Talk:Kash Patel

"Conspiracy theorist"

Moved to RfC on conspiracy theorist

 – Dw31415 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

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 claim depends on a reference to an Indian news website which is flagged on WP:RSNOI as potentially paid-for. Additionally, the claim is questionable from the start because when you look down the article for how they quantify it being in the byline, it merely states Patel claimed news media helped Biden win the election in 2020.

Quote: Last year, Patel vowed to investigate and “come after” journalists who “lied” and “helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections.”

It's no secret that the media have biases and use these biases to help turn the tides of elections. It's why we have WP:RSPSS and WP:RSNOI in the first place. We see the bias every single time we turn on MSNBC, Fox or CNN and they're talking about something political.

Attempting to do my own research on this, I come across The AP, which made the claim without anything substantive to actually back it up, other than saying he embraces QAnon... but not saying specifically what he embraces or has espoused as supposed facts, be it real, imagined or whatever. [1]https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/kash-patel-is-pushing-conspiracies-and-his-brand-hes-poised-to-help-lead-a-trump-administration/

So I turned to AI (Copilot) to try and help. All that said is he made claims of the "deep state" trying to overthrow Trump, which in a sense is verifiably true considering Hillary Clinton paid for the production of the Steele Dossier and has been subsequently fined for as a "campaign finance violation". True, this itself would not qualify, since Clinton was not in any position of power at the time, however the fact this went so far as to cause an impeachment proceeding makes it such. Then there's the Hunter Biden laptop story being outright labelled as Russian Disinfo by everyone with a voice, and the New York Post being banned from Twitter for reporting on it... Again, every government figurehead in the CIA, FBI, DOJ etc. played into it and verifiably, this affected the outcome of the election. As such, you can't outright say that Patel's claim here is a "theory". Questionable at best since he never went further into detail of what he meant specifically.

I asked AI to define "deep-state". Quote:

The term "deep state" refers to a perceived network of people within government agencies, often including intelligence agencies, military, and other bureaucratic institutions, who operate behind the scenes to influence and manipulate governmental policy and actions. This network is believed to act independently of elected officials and may work against the interests of those officials to maintain its own power and agenda."

So does this REALLY make Kash a conspiracy theorist? I'd say no, and unless someone can provide a reliable source which says Kash made some other outlandish, easily-refutable claim such as regarding ballot harvesting or fake ballots during the election, the claim should be scrubbed, or at a minimum should be flagged as potentially not true and needing verification. Conspiracy Theorist these days is becoming such an umbrella term that it may as well not even have any meaning anymore, other than "someone I don't like". 82.117.29.169 (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You are quite correct to calling out the Indian news website, it does appear to be a problematic source. Nevertheless, the source provided are all considered reliable sources. The reference to Patel being a conspiracy theorist should be reinstated and the sources back up that point. Additionally, perhaps you should more of your own reading instead of outsourcing that to an AI, especially one the regurgitates conspiratorial rightwing talking points as fact? Kit kardigan (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Deep state is generally considered to be a conspiracy theory. While there are legitimate discussions about the influence of career bureaucrats and institutional power structures in government, the "deep state" conspiracy theory goes far beyond this to claim there is a coordinated, malevolent shadow government actively working to subvert democratic processes. Cononsense (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What AI says has almost no significance for Wikipedia Article. You have to find Reliable sources to support your point. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

RogerYg, you recently reverted mention of Kash Patel as a conspiracy theorist despite multiple RS describing him as such, alleging a violation of WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. To be clear, nothing in your cited policy would suggest this cannot be included in the first sentence. It is no different than how the page for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. mentions he is a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. I would ask that you please self-revert. BootsED (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi BootsED (talk).

Firstly, I did not revert your mention, rather I moved it within the LEAD to more appropriate third paragraph. Somebody else has removed your references, and I am against that.

However, adding "conspiracy theorist" in first sentence has multiple issues mainly WP:FIRSTSENTENCE , WP:BLP and WP:NPOV

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. It should be in plain English.

99% of the Wiki articles, especially WP:BLP articles have a neutral factual introduction per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an exception, not the rule.

Also per MOS:OPEN

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.

