaborates on that. His name isn't even in the January 6 Report. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

"Based on his communications, Patel did play a role in that response, but I have yet to see a source that elaborates on that. His name isn't even in the January 6 Report." Sounds like "Patel did play a role in that response" is OR then. Czarking0 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• He was in Miller's office during the attack. Is this notable? This seems like a where were you on 9/11 type thing. Czarking0 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Similar, he repeatedly contacted Mark Meadows, Trump's chief of staff, on the day of the attack why is this notable? Is it abnormal for the chief of staff of the secretary of defense to talk to the president's chief of staff I would think they talk most days? Maybe not, I have no idea what these people do on a day to day basis which I think says a lot about the quality of this article. Even if it is not normal on a day to day I can't say that I find it particularly notable that they would talk to each other during an attack on the capitol. Is this another case where talked to is supposed to be suggestive of some vague thing that cannot be reliably sourced? I feel like this borders on conspiracy theory fuel. Czarking0 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Although a lawyer for Trump instructed Patel to defy the subpoena,[46] he communicated with the committee Not clear to me whether he did or did not defy the subpoena.Czarking0 (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Patel did not defy the subpoena. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

When I leave a comment like this I am not asking you out of a personal request I am telling you the prose is unclear and the article needs to be changed. I'll get this one. Czarking0 (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• American Oversight, a watchdog group, sought Patel's texts in August. I think this is undue weight. At a minimum it is not really informative. The source is really about wiped phones this is probably notable for AO but not for Patel.Czarking0 (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Patel was represented by Stanley Woodward, who has frequently worked for associates of Trump. I would end this sentence at Woodward. The blue link suffices for who he is.

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• After The New York Times published an article in October 2019 about Fiona Hill's testimony in the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump, Patel filed a $44-million[75] defamation suit against the paper.[18] The next month, he sued Politico for $25 million[75] for defamation.[76] Patel's lawyers moved to dismiss both lawsuits in 2021. According to the Times, Patel did not pursue his case against the paper, while Politico's lawyers argued that the judge was prepared to dismiss the case. Just to check, this is written correctly? This sounds almost unbelievable. I would recommend against abbreviating NYT as the Times.Czarking0 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

This is correct and not unusual for a Trump ally—or Trump himself—to sue a news organization for a large sum, only to withdraw their lawsuit or have them dismissed by a judge. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh man I have nothing to say about this that I want recorded in the annals of WP but thanks for sharing and I am giggling out of frustration.Czarking0 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Before his confirmation hearing, Patel began conducting policy-focused interviews. This is vague, who was he interviewing? Or was he the one being interviewed by whom?

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am not trying to be dense but it still isn't clear to me. Is he the one doing the interviewing or he is being interviewed? Maybe there is something notable about the fact that it was before the hearing or you are just stating the chronology? Is this like in preparation for the hearing like study work so he knows what to say? Or like prep for running the place so he knows who to hire? Czarking0 (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

After Trump won the election, some of his lieutenants and allies conducted job interviews for government positions. Patel was interviewing candidates for the FBI; of course, at the time, Biden was still president and his nomination had not even been sent to the Senate. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Got it. I think the article needs to be more clear about that. Also due to some of your other comments about suggestions above I want to point out that I think you are trying to suggest something with the part starting at "at the time". I expect that a NPOV verifiable article does not make vague suggestions. Further I presently understand that all modern executive transition teams take unofficial action in preparation of their role for months in advance of their official power so that they are effective as soon as possible. Nothing wrong with being clear about that in the article, but making vague suggestions that Patel was unique in that practice does not seem warranted given the sources presently. Czarking0 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Senator Peter Welch repeatedly asked Patel whether Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election; Patel said that the election was "certified" but did not explicitly say that Biden won Maybe I already said this but I think this is not the best way to put it given the source. Consider cutting.

