Talk:Joe Kent

"far-right political candidate" references do not cite any sources
leading with "far right" (including the banner showing nazi imagery) does not represent the referenced sources. the two references (below) lack any source references for the "far right" claim. It's not a neutral term and does not meet the bar for "Biographies of Living Persons"

This violates the two rules of "Biographies of living persons" : NPOV & V

That guideline specifies to "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced"

Neither of the articles referenced (below) cite sources for the "far right" claim. In both references, They are editorialized claims made by the contributor.

I move to restore revision 17:42, 25 February 2024‎

@Fred Zepelin & @JohnAdams1800

see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Wikipedia


 * 1) Grisales, Claudia (November 7, 2022). "A Washington congressional district is weighing the election of a far-right candidate". NPR. Retrieved November 16, 2022.
 * 2) Watson, Evan (October 6, 2022). "A closer look at the Trump-endorsed Republican candidate for US House seat in southwest Washington". KGW. Retrieved November 16, 2022.

Tonymet (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good news, that adjective is now supported by references inline. I would resent the accusation that "They are editorialized claims made by the contributor", but you appear to be a new user and are probably unfamiliar with MOS:LEADCITE. I encourage you to give that a quick read, and happy editing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * the two referenced articles lack citation of the claim. “Contributor “ refers to the articles you are referencing, not you 50.39.122.137 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, in that case, I feel much better. However, the descriptor "far-right" is not a "claim", as you've framed it, it's a simple matter of fact. In addition to the reliable sources that describe him as such, there are a multitude that describe his endorsement of typical far-right positions (2020 election was stolen, COVID vaccine is gene therapy, etc), his close associations with other far-right figures (Tucker Carlson, Fuentes, Greyson Arnold, etc.), and his overt endorsements of the writings of Sam Francis (dead white supremacist). So no, I don't see any argument for removing that descriptor, but of course, you're free to open a wider discussion about it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * can you elaborate on those two citations ? what evidence do they provide ( sources, research) ? let's try to stay on topic 50.39.122.137 (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I elaborated quite a bit above, and if you're going to WP:DEADHORSE this, I wish you well - I won't be partaking. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * the NPR link is just an intro to a transcribed interview that makes no mention of "far-right" . the intro just adds "far right" to the title and summary for click-bait. Tonymet (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * the watson, evan, KGW (local news affiliate) is also an editorialized claim lacking citations.
 * this is about living up to wikipedia standards Tonymetz (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * who else can we involve to help reach consensus on the two complaints
 * Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joe Kent
 * I believe a disinterested / neutral third party should be involved. I don't believe edits to this page are being made in a neutral way. Tonymetz (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So you say that he’s an extremist for expressing a belief, that alone can be considered extremism in itself, and then you go ahead and claim that he is close with nick Fuentes and Grayson Arnold (both of whom’s endorsements he rejected BECAUSE they were extremists) and then say Tucker is far right? I’d like to know what “extreme” views he support's. Also if you say that he’s a white supremacist himself, then why did he endorse black candidate for governor Semi Bird? Burabshurab (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to facts. He didn't "reject" those endorsements. He specifically said he didn't seek them out. As for your last question, when did I, or anyone, say he's a white supremacist himself? Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * how low is the bar? David Duke Endorses joe biden. should we put "Joe biden endorsed by KKK" in Joe Biden's lead?
 * The bar needs to be much higher than you are presenting. Let's assume your claims are true. The bar for "JK is a far-right candidate" is far higher than your case so far. Tonymetz (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't even mention Biden. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry, It was Richard Spencer . You get my point.
 * Perhaps we can invest in other areas while we are blocked by the lead? Adding more relevant & contemporary content? I'd like to see the passion put to positive efforts. Tonymetz (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * so, i may have implied something wrong, when i said "if you say he's a white supremacist himself" i meant "if you were to say he was a white supremacist himself", so i do apologize for that. However, you said that he just didn't seek out those endorsements, which is correct, but i do still believe i'm right on the "rejected" part. When Joe was endorsed by Nick Fuentes early on, he later found out about his real political beliefs and REJECTED the endorsement, now Grayson Arnold. After Joe was being interviewed and from my understanding endorsed by Arnold, he said he assumed he was a local journalist, and he no idea who he was. So my opinion still stands. Burabshurab (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fred Zepelin exactly one? Tonymetz (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Besides having reliable and independent citations, a politician usually does not merit being described as far-right merely for having hardline right-wing political views, unless such views include clearly far-right ideologies such as Nazism. They usually also have to have engaged in or openly supported actions such as: supporting authoritarianism (i.e. overthrowing the government), supporting white supremacy or ethnic cleansing, or having views literally far to the right of mainstream views in a country or region.
 * Joe Kent can be described as far-right for his support of white supreamcist Sam Francis (writer) and his conspiratorial views regarding COVID-19 vaccines (i.e. vaccine skepticism).