Therefore, second or third paragraph will be apprpriate to discuss a controversial aspect per WP:BLP such as conspiracy theories.

Also, I followed MOS:LEADCLUTTER

Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject.

Along with all the reasons mentioned, further per WP:BLP and WPNPOV, its a standard practise to avoid controversial aspects in the opening sentence, and WP:BLP rules apply to this article. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Roger,

There is no BLP issue as long as the topic is presented and backed up with reliable sources. No NPOV issue exists if the topic is presented in a neutral manner, which conspiracy theorist is. Leadsentence does not make any statement that this cannot be included. Conspiracy theorist is non-specific, and passes this test. Many pages for notable conspiracy theorists mention this in the first sentence. With that said, I see someone else has reverted even mentioning the conspiracy theory label on the third paragraph of the lead, so I will add that part back in. BootsED (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that WP:BLP and WP:BLPBALANCE do not apply here. We have to consider them for biographical article content, even if we have reliable sources. WP:NPOV also applies. I don't agree that topic has been presented in neutral manner.

per WP:BLP

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively.

I think , we need a reasonable discussion on this issue such as whether "Conspiracy theorist" is a contentious claim, and whether it should be mentioned in the lede per WP:BLP, and whether first paragraph complies with WP:BLPBALANCE.

Several other editor such as Wikieditor662 (talk) have also raised the issue per WP:FIRST, hence it will be good to have a reasonable discussion and consensus on this issue. Thanks. 09:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 09:46, 5 February 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.

Kash Patel is not FBI Director nor a nominee!

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.

---

Patel cannot be titled FBI Director until 1)there is a vacancy in the FBI Directorship.(There isn't one and the current FBI Director has at least two years left in his term.)and 2) if a vacancy is created by a U.S.president by firing/termination, the nominee must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. This entry is so utterly speculative that Wikipedia loses all credibility by allowing it.If you're a fan of Patel, then great, find a nice forum to talk about how much you love him and hope he'll be FBI director one day. No money will be donated to Wikipedia by me or others if it allows such utter speculation to be treated as fact. 2600:1700:190:5C30:DD32:5ED7:7AA2:7BA (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

SKAG123 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe what he was requesting is for the FBI Director part of the infobox to be removed. In fairness to him, it is a little misleading seeing that and needing to click a note in order to be informed that this is only a speculative appointment.

I’m not sure what the usual procedure is for including the role in the infobox, but it does appear erroneous to have included it before 1. Trump was president and 2. before a nomination had been received by the Senate.

Its a bit academic now, but is it normal to have the position displayed in the infobox before confirmation? notadev (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC) notadev (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I just fixed it. It is now Nominee for....

Good point. Starlighsky (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

FBI Director Wray resigned, and Patel has been nominated as FBI Director. The Senate Committee hearing concerning his qualifications for the job will be 1/30/2025. Starlighsky (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I just want to add there is a section in this article about events that took place with the Senate Committee hearing. Starlighsky (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Several reliable sources including the New York Times have confirmed he is the director of the FBI Grifspdax (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

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.

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

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)}}

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 [2], [3], [4], [5] 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. [6] [7], 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. [8] 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)

The Senate Judiciary Committee

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 along party lines Thursday to recommend Kash Patel's nomination to serve as FBI director. Nothing was written in the article about it !! 50.159.180.76 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

And today is Tuesday, and the full Senate is going to confirm or reject him !! 50.159.180.76 (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Not quite yet. Today (most of) the full Senate voted 48-45 to advance his nomination for a vote. NME Frigate (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

And then this morning, the full Senate voted 51-47 on the penultimate vote. The final vote will be happening shortly. NME Frigate (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

References

RfC closure

Wikieditor662 you are a very involved editor and thus not entitled to close the RfC, and despite what you said, I am not an IP editor. your closure and edit are very improper. it matters not that you gave multiple reasons for closure, as you have consistenty argued for exclusion and thus are deeply involved in the discussion and must leave the closure decision to others. please revert. soibangla (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

(pinging some relevant parties: @Soibangla @Valjean @Dw31415 @ScottishFinnishRadish @Some1) I appreciate that you brought the discussion here instead of reverting my edit without discussion after I brought it up.