I don't see an issue here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• nearly two dozen this is not some huge number where rounding is expected.Czarking0 (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• He expressed interest in joining the bureau's hockey team. Is this really due for inclusion? Hockey is already mentioned several times in the article.Czarking0 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• a museum of the 'deep state' Rice notes how the building is named after J. Edgar Hoover, who used illegally used the FBI to pressure presidents and congressmen to his political agenda. This history is probably relevant for the pertinent question of why would the FBI headquarters make a good "museum of the 'deep state'".Czarking0 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hoover is not why Patel is critical of the deep state. Patel is suggesting that the FBI be shut down or significantly reduced because, in his telling, it has become a weapon against Trump. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• From Goldman 2025c

  One former F.B.I. official familiar with the advisory team’s work said that members had been considering a regional model, but it differed from the one that was announced. A former senior agent on the advisory team who had worked with F.B.I. leadership before Mr. Patel arrived had even written a white paper that included a similar model. The former official said that Mr. Patel’s plan was better than previous proposals, but that its success hinged on having strong leaders in those roles. Changes to the top ranks of the F.B.I.’s structure had been discussed long before Mr. Patel’s arrival, former senior F.B.I. officials said, along with reducing the number of employees located in the Capitol region. One former executive who left several years ago but was deeply involved in the bureau’s management applauded Mr. Patel’s effort.

  Seems like some good additional context for the restructuring section. Overall this source is much more up to date and informative than what a lot of the section is currently based on.

• That month, Patel announced that Hannah Dugan, should be new paragraph

Attributions

• according to the Times, he did not provide a definitive answer why attribute? Czarking0 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Axios reported that Trump sought to appoint Patel Why the attribution here? Czarking0 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• In November 2024, Axios reported that then President-elect Donald Trump intended to appoint Patel ditto Czarking0 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• The Wall Street Journal later reported that Trump intended to remove Christopher A. Wray as dittoCzarking0 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• According to colleagues who spoke to The New York Times, why attributeCzarking0 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Patel told Axios's Jonathan Swan why add Swan and Axios to the attribution?Czarking0 (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Swan removed. It is not possible to remove Axios from this sentence as it is written. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Politico reported that Patel had become why attribute?Czarking0 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• According to The New York Times, Susie Wiles, Trump's campaign manager dittoCzarking0 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• He positioned himself as insulated from Trump, disagreeing with Trump's decision to pardon January 6 Capitol attack defendants Odd that this one is not attributed since this seems like more of an opinionCzarking0(talk) 17:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• In an interview with CBS News, Patel said that the call was personal Why attribute ? Czarking0 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Removing where he made this claim would leave more questions than answers. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• In February 2020, Politico reported that Patel had become dittoCzarking0 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• A senior national security official who spoke to Vanity Fair's Adam Ciralsky neither Vanity Fair nor Ciralsky should be attributed here. Attributions are for the one making the claimCzarking0 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• according to The New York Times, The frequency in which the article attributes sources makes it seem like a promotion for the sources.Czarking0 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• He faced allegations wild that with all these attributions the allegations are not attributed.Czarking0 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I cannot find this in the article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Nor can I so  Done

• In January 2021, Axios reported small note here is that what is notable is usually not when something was reported but when it occurred and the language should reflect that.Czarking0 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• In October, Bloomberg News reported that he had met with an unnamed Syrian official to discuss releasing Austin Tice why attribute? Czarking0 (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• The whole Initial moves and agency restructuring has a lot of attributions please double check them.Czarking0 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Nunes

