Talk: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)

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)

This has been tagged for neutrality issues for a couple months per the concerns at Talk:Kash Patel/GA2. Given that this is both a BLP and a high profile article, I would hope that progress has been made on this. Is this being taken care of, or do we need more active efforts to clean it up? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I lean towards more attention is needed but I am not going to do it soon. Czarking0 (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure the tag is warranted at this point. Can anyone state specific objections to removing it? Marquardtika (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

It is the same concerns linked in the GA review above. They have not been addressed Czarking0 (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, there have been hundreds of edits since the GA2 review in October, many specifically addressing NPOV concerns: source corrections, attribution fixes, BLP compliance, adding balance, removing unsupported claims. The article has substantially changed.

@Czarking0: @Marquardtika asked for specific objections to removing the tag. "Same concerns linked in the GA review" isn't actionable when the article has been extensively revised. Which specific current passages do you believe still have neutrality issues? The tag should reflect the article's present state. Bladerunner24 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The concerns listed in the GA review are specific. There is no need for me to copy paste them here if you want to know which passages have NPOV issues read it. I continue to watch this page and the concerns have not been addressed. I could just as easily say which of those specific concerns do you believe have been addressed? Czarking0 (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Here are some of the review concerns that have been addressed:

Attribution issues that you raised.

Hardan incident.

Nunes memo.

The article you reviewed no longer exists in that form. If specific passages currently have NPOV issues, identifying them would help. Otherwise, at what point can a tag be removed if not when the flagged concerns have been addressed? Bladerunner24 (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The Nunes memo issues have not been addressed the section has not even been significantly altered since I did the review Czarking0 (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The Nunes memo section has been revised since November 3rd when you added the tag. Your review noted the Swan quote about IG validation was missing - that's now included, along with the Lawfare assessment providing balance. Sources were upgraded. The long sentence was broken up.

Which specific concern in that section remains unaddressed? Bladerunner24 (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Which specific concerns in the section have been addressed? Czarking0 (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I just listed them. @Marquardtika what do you think? Bladerunner24 (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

No you listed which sections you think have been addressed. Not the issues within the sections Czarking0 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The article has changed substantially since the GA review. Czarking0, I still don't understand the specific neutrality issues that you see here. Can you please list them here, based on the article in its current form, so they can be addressed? Or fix them yourself? Marquardtika (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Czarking0 It's been five days since Marquardtika asked for specific current concerns. Without a response identifying what remains unaddressed, I'll remove the tag in 48 hours per WP:SILENCE. Bladerunner24 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah thanks I missed that comment, probably because it was phrased as neither a reply to me nor a ping. I stand by the fact that I did a through review of the neutrality issues during the GAR which is linked above and anyone is free to read. I do not think it is reasonable to try to shift the burden to me again. No one has said which specific neutrality issues from the GAR were solved here. Though I appreciate you listing which sections were partially addressed, I continue to stand by my specific details in the GAR which have not been resolved in the current version. Czarking0 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I did provide specifics. When you said the Nunes memo hadn't changed, I listed what was added: the IG validation (from the Swan quote in your review), the Lawfare assessment for balance, source upgrades, and the long sentence was broken up. Those were the issues within the section - directly from your review comments.

@Marquardtika and I believe the issues you described in the GAR have been addressed; you do not. Please give us specifics on the issues you think are unresolved. Bladerunner24 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect, I have never asserted that the nunes memo remains unchanged. The neutrality concerns stated in the GAR persist. Czarking0 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

In response to

"The article you reviewed no longer exists in that form. If specific passages currently have NPOV issues, identifying them would help. Otherwise, at what point can a tag be removed if not when the flagged concerns have been addressed?"

you said

"The Nunes memo issues have not been addressed the section has not even been significantly altered since I did the review"

which is where you "asserted that the nunes memo remains unchanged." Analoghabits (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You continue to refuse to make "clear what the neutrality issue is" and "no satisfactory explanation has been given". If "neutrality concerns stated in the GAR persist" beyond the version you reviewed, you yourself are donning the burden of finding those "specific neutrality issues" in the current article. Bladerunner24 kindly examined them for you and has intimated that there is a "consensus on the talkpage" among productive participants "that the issue has been resolved". Analoghabits (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you please clarify how this account is related to other accounts on wikipedia including the ones in this thread? Czarking0 (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

account as in narrative or account as in user? Analoghabits (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no connection to Analoghabits and have never communicated with them on or off wiki. Bladerunner24 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

yeah, sounded like he was accusing me of being a sock Analoghabits (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

"Here are some of the review concerns that have been addressed:

Attribution issues that you raised.

Hardan incident.

Nunes memo."

is where they "listed which sections".

"The Nunes memo section has been revised since November 3rd when you added the tag. Your review noted the Swan quote about IG validation was missing - that's now included, along with the Lawfare assessment providing balance. Sources were upgraded. The long sentence was broken up.

Which specific concern in that section remains unaddressed?"

is where they "said which specific neutrality issues from the GAR were solved".

They already told you that: "I did provide specifics. When you said the Nunes memo hadn't changed, I listed what was added: the IG validation (from the Swan quote in your review), the Lawfare assessment for balance, source upgrades, and the long sentence was broken up. Those were the issues within the section - directly from your review comments." Analoghabits (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@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)

you should add The term "leak" regarding FBI Director Kash Patel (often misspelled as Kash Petal) currently refers to two very different high-profile events in early 2026:

1. The Iranian Hack and Data Leak (March 2026) Just this week (March 27, 2026), an Iran-linked hacking group called Handala Hack Team claimed responsibility for breaching Patel’s personal Gmail account.

What was leaked: The hackers published a cache of over 300 emails and several personal photographs from between 2010 and 2019. These included images of Patel with cigars, a vintage car, and personal travel documents.

The Motive: The group stated the attack was retaliation for the FBI seizing their digital domains and the U.S. government offering a $10 million reward for information on their members.

Security Impact: The FBI confirmed the breach but stated the information was "historical in nature" and did not contain any classified government data.

2. The Internal "Rudderless Ship" Report (March 2026) Earlier this month, a different kind of "leak" occurred when a scathing internal report from a group of 24 active and retired FBI agents was shared with the media (specifically the New York Post).

What was leaked: Anonymous agents—some using codenames like "ALPHA 52"—detailed allegations of mismanagement, including Patel's alleged misuse of government aircraft for personal trips and a "culture of mistrust" within the bureau.

The Source: This was an internal "whistleblower" leak from within the FBI rather than a cyberattack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youssof234 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)