I'm not opposed to your suggestion and I'm considering reopening. I do have some concerns however, and I wonder what you think:

please take a look at WP:OF. The number of votes from IP editors basically not making any arguments was a minority, and most people would still oppose even if we remove IP commentors without arguments or possibly even IP votes entirely.

Also, these talks aren't going anywhere, it's just people repeating the same arguments and staying on their side. It's clear that keeping the discussion won't take us anywhere new.

As for bias, closing it here doesn't help me even if it was my goal, it just saves us time (and I gave rules which explain why there's exceptions for involved editors) before it gets closed anyway with the same decision, just later. You can also see I don't only close to help myself, as I closed a similar case but for the opposite side from what I wanted for rfk jr (that closure's also being challenged, but you get the point).

Again, I agree that these concerns you all made are valid, and I'm not against reopening, I was just thinking I could save us all time here. What are your thoughts on the issues I raised? Do you still think I should revert it?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your commitment to improving Wikipedia. My proposal:

1. Reopen the RfC.

2. Revert your change to the page.

3. Make a change similar to the one I propose in this section. This will have you editing the page to soften the conspiracy theory treatment in the introduction because almost all the “supporters” were willing to accept a softening. I also think “conspiracy theorist” impugns NPOV.

4. Request an ending on the appropriate page.

Take all of this with a huge grain of salt I’m new to RfC’s and you’d do well to await input from more experienced editors.

I like this BRD policy and would really like to see a more collaborative, incremental edit cycle.

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

Good luck and I appreciate you being bold. Dw31415 (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

After reading the commentary at the link @Moxy posted below, I encourage you to only revert both your change to the page and the RfC closure. Then watch how this RfC plays out. Good luck. Dw31415 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this close is problematic. There is a majority, not a "consensus". The counting of votes seems to ignore how comments are to be judged, weighted, and then counted, especially since there is a flood of IPs and inexperienced commenters who weigh heavily on one side. They are not normally counted unless they make very policy-based arguments. These decisions are made based on the weight of the arguments, not the number of !votes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is consensus for moving “conspiracy theorist” in the first sentence to a second sentence: “As an author and commentator, Patel has promoted multiple conspiracy theories”. Making that edit at this time seems justified by the discussion in the RfC. Dw31415 (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

hello? is this thing working? the RfC was improperly closed in multiple ways, a complete policy vio. but whatever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs)

If the user refuses to undo their close, you can always bring this issue to WP:AN. Some1 (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Something being discussed already as a secondary topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Heavy bludgeoning. Moxy🍁 04:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: The RfC was reopened as part of discussion at link shared above. Dw31415 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2025

Kash Patel is NOT a conspiracy theorist. 2600:100C:B068:67F8:94F8:A758:FCEE:B0FD (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear they want the label in the first line removed, and TBH I'm surprised its actually up there. Its very unusual to use loaded words for BLP (or dead people for that matter, with MOS:TERRORIST even Osama isnt called a terrorist due to the loaded nature of the word). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Confirmed in the Senate today

Confirmed Easeltine (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Official confirmation by US Senate as FBI director

I don't know how to make changes to pages are currently locked for various reasons. Understandably someone else could have permission. Normally, by the time it hits the wires and push certification put out somebody official to the intro and title and updated page is linked to the position being confirmed. Johnthenderson (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think Page update is best to wait after his nomination. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 03:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Support

Mr. Patel advocates for and is a proponent of conspiracy theories. He refers to the POTUS as king, that's not true and is a conspiracy theory enough. He's one of the least qualified candidates in the history of the position. He goes on podcasts and spreads conspiracy theories and that's the only reason he is notable and the only reason he was nominated. I have character concerns about him and other Trump nominees, some legit nominees don't have this problem (ex. Sec. Rubio) SionOFheaven (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This belongs in the RFC itself; it is still open. Bourne Ballin (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit/Update Request for Neutral Language, Consistency and Accuracy

“ Patel is the author of a 2022 children's picture book, titled The Plot Against the King, which falsely argues that the Steele dossier was used as evidence to initiate the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.”