• The New York Times later reported that he was the primary author of the Nunes memo,[9] which alleged that Federal Bureau of Investigation officials abused their authority in the FBI investigation into links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials, seeking a warrant for Carter Page, an advisor to Donald Trump, and relying on claims made by Christopher Steele, a British intelligence officer who was allegedly paid by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. I sure hope this is the longest sentence in the article better yet I hope it gets split.Czarking0 (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Given that Rice contradicts this NYT attributed claim, I think some more reworking on this section with a wider view of the sources would help. Also for two years of this life this might be a bit brief.
• From Rice "Patel was not in charge, as he has often suggested, but he did play an aggressive role, clashing with members of the Trump administration who got in his way. He reportedly once used his congressional credentials to enter the CIA’s headquarters and tried to personally serve then-Director Mike Pompeo with a subpoena." seems notableCzarking0 (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• From Politico, "Patel — in an earlier role as a top adviser to Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee — had led the California lawmaker’s efforts to rebut special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation." seems like his role here is unclear in the sources.
• The memo's veracity was highly questioned, but it bolstered Patel's standing among Trump allies The source discuss how the process of creating the memo was more important to the authorship team than the results. Maybe this process and Patel's role in it should have similar focus to the actual results.
• In April 2018, the deputy attorney general overseeing the investigation, Rod Rosenstein, asked whether Patel had traveled to London the previous year to interview Steele; according to the Times, he did not provide a definitive answer The Rice source indicates more context on what happened here.
• From Swan "Some of Nunes’ and Patel’s criticisms of the DOJ’s actions were later validated by an inspector general" seems to be missing context.

Hardan incident

Made a little section for this because I have several thoughts. At a trial for Omar Faraj Saeed al-Hardan, a Palestinian accused of providing material support to the Islamic State, Judge Lynn Hughes repeatedly berated Patel for his unprofessional attire and had him removed from the court chambers. Patel had flown from Tajikistan to the courtroom in Texas, although he was not required to be present

1. accused should be updated
2. From the same source there is

   Hughes, 74, is something of a maverick, known for courtroom outbursts and comments about race that have led some plaintiffs to call on him to recuse himself. At a pretrial conference in a discrimination case involving an Indian American, for instance, he discussed "Adolf Hitler's use of swastikas, the origin of Caucasians and the futility of diversity programs at universities," according to a report in the Texas Observer.

   So I don't think the claim here represents a NPOV of this source.
3. Ellen Nakashima and Julie Tate contributed to this report. Should be added to the ref.

As far as I'm aware, that is not a GA requirement nor a general requirement. WP:CITEHOW only mentions that the byline should be included for {{Cite news}}. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

1. although he was not required to be present basically seems like OR someone almost certainly required him to be present those people are presumably the ones that authorized payment for his flight. The transcript in the source reads like an angry old man looking for a brown man to hate on.

Here is the Atlantic's retrospective reporting on the incident:

Judge Lynn Nettleton Hughes lost it. “If you want to be a lawyer, dress like a lawyer,” Hughes snapped in chambers. “Act like a lawyer.” Hughes proceeded to berate Patel as “just one more nonessential employee from Washington.” “What is the utility to me and to the people of America to have you fly down here at their expense?” he said. “You don’t add a bit of value, do you?” The judge dismissed Patel from chambers.

Patel’s bosses were furious on his behalf. Hughes, then 74, had a history of eruptions in court, including disturbing remarks about race. Three years earlier, an Indian American plaintiff had tried but failed to have the judge removed from his discrimination case after Hughes held forth in a pretrial conference on “Adolf Hitler’s use of swastikas, the origin of Caucasians and the futility of diversity programs at universities,” the Texas Observer reported. DOJ officials’ attempts to get a transcript of the Patel exchange only enraged Hughes further; the judge issued an “Order on Ineptitude” castigating the “pretentious lawyers” at Main Justice. The Washington Post included all of this in a report on the incident. In the article, Patel comes across as a sympathetic figure. But the Justice Department chose not to comment, and for Patel, this was what counted. He writes in his book that, although his superiors privately praised him for keeping a level head, they “refused to say any of that publicly,” standing by as the media “dragged my name through the mud.” Patel brought complaints again and again to the leadership of the department’s National Security Division—adamant that something be done to hold the Texas prosecutors to account for not standing up for him in front of the judge, one of his former DOJ colleagues recalled. It wasn’t that his superiors had failed to understand his frustration; yes, they agreed, the judge was a “wack job,” in the words of the second former DOJ colleague, and they had called the U.S. Attorney’s Office to express their disappointment. “I finally said, ‘I don’t really know what else you want,’ ” the first former colleague recalled. “ ‘The U.S. attorney is presidentially appointed, like, I—what do you want us to do?’ ”

“He just felt so aggrieved,” this person added, “and this continued throughout the rest of his tenure. And I actually think it was part of why he left.”