 * This also applies to politicians being described as far-left, which is not usually merited even for having hardline left-wing political views unless such ideologies include clearly far-left ideologies such as communism (i.e. Stalinism and Maoism). They need to have engaged in or openly supported actions such as supporting authoritarianism (i.e. supporting a violent communist revolution), supporting the killing of political opponents (i.e. Reign of Terror), or having views literally far to the left of mainstream views in a country or region. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Far-right politics also covers ultranationalism. Which typically translates to xenophobia, and "policies of social separation and segregation". Ultranationalists do not have to engage in ethnic cleansing in order to be included. Several of the ultranationalist parties that we list, such as the Religious Zionist Party, demand "expulsion of asylum-seekers" or other undesirable foreigners. Dimadick (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So, i talked to Joe Kent today about Sam Francis, and why he liked Sam Francis. You know what? He had no idea who Sam Francis was. But the page says he cited his works, so i showed him the books he wrote, and he didn't recognize any of the book titles. So yeah, him liking or supporting Sam Francis is COMPLETELY fabricated and shoudln't be on his page. Burabshurab (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. The claim is cited to Vanity Fair, a generally reliable source, in the body of the article. If you think the claim is false, you or Joe Kent or anyone else can take it up with Vanity Fair. Woodroar (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you would rather trust "a reliable source" over something that came straight from the horses mouth. It's not a reliable source if they tell straight lies. And if he did cite his works, he probably had no idea who said it and shouldn't be called an extremist. Burabshurab (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Woodroar is correct here, but I do appreciate Burabshurab being truthful about their WP:COI. It's not illegal to edit the article with a COI, of course, but I do wish they had made that clear earlier, it would've explained a lot. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Woodroar, I helped @Burabshurab add Template:User_COI to his page. He's just  a new user needing help with this stuff. Tonymetz  💬  03:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's give @Burabshurab the benefit of the doubt. For now it seems his situation is  potential COI and not  actual COI Tonymetz  💬  03:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * fair enough. Burabshurab (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Vanity Fair source has zero quotations or reference as to when or how Joe Kent referenced Sam Francis. There is no video, no excerpt, no tweet or social media post -- nothing. It's also the only source on the Internet that makes such an accusation. I really don't think it belongs in the article. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That was my point! How could someone consider something reliable, if they are telling lies and/or not giving good evidence. And once again, i met with Joe, and he said he didn't know who Sam Francis was. Perhaps he did cite his works, but he didn't know who wrote/said it. thank you for pointing that out, @MisterWat3rm3l0n. Burabshurab (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * i recommend BEBOLD, make an edit to improve the article, and put detail in the edit log on why. Tonymetz 💬  20:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Redoing edits that have been contested is edit warring, plain and simple.
 * That being said, if the Sam Francis claim is only in Vanity Fair, that's a good argument for it not being WP:DUE—and I support its removal, even after the fact.
 * As far as Vanity Fair not providing evidence, that's perfectly fine. We don't require reliable sources to show their work, so to speak. Reliable sources can investigate who or what they want, interview people, analyze primary sources, synthesize sources, all the types of things that we, as editors, can't. They're considered reliable because they have a history of doing those things well...more or less. Woodroar (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well they certainly didn't do that article well, as you say they usually do. This is the "evidence" they presented straight from the article: "Joe Kent, another Republican candidate endorsed by Trump this cycle, seems familiar enough with Francis’s writings to reference his work multiple times while running for Washington’s third congressional district seat." THATS. IT. They presented no evidence that he cited his works, not even quotations for what they claimed he quoted, which i would consider to be the bare minimum for evidence. "Reliable sources can investigate who or what they want, interview people, analyze primary sources, synthesize sources, etc". They didn't investigate or interview him at all! I DID! And he didn't even know who he was! This was in public too, with other longtime supporters of him asking for a photo when i asked him about Francis, it would've been stupid of him to lie about it considering that these people would likely be aware of his alleged comments. Also i would like to ask, what makes Vanity Fair a reliable source, in your personal experience? Because not giving any evidence makes something seem not very reliable to me. Burabshurab (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no personal opinion on VF, but it's considered generally reliable based on multiple discussions at RSN. See WP:VANITYFAIR. Woodroar (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the “reliable” sources list is actually a left wing media list. Of course there are some sources that should be marked in red and gray, such as Breitbart news and BestGore.com (not sure why anyone would use it as a source anyway). However I think it’s funny that this list have a CCP propaganda website on the same level as Fox News (including politics), and The Daily Wire. But MSNBC, one of the, if not THE most left wing mainstream media on the air today, is marked in green. It seems Wikipedia has some media bias itself. After this article from Vanity fair, I would personally rank it in yellow after this misinformation they’ve spread without any evidence to support their claims. I don’t care if they’ve been reliable in the past, they need to be held accountable for the unreliable things they’ve said as well. “Reliable sources don’t need to show their work”. I think that’s a dumb statement (before you say anything, I am not insulting your intelligence). I think that all sources should be treated like yellow. All sources should have their work checked for any potential false, or misleading information, regardless of if they’re claimed as reliable. That Vanity Fair article proves that we should take precautions for ANY article used as a source. I hope you understand why I take this stance on this issue. Burabshurab (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I’m sorry, my mistake. The CCP propaganda website (China Daily) is actually considered more reliable than the daily wire and Fox News. Interesting. Burabshurab (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Improving “Political Issues” section
Can I get help improving this section? Reverting the content makes it difficult to know what the expectations are.

