Talk:Joe Kent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

remove, "Joseph Clay Kent is an American politician". He was NEVER elected as an American politician. Either remove this sentence or change it to reflect his failed congressional campaigns to "Joseph Clay Kent is a repeatedly unsuccessful republican party candidate" ~2026-16891-64 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. You don't have to be elected to be a politician. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The citation style used for this page (most references excluding article name, source, or month/day of publication), and instead putting all that information into a separate works cited, is not something I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia, to my memory. Is there a reason this page is like this? Atriskofmistake (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

From the article as currently written: "Kent has been described as far-right." This seems to me to violate MOS:WEASEL. The article text should specifically name the people who described him as such, as I certainly don't think there's a broad consensus among RS that the label applies to him, such that Wikipedia should outright state that he is. Also, it's not really a good NPOV way to start a section. -~2026-16880-81 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)  Not done: we already attribute several sources that refer to him this way in the footnote. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw that footnote, but it's nonetheless weasel wording. There's obviously not a broad enough concensus of RS calling him that for Wikipedia to straight up say that he IS "far-right", so instead you're using the weaselly "has been described as". Has been described as ^{[by whom?]} Why don't you want to say by whom, in the actual text of the article? ~2026-16880-81 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Like most people who don't follow North American politics very closely, until two minutes ago I had no clue who this guy was. But saying "has been described as far right" and a few lines later going "he's voted for Bernie Sanders" does leave me somewhat perplexed. It just confirms that Wikipedia is by and large edited by bigoted morons who just want to push their point of view without so much as bothering to read the context in which they're inserting their text. Guys: just because you're a bigoted moron it doesn't mean you have to add "careless" to your list of "achievements". ~2026-16987-34 (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not what weasel wording means. We specify already "by whom" -- as I told you previously, it's linked to a reference in the footnote. Sorry, you're not gonna gaslight this one, obvious WP:LOUTSOCK. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}

Per https://x.com/DavidCornDC/status/1910003128365404420 (and discussed more extensively in https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/05/tattoos-trump-panzer-pete-hegseth/682661/), he has a tattoo of the word Panzer along his left arm. For most American readers, this German word will primarily connote Nazi-era German tanks. Per the Atlantic article, he also interacted extensively with Proud Boys member Graham Jorgensen and well-known white supremacist Nick Fuentes. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Isn't this the same argument that was rejected on the Graham Platner page a few months back? On a personal level, it's very plausible to me that he does hold far-right ideas to some extent, but many of these claims are from white supremacists with a long history of lying or misrepresenting other's views. (Fuentes) Jollyrime (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. DN (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Right, let's not cite an article detailing a tattoo he has to make a claim about his political beliefs that not even the article reaches for. The citations should be exclusively from reliable sources describing him as far-right, such as "the far-right political candidate Joe Kent" or "Joe Kent, a far-right political candidate". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Is that proper English? What about "Kent's final rank was chief warrant officer"? Truc Bizarre (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Just wondering why it's not just a subheading under his "career" section? It doesn't seem to really warrant enough to get a section to itself. Theskyisindeedindigo (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Theskyisindeedindigo literally... Shannifl (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

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