Seems like additional context is warranted.

Czarking0 (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Deep state

The article consistently says he promoted conspiracy theories about the deep state. This is a fine claim for the lead but the body should be much more precise as covered in several sources for example from Rice.

Government Gangsters includes a now-notorious appendix that names 60 individuals as agents of the “deep state.” “It’s not an enemies list,” Patel said at his confirmation hearing, claiming the appendix was merely meant to be a “glossary.” But that’s not how he spoke when he was promoting the book and campaigning for Trump. “I’m going on a government-gangsters manhunt,” he said in a speech last year at CPAC. “Who’s coming with me?” Trump went so far as to blurb Government Gangsters and called it his “blueprint” for taking back the government.

I think overall his views on the deep state should be covered in more detail. There is probably a small section worth of content here.Czarking0 (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

potentially expanding coverage on the book would deprecate the need for a specific deep state section Czarking0 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination and confirmation

This section is not really accomplishing summary style and the weight given to it seems disproportionate compared to Nunes section.Czarking0 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Government gangsters

Here is what the article says about the memoir spread out through multiple sections:

• Patel wrote Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy, a memoir that falsely describes the origins of the FBI investigation into Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and the authorization to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump advisor. An appendix to Government Gangsters includes a list of 60 names labeled "Members of the Executive Branch Deep State".[150] The list has been widely interpreted as an enemies list,[d] though Patel rejected that term in his Senate confirmation hearing.[157] The memoir was later adapted into a documentary produced by former Trump advisor Steve Bannon.
• although he was interested in medical school programs,[8] he was inspired by defense lawyers who golfed at the club
• In May, he sued the Department of Defense over a review of his memoir, Government Gangsters (2023).
• calls for weakening civil service job protections;[133] Trump praised the book as a "roadmap to end the Deep State's reign".

Here is what the sources say: Rice:

• "posits the FBI has been controlled by criminals, "

• Government Gangsters includes a now-notorious appendix that names 60 individuals as agents of the “deep state.” “It’s not an enemies list,” Patel said at his confirmation hearing, claiming the appendix was merely meant to be a “glossary.” But that’s not how he spoke when he was promoting the book and campaigning for Trump. “I’m going on a government-gangsters manhunt,” “Who’s coming with me?” Trump went so far as to blurb Government Gangsters and called it his “blueprint” for taking back the government.

• "“They are the criminals,” he wrote in Government Gangsters, “we are the ones who are persecuted.”"
• "he says Schiff, now a senator, is “from the inner circle of Dante’s Inferno.”"

• Some of the people named in the appendix to Government Gangsters say they have no idea why they are on his list. Many are well known, but there are some who served at relatively low levels, including current and former FBI agents. “I’m not calling for any sort of harm to them physically,” Patel said on Kash’s Corner.

• Patel has articulated some substantive proposals for structural reforms. Government Gangsters contains several incongruously wonky chapters that read like they’re coming from a former public defender. He says he wants greater transparency and increased safeguards for civil liberties at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorizes the FBI to secretly intercept electronic communications. His critique of the head count at headquarters, around 7,000 employees, is widely shared among those who have worked at the bureau, even if they don’t think the answer is to turn the building into a museum. (Patel claims the proposal was hyperbolic but he’s serious about redeploying resources — as the reported 1,500 relocations attest. “You’re cops — go be cops,” he says.)

Goldman:

Patel distorted the Justice Department’s decisions. “Despite the fact that we had reams of evidence against dozens of terrorists in the Benghazi attack, Eric Holder’s Justice Department decided to only prosecute one of the attackers.”

• “By the time the D.O.J. was moving in full force to compile evidence and bring prosecutions against the Benghazi terrorists, I was leading the prosecution’s efforts at Main Justice in Washington, D.C.”

Patel trivialized the case against an attack ringleader.