Request to remove “falsely” for the following reasons: (1) “argues” indicates an opinion, without taking a position on validity of the argument.

(2) Labeling this “false” contradicts the linked Wikipedia page which on the Steele Dossier citing numerous examples that the dossier was known and utilized by the FBI in intelligence reviews and briefings prior to and during the investigation.

Suggested edit for improved clarity and grammar =

“Patel authored “The Plot Against the King” (2022), a children’s picture book that argues the Steele dossier contributed to the investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.” PaulAlexanderClark (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

That sentence is very specific and, as far as I can tell, entirely correct because the Steele dossier was not part of "the evidence used to initiate the investigations" into Russia's 2016 election interference. Those investigations had already been opened before the FBI learned about Steele's research. Maybe I'm overlooking something in the Wikipedia article on the Steele dossier, but I don't see anything there that supports your interpretation. (I will note that that article is out of date. For example, at one point it says that "John Durham has been investigating," but Durham's investigation closed nearly two years ago.) NME Frigate (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2025

1. "The vote was mostly along party lines, with the exceptions of Republican senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins who had voted in opposition to Patel." I realize that commas may sometimes be omitted to avoid an overabundance and I support that practice, also in this case. I propose, however, that the comma here be moved from following "lines" to following "Collins" where it's called for grammatically, while the comma preceding "with" is optional. Also, "had voted" could and perhaps should be changed to "voted", since Murkowski's and Collins' voting was concurrent with "the vote". An alternative might be to change "The vote" to "The final tally" or something like that (which would justify the past perfect "had voted"), but this wouldn't be an improvement.

2. Granted that Patel's photo is an official portrait from 2020, there's still no clear legitimate reason to include it twice in the article. A different photo should replace the second appearance, and a more current portrait should replace the 2020 one when available. Bret Sterling (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Portrait

Why are we using a portrait of him at some speaking event when we have a much better free portrait that is slightly older? Perhaps I missed some talk page topic but it's hard to see why one is better than the other. I mean the difference between the two portraits is just two years also. AsaQuathern (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I literally have no clue what Wikipedia's obsession is with bad portraits of people. For God sake, it's the FBI Director, you'd think that it would warrant a better photo than him talking at a gathering. Dakotah2001 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree I think [[9]] is a much better image and was in fact the previous one being used AsaQuathern (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, that seems like a terrible photo. Is that the best we have? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

What makes it seem terrible? I think that it looks taken like most other officials pictures. Peptidylprolyl (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That is the picture we used before. AsaQuathern (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I see no issue with Patel's portrait, even if it is from over four years ago. It is well-composed and high-quality. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, could you please answer my question? Thank you. Peptidylprolyl (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Patel is a Trump loyalist

it is a major reason why we know who he is and he has a BLP

it is abundantly sourced in the body

it is repeatedly removed from the lead

it is important

are editors trying to conceal this? soibangla (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

But is Patel a Musk loyalist? And has he just resigned?

Today the Office of Personnel Management sent an email today to all government employees directing them to reply by Monday with a list of tasks they accomplished over the past week. Elon Musk tweeted that failure to reply will be treated as resignation.

A little later today, Kash Patel sent an email to all FBI employees telling them not to reply to the email. Does that mean that Patel and everyone else who works at the FBI has just quit? NME Frigate (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

the RfC is not over

Npsaltos428 et al. just because Patel is now in office does not mean the matter has been settled. please revert your edit and await the RfC closure. thank you. soibangla (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

alternatively, we can all just agree there are no rules anymore and Wikipedia is just social media soibangla (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

See also -Kasha Patel

This mention is probably appropriate for "See also" at the bottom of the page, and the earlier mention on top was quite inappropriate. Science writer Kasha Patel is relatively unknown compared to an FBI director. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That is not how we use the template for similarly named people. The "See also" section is for related topics; other uses (including similar names of unrelated people) go at the top. See George Washington, Bill Clinton, James Comey, Donald Trump. BD2412 T 02:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Atf Director update

Already the acting director or about to assume the role of the ATF Director as per trump directive? Thisasia  ^(Talk) 03:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Uninvolved RfC Closure

@Szmenderowiecki you recently closed the RfC, and your vote was that there was no consensus to call him a conspiracy theorist. Did you mean that the consensus was against calling him a conspiracy theorist? If so, could you clarify that? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki position, as I read it, is that including “conspiracy theorist” in the first sentence requires a consensus and none exists. The burden of consensus is on inclusion. I agree.