The comment says “9 sections aren’t needed” and I agree. But I also need guidance on the expected format. It would be better to add tags to the section so I can help make improvements.

This article is below “start” or “class-C” level and we could do a better job to make it more complete for voters. Tonymetz 💬  19:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We're not looking to "make it more complete for voters". We're looking to make it reflect significant information that is referenced by reliable secondary source. As a side note, this URL, which you tried to use 3 times in your expansion of that section, is not a secondary source. It is a primary source. Don't use it without a secondary source that is independently reporting on whatever it is you're trying to add. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist category
I didn't add that category originally, but I can see why someone did. Conspiracy theories Kent has supported publicly: COVID vaccines are gene therapy, 2020 election was stolen, January 6th was set up by the FBI. Reliable sources (that aren't already in the article) that say he does this: KUOW: "he's spreading election conspiracy theories...he falsely claims without evidence that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump" Oregon Public Radio: "His political career has abounded with conspiracy theories." Seattle Times: Kent said "The COVID vaccines are an experimental gene therapy." I don't have all day to list the hundreds of results I see. Look them up for yourself. As he hasn't won a single election, I would say the conspiracy theorist description isn't just a defining characteristic, it's the most defining characteristic. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * it reflects poorly on Wikipedia quality and neutrality if the bulk of this article is weighted in this way. Can you please put more effort in providing a more complete picture of the candidate? Tonymetz  💬  20:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. The article is not "weighted" any more than the reliable sources that report on Kent are "weighted". Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * how about we compromise. For every 4 edits about "far right" and "conspiracy theory", you try to find one on the candidate's platform, military service, personal life?
 * It's fascinating the subject has been around for 45 years, and is actively campaigning, yet your dozen edits a month all seem to concentrate on these two areas Tonymetz  💬  22:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion of "For every 4 edits about "far right" and "conspiracy theory", you try to find one on the candidate's platform, military service, personal life?" shows that you do not understand how sourcing works, or what WP:PROPORTION means, or really, Wikipedia itself. It's not up to us to "find" sources about specific topics in order to create some sort of arbitrary false balance. It's merely up to us to reflect reliable secondary sourcing, which the article currently does. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How are you searching? It's likely then that your searching methods are biased as indicated by your edits. Tonymetz 💬  23:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:DROPTHESTICK Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you make a proposal that will allow more complete coverage to this article? other editors have tried and are reverted. Until we can resolve the issue with the dominant editor, it's still a pending issue. Tonymetz  💬  00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because the coverage is complete. Don't call me "the dominant editor". Don't make up statements like "other editors have tried and are reverted" - you're the only one pushing this POV. The reverts and skepticism about your claims have also come from ser!, Woodroar, Dimadick, and DN. My last advice to you is to drop it, because based on your incredibly short edit history, I don't believe for one second that this is your first Wikipedia account and, in my opinion, you're not here to improve the encyclopedia, you're here to whitewash the Joe Kent article, which already has one COI editor working on it, and doesn't need another. Personally, I am done with conversing with you on this talk page because it's like talking to a brick wall. Have a nice day. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This debate is relevant to Joe Kent, Blake Masters, and anyone listed on WP as Far Right.  They represent the  ontological sausage factory of overweighting low-quality, left-leaning media sources and having that content syndicated around the internet.
 * The citations have been curated to focus on "far right" and "conspiracy theory" buzzwords. Even within the citations, very little other content has been cited.
 * My agenda is to understand if the Wikipedia process even works.
 * PS: you already made | two false accusations about my account that have resolved. Please either submit whatever other false accusations you like or move on. Tonymetz  💬  00:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What context, and from which sources, are you proposing to add to the article?
 * In regard to the subject of Kent and conspiracy theory, I found this.