“Ultimately, when it came to Benghazi, the Obama administration, the F.B.I. and the D.O.J. wanted to seem tough on terrorism, so they kept minimal prosecutions open and brought up big-sounding charges that we couldn’t support.”

Savage:

• "served to delegitimize the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, stoke baseless suspicions that the F.B.I. helped instigate the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol and muddy the waters of the inquiry into Mr. Trump’s refusal to return classified documents after leaving office."

The origins of the Russia investigation The root of Russia-gate is the Steele Dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign and the DNC. … The fake dossier was the linchpin for the whole operation. This was yet another detail the Deep State tried to hide when Obama’s former director of national intelligence James Clapper went on to CNN and said that the dossier was not used to start the investigation. It was a flat-out lie, but it did serve Clapper’s true purpose, which was to help his Deep State allies at the F.B.I.

The Carter Page wiretap applications

Steele would leak the information, then the F.B.I. would use the media reports planted by their own source to bolster its investigations. One particular story went to Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News, which discussed how Trump campaign aide Carter Page traveled to Moscow … in order to justify part of their FISA warrant application on Carter Page. … The F.B.I. knew about Steele’s bias and that the Clinton campaign and the DNC had paid for the dossier at the time they submitted their FISA warrant application to spy on Carter Page, but they never told the FISA judge either of these facts, as was required by law. — “Government Gangsters”

To put the Carter Page FISA warrant into perspective, this wasn’t just routine police work. By getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page, the F.B.I. effectively had the ability to spy on most, if not all, of the Trump campaign communications, including messages from Donald Trump himself. That’s because these warrants don’t just let the F.B.I. observe the subject of the warrant but also people one or even two degrees removed from the subject. That means the entire Trump campaign could have been in the F.B.I. dragnet. … As I mentioned earlier, the F.B.I. didn’t need to spy on Donald Trump personally because a single surveillance warrant on one person in the campaign would give them the ability to do all the spying they could need on effectively any person in the campaign, including the candidate himself.

Calabro:

• "It was only a matter of time before they found each other, is how Patel seemed to see it. Just a “couple of guys from Queens,” he has said, trying to synonymize his brand with Trump’s home borough, and the scrappy knuckle-crack caricature that comes with it. In Government Gangsters, Patel reminds readers of this piece of shared heritage four times."

• In Garden City, Patel caddied for “very wealthy” and “important” New Yorkers at the local country club, some of them defense attorneys, he writes in Government Gangsters; as they played, he listened to their stories about the drama of court. “I could be a first-generation immigrant lawyer at a white shoe firm making a ton of money,” Patel thought. After he graduated from the University of Richmond and then Pace University’s law school, however, his dreams of Big Law and high retainers were complicated when, by his account, no firm would hire him.

• The lesson of the bench slap and its aftermath, as Patel explains in Government Gangsters, was this: Although he had tried “to do my best to serve my country,” senior government officials had “refused to step up to the plate” for him in return. Patel decided to stop working for “cowards.”

  The bench slap here is the Hardan incident above.

• Patel tends to emphasize his reluctance when he recounts going to work for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in April 2017, whether he is a teal-caped wizard in the telling or just another 30-something civil servant looking for the next thing. He has said that when he first met with Nunes, the committee’s Republican chair, about a staff opening on the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, he thought the job sounded boring; what Patel had really wanted, since Trump’s election, was to work in the White House. But Nunes won him over, Patel writes in Government Gangsters, by promising to recommend him for a spot on Trump’s National Security Council once the probe concluded.

• "60 names in Patel’s compendium of “Members of the Executive Branch Deep State,” found in Appendix B of Government Gangsters."

Tillman:

• Dropped, Dismissed
  Patel worked for the House Intelligence Committee and served in senior national security posts in the Trump administration. Patel sued the Defense Department in May 2023, suggesting it was “unreasonably” delaying a review of his memoir manuscript because he was critical of government officials. Patel withdrew the case two months later and his book was published that fall.