 * "Kent is not the only Republican to repeat the central themes of the racist and antisemitic Great Replacement theory. Sophie Bjork-James, an anthropology professor at Vanderbilt University and an expert in the white nationalist movement, said the theory has been a key tool for white supremacists working since school integration in the 1970s to recruit white conservative Republicans to their cause. A major reason the theory is so popular, she said, is that people can adopt the anti-immigrant and anti-Black parts of the conspiracy theory and instead of blaming Jews, blame the Democrats USA Today May 2022 DN (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * here is |an example of content I've proposed . The editors could help propose improving the sourcing rather than reverting content.
 * If you are interested in helping improve the article with info from existing sources, let me know. I've been trying to recruit other editors to expand the completeness. Tonymetz 💬  01:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you have added quite a bit in one sweeping edit. I would suggest proposing single changes here on the talk page, perhaps 2-3 small changes at a time, at most, if they are related. That way it is easier to gain consensus.
 * What is the most important change in your view at this time? DN (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion. I'll test some some smaller edits Tonymetz 💬  03:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there any other sources besides https://mynorthwest.com that covers those topics? If not it is likely UNDUE. DN (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Specifically the parts that say...
 * Kent supports a more aggressive dependency on fossil fuels, saying "We have to get back to being not just energy independent, but a net exporter of energy.".
 * He blames sitting president Joe Biden's cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline for having a negative economic impact.
 * Kent is suspicious of the public school system, and supports a school voucher program funded by a $10,000 per child tax deduction.
 * DN (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a direct quote from the citation Tonymetz 💬  15:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So, the answer to DN's question is a no, then. Removing as WP:UNDUE. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * can you guys speak english . what are you asking about? Tonymetz 💬  00:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to be helpful and constructive instead of reverting edits, just state how the standards aren't being met and what it would take to fix.
 * Your current approach appears to be gatekeeping the content that you've added which almost exclusively focuses on "far right" and "conspiracy theory". Tonymetz  💬  01:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * can you clarify WP:UNDUE and the expectectations? Tonymetz 💬  17:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As a tertiary source, we're here to summarize what reliable, secondary/independent sources have written about the subject. Our due weight policy says that we should try to do that proportionally, so that topics or viewpoints widely covered by reliable sources get more prominence than those covered by fewer sources. That means we tend not to mention things covered by only 1 or 2 sources. Woodroar (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks so it sounds like the issue was only having one citation for the joe biden comment. that's a lot clearer thanks. Tonymetz  💬  18:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * as for "prominence", we already weight "far right" and "conspiracy theory" in this article. Does that mean we cannot add any other information unless we find 5 sources for it? <small style="border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">Tonymetz  💬  18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily say 5, but at least 1 or 2 decent sources. Note that other factors can affect prominence as well: a national newspaper of record should probably be weighted more than a regional or single town's newspaper, and an entire article devoted to the subject should probably be weighted more than an article with only 1-2 sentences about the subject. It's can be a balancing act, taking all that into account.
 * I'll also mention that due weight generally affects how the body of the article is summarized. The lead is then a summary of the body, again weighing coverage by prominence, meaning anything in the lead really should be widely covered in sources. There can be exceptions, of course. A biographical article like this one will generally include a full name and date of birth because that's what you'd expect from a biographical encyclopedia article—assuming there's the coverage required by WP:BLPPRIVACY. Woodroar (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a good rule of thumb, but in "controversial" articles it suffers from statistical bias.
 * Of course commercial news agencies are going to favor "far right" etc for clicks.
 * So we will naturally have a 20:1 precedence of "far right" -- regardless of evidence or significance.
 * This would happen with any salacious concept <small style="border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">Tonymetz 💬  19:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tonymetz it's in the link DN (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks i understand it now. I thought your earlier comment was referring to the source fidelity or quality, and now I understand it has to do with cardinality . <small style="border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">Tonymetz 💬  18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't we move a deleted paragraph to a more apt section?
Hey all!