• Bloomberg News identified six cases that Patel has filed since 2019. Four involved defamation claims. The other two were against a federal agency and former US officials that Patel accused of violating his rights. Taken together, they show how Patel has taken action in what he described in a 2023 book as a “battle” against “government gangsters” and “peddlers of propaganda.”

Williamson and Savage:

• “Fire the top ranks of the F.B.I.” Encourage Congress to demand testimony exposing “every single bit of filth and corruption” at the agency, and withhold its funding “until the documents come in.” Prosecute leakers and journalists. Replace the national security work force with “people who won’t undermine the president’s agenda.”

• "Not least, Mr. Patel called in his book for weakening civil service job protections for tens of thousands of career officials."

My thoughts

1. Given the balance of the sources the claim regarding his suit with the DoJ seems to be simultaneously undue weight and missing significant context. Czarking0 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
2. I think the emphasis on Page is fair but some of the other themes here should be similarly emphasized.Czarking0 (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Golf is mentioned multiple times so this claim seems goodCzarking0 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Weakening civil service protection is well sourced. Assuming some of the other themes are are expanded I think it is also due weight.Czarking0 (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Section titles

• I have long not loved years in section titles but there is probably no policy against that. In this case, I think it is particularly inaccurate to say Legal and governmental career (2006–2020) since his career 2025-present must be considered a governmental one.

I did not write that section title. It has been reverted. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• The Career section title does not make sense. Is being Director of the FBI not part of his career?Czarking0 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not see an issue with the current structure. Mitt Romney has a similar outline, as does Ronald Reagan. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, neither of those examples change my opinion at all and I think the differences are very obvious. Czarking0 (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Spot Checks

• raised Hindu  Done
• He left the Department of Justice in 2017, later saying that the impetus for his departure had been the department's response to the 2016 presidential election Basically  Done however maybe it would be better to say it is more about the response of leaders in the department rather than the department as an institution?
• In April, Trump devised a plan to oust FBI director Christopher A. Wray and to appoint William Evanina to lead the bureau, while Patel would become deputy director. Attorney General William Barr halted the plan, threatening to resign.  Done I think Trump is given slightly too much agency in this framing but still verified.
• Patel "took few notes in meetings" and was inexperienced for the position  Done
• purportedly on Sean Hannity's recommendation. In general, I think purportedly is a word to watch. I think this is  Not done given the source.

I don't see that phrase in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Right because I removed it since it is not supported by the source. Czarking0 (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I have indicated several sentences that are too verbose or not concise. I have also indicated several areas where the prose is vague.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Some examples of bad sections are given above and multiple WTW violations listed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Checked many and I see no issues
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sourcing is good. Well I said good and I mostly think that is true. There is a bit of a WTW issue I pointed out in the spot check section which needs to be resolved. IDK why I said this needs to be resolved. It was already resolved.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Coverage of the Hardan incident is a little troubling but the issue is mostly neutrality.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig discussed at top of GAR
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nunes section in particular is underdeveloped. Mentioned several other areas where it seems like not enough weight is given to some details. Very little mention of his personal life.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Several areas where undue weight is paid to details that do not help the article. Though this is the least concern I have.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Many WP:VOICE concerns and relative weighting of content.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	discussed at top of GAR
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All copyright look good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Maybe could use a couple more photos. Fiona Hill is mentioned a couple times maybe an image of her would work?
	7. Overall assessment.	Could pass needs work right now

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add relationship with girlfriend Wilkins in a personal life section

In March, @ElijahPepe removed reference to Patel's girlfriend because sourcing was not reliable enough(see this edit- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kash_Patel&oldid=1282495994). Since then, CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/29/kash-patel-girlfriend-fbi-defamation-lawsuit.html), as well as the Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/kash-patels-girlfriend-26-addresses-their-19-year-age-gap/) and NY Post (https://nypost.com/2025/08/29/us-news/kash-patels-girlfriend-sues-podcaster-for-claiming-shes-israeli-spy-who-lured-fbi-chief-in-honeypot-operation/) have said Wilkins and Patel are in a relationship. I think it is time that this relationship is referenced in his wikipedia, which currently lacks any personal life section.