See the revision here -


 * Side note - OP of the content removed but have no dog in this fight

Personally I feel like it fits under the section header in an expanded/detailed sense, but assume it doesn't...why delete it entirely because, based on the summary note, it just didn't fit in that specific section. The lawsuit, still active with ties into Kent's political difficulties, is notable and connective to ongoing issues.

Let me know! Shortiefourten (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Kent demanded a response by Sept 5, 2023. The Chronicle stood by their story and didn't retract. Sep 5th came and went and Kent took no further action. Non-story. Hard to see it passing WP:DUE; just my opinion, but I'll wait for anyone else to weigh it. Seems trivial to me though. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * When it comes to BLPs, I think it's best to leave out allegations (from any side), legal requests/threats, or even arrests, unless [a] they're widely covered by reliable, secondary sources (or maybe a paper of record or exhaustive investigative piece), and/or [b] there's some kind of resolution (the lawsuit was resolved or settled, a person was found guilty or not guilty, etc.). That goes for relationship stuff, too, like engagements. An exception might be if the lack of resolution itself was widely covered. So I'd be inclined to leave this out unless there's coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sickening Bias in This Article
"Far-right", "conspiracy theories", "false claims" (about COVID-19 vaccine)--these all show an extreme left bias. We can say the authors are "just citing credible sources" but that doesn't really hold water, does it? It is clear that judgements have been made and that the language has been crafted to support the opinions of those who made them. Journalists and historians of the ages would cry reading such obviously subjective descriptions. Wikipedia suffers with such blatant disregard for objectivity. I say, "Ms. Iskander, tear down this wall! Unlock this article!" 70.160.44.84 (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We can say the authors are "just citing credible sources" but that doesn't really hold water, does it? Can you identify any claims that aren't supported by reliable, secondary sources? Woodroar (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just clicked on Joe Kent's page for the first time today. It's absolutely disgustingly biased in what it chooses to say and not to say about a person. Thank you for raising your concern as i was about to do the same. 2601:45:500:B850:140B:C00:8C65:E0A6 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct. Look at the way they wrote about his previous opposition, Jaime Herrera Beutler. A democrat and leftist. None of the completely biased terms and outrageous claims, backed by sources that think as they do. If Wiki wrote an article about a conservative, without using trigger words, I would be completely surprised. You wonder why it's locked? Fear of truth getting out to the masses. History has shown that dictators try to control the story or the narrative. 50.37.186.112 (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)