I would propose the following be added to his page (and would be happy to add it if I had permission):

Personal life

Kash Patel has been dating Alexis Wilkins, a country music artist and conservative political commentator 19 years his junior, since 2023.

Citation: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/29/kash-patel-girlfriend-fbi-defamation-lawsuit.html Brangston (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I added a "Personal life" section with the CNBC source. Marquardtika (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Brangston cnbc is a reliable source. if it is sourced, relevant, encyclopedic

and presented neutrally, it should go in the article. Mihir.pethe1 (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not reliable, per WP:NPPSG#Business, companies and products. Wilkins is already mentioned in the article anyway. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

That page says "no consensus" about CNBC, so I don't think the sentence should be excluded on that basis. Another outlet with no consensus, "The Daily Beat" also reports the same thing. And I think it's important that the relationship is listed in a personal life section. Most wiki bios of this length include a personal life section Brangston (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the NYTimes confirms their relationship, so I'd recommend we add @Marquardtika's changes back in https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/09/21/us/politics/kirk-memorial-photos.html Brangston (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the NYT source should work. Thanks for finding that. Marquardtika (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Can someone who has edit permissions add the edit? Brangston (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Marquardtika @ElijahPepe @Mihir.pethe1? Can we please add back the edits from before, now that there's a NYTimes article backing up his relationship with Wilkins? Brangston (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The issue is not the source. The partnership of Patel and Wilkins is already in the article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Currently the article states, "held by his presumed partner, Alexis Wilkins." Wilkins is not his presumed partner; Wilkins *is* his partner. There is a difference, and the article should reflect that. Brangston (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems inconsistent with most other wiki bios to not include a personal life section if it is known that the person has been in a relationship at some point. Brangston (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no requirement to have a Personal life section. I have added some more information about Wilkins at Kash Patel#Political and personal activities. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Ext Edit Req

−

That month, he disbanded the bureau's public corruption squad,[104] known internally as CR15,[105] and the Office of Internal Auditing, which the ensure the bureau complies with national security surveillance regulations.

+

That month, he disbanded the bureau's public corruption squad,[104] known internally as CR15,[105] and the Office of Internal Auditing, the latter responsible monitoring for bureau compliance with national security surveillance regulations.

Fixes grammar error, clarifies which group is responsible for NSS compliance

Ascelyn (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Nubzor [T][C] 19:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2025

I’d like to put in that Kash Patel’s height is 5’8” and then lower it by an inch every day until someone notices. 72.179.8.63 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not doneCzarking0 (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kash Patel/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 05:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 05:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This was recently failed, by User:Czarking0, after a combative sequence of interactions within the usual review process. The fail closure indicated problems with Good Article criteria 1a ("several sentences that are too verbose"), 1b (problematic overall section structure; WP:PEACOCK), 3a (underdeveloped Nunes section), 3b (undue weight to picayune details "Though this is the least concern I have"), and 4 (Many WP:VOICE concerns and relative weighting). Instead of addressing these problems the nominator immediately renominated without change, writing in the edit summary "Previous review did not entirely conform to GAN expectations and was unclear".

I note re 1a: "The New York Times later reported that he was the primary author of the Nunes memo,[9] which alleged that Federal Bureau of Investigation officials abused their authority in the FBI investigation into links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials, seeking a warrant for Carter Page, an advisor to Donald Trump, and relying on claims made by Christopher Steele, a British intelligence officer who was allegedly paid by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.[14]" As clear an example of a run-on sentence as I can remember seeing. So that issue is still present; note also that this is an example, not the only instance of the problem. So it will not be fixed merely by rephrasing this single sentence.

Re 1b: The biggest issue re section structure, that there is a section titled "Career" that does not actually cover his career, is still present. Re the "words to watch" issue for 1b: the article still has at least one valid cleanup tag that has not been addressed, on this exact issue: "had been noted[by whom?]". This is also a WP:VOICE problem (4).

And I agree that the article bogs down in overdetailed blow-by-blow descriptions of his early career (3b) and that the crucial Nunes memo material is brief and vague (3a).

Thus, I think this can be closed as a quickfail, under WP:QF #5: "It has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article".

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MAGA attacks Patel for being Hindu

and other sources Doug Weller talk 13:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Kash Patel

I've listed this article for peer review because I am not receiving good feedback from the GA process.

Thanks, elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• Per WP:PRG, editors can only have one open PR at a time. Since Wikipedia:Peer review/Stephen Miller/archive1 is open, I will be closing this PR. Z1720 (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Kashyap Patel not Kash Patel

Please change the url and title of the page to Kashyap Patel. This makes it more clear who we are talking about. Kash Patel is not his real name. Kashyapyogoofyazz (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

He is known as Kash, let’s not confuse people. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:COMMONNAME "Kash Patel" and not "Kashyap Patel" is the appropriate article title here. Marquardtika (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Tweaking refs

Hello. I'm making a change back to the original citation scheme. This will take a few days and won't affect the article's stability. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I screwed up the footnotes, which are a terror. Will try again tomorrow. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done -SusanLesch (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Book Release

@Valjean: The Washington Examiner cite supported "after the department completed its review" - neutral factual context about DOD prepublication process. Per RSP: WaExaminer is acceptable for routine factual claims. The rationale for removal shifted from "need better source to establish due weight" (diff) to "no excuse for keeping this dubious source" (diff) - but the content itself is uncontested factual information. The source was specifically about the release of his book. Can we restore? Bladerunner24 (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a source issue here. However, what is the need to say after the department completed its review? That would be true of basically any book by a high official in the DOD it does not seem notable for his biography Czarking0 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The original version was unclear about what the lawsuit concerned. "After the department completed its review" clarifies it was about the prepublication review process and shows the outcome. Bladerunner24 (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0 It might actually be clear enough now without the sentence, but that's a separate question from whether the source should have been removed. For context, the old language was "he sued the Department of Defense over a review of his memoir" - which didn't clarify that it was about prepublication delays or show the outcome. Bladerunner24 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for article content. If we agree on what the content should be that is all this forum is for. If you want to talk about someone's conduct take it elsewhere. Czarking0 (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The current sentence, using only a RS, is fine. The only reason to keep an unreliable source was for a trivial matter, so not worth keeping either. Please find ways to avoid using The Washington Times and Washington Examiner. Stay away from them. They are unreliable enough that the way we can know if what they are saying is true or not is by always checking RS. When the RS has been found, the need for the dubious source no longer exists, and since that content was originally found in a dubious source, it is often the case that the dubious source was giving undue weight to trivial or misleading content. Now the trivial content and unreliable source are gone. That elevates the quality of this article

We start with SECONDARY RS, ALWAYS. That determines whether something has due weight for mention. We do not start with dubious, questionable, or deprecated sources (like The New York Post you have used elsewhere). They have zero due weight. ALL our content must be based on RS.

We do not start with primary sources. We launder primary source content through independent secondary RS. If they do not mention some detail in the primary source, it usually doesn't have due weight for mention here, either because RS have chosen to ignore trivial stuff, or they have chosen to ignore unreliable and false stuff in the primary source.

That's the cause of many of the problems we now have with so much of your editing regarding the Durham report. You are directly accessing that report and using its content, often content that is misleading or false, and RS are ignoring it. That is forbidden original research. Stop using primary sources in that manner. The Durham report is filled with misleading stuff. That's why it has been discredited so much and why he lost in court. He failed his mission to prove the election interference conspiracy theories pushed by Trump. That was his job and he failed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Valjean My post was intended for this article's content. Did you even read what @Czarking0 just said? Bladerunner24 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I read what they wrote. I replied about the content too, and also addressed the underlying, systemic, problem that caused the problem here. It happens elsewhere as well. Now there is more evidence you have been advised, and I trust we will see improvement here and elsewhere. Newbies often need such advice and are usually grateful to get it. We expect to see a positive learning curve here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)