I hope that the outcome of the RfC is more than just removing “conspiracy theorist” from the first sentence as in this edit[10]. There were thoughtful replies on both sides of the question and it seems reductive to focus solely on that. If that’s the only outcome, maybe we should just be voting. Dw31415 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to clarify in the earlier message that it was meant for the first sentence. As for getting it removed from the rest of lead or article, you'd probably need to start a new RfC for that if you think it's helpful, can reach consensus, and has been met with prior discussion. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I support having Patel's involvement in conspiracy theories in the introduction, just not in the first sentence. I'd probably make it a little stronger than it appears currently but drafting something doesn't seem productive. Dw31415 (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Patel is involved in conspiracy theories? Some of the sources I followed do not seem like WP:RS to me, e.g. in one source the conspiracy label was applied with a link to another source, and that other source called him a conspiracy theorist in its title without elaborating in the body of the article. They were from mainstream news websites but that is not sufficient according to the WP:RS criteria, and obviously to me they appear to be smearing him. Could you please help me understand, perhaps point to a good article so that I may find out more about his involvement in conspiracy theories? Which article convinced you? Peptidylprolyl (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikieditor662 if you need that clarification, it's "no consensus", it's not "consensus against", and it's only about the very beginning of the lead (first sentence). While the numbers may suggest otherwise, I had to discount apparent efforts to inappropriately influence consensus, such as the the suspicious flood of IP voting (they didn't really have great arguments anyway), and also I looked on how strong your arguments were, and both sides had valid points and, may I say it, equally strong. But whether it's "no consensus" or "consensus against", in terms of article content, the effect is the same - the content has to go. As I said, if supporters are ready to provide evidence that was not presented in the discussion but which could reasonably change the outcome, they are free to do so.

Pre-empting your potential next question, even though the effect of this closure aligns with yours, your closure was inappropriate because you were a participant of the RfC, the outcome was not very obvious and this area is controversial enough that we shouldn't make controversial decisions if we can avoid them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I've put in a request to unclose it to Szmenderowiecki's talk page. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Image needs to be cropped

Hey guys, I am not too savy with cropping wikimedia images. There is too much headspace above the portrait for the infobox. Can someone take care of that. Thanks. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 20:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This is the official portrait, not sure it should be cropped --FMSky (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Most photos are cropped for the Infobox, so it is easier to see the person. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 02:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

'AFT' should be ATF

I think where it says AFT in this article, it should be changed to ATF because that's what it's called, not sure if this is a typo. Gamertothemax99 (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably a typo. Although maybe it was supposed to be UFC?

(The Wall Street Journal reports that Patel is "planning to reorganize the Federal Bureau of Investigation with a regional command structure, raise fitness requirements for special agents and arrange a partnership between the FBI and the UFC cage-fighting league," and that among other things, he doesn't know the difference between intelligence and counterintelligence. The article is titled and subtitled "Inside Kash Patel’s Whirlwind Start at the FBI. New FBI director ordered officials to undertake a $100 million restructuring with no clear way to pay for it—and took on a second job.") NME Frigate (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"Vinod" in name

As far as I am aware, "Vinod" is not in Patel's official name. I have found no reference to it in official birth records or the Florida state bar. I spoke with someone familiar with Indian naming customs (Sohom Datta) and I was told that it is likely a patronymic of one of Patel's parents and that it should not be mentioned. I have read that Gujarati names often include patronyms in surnames, but I have not heard of this practice extending to a father's father's name or a mother's father's name. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The two sources cited state Vinod is a part of his name. SKAG123 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Only one source does, from Al Jazeera. As I stated, official records—including the cited Florida state bar page—do not mention "Vinod". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it noteworthy that he plans to work remotely?

The Wall Street Journal article referenced above about Kash Patel's first week in office says that Patel "told officials he planned to spend a lot of time in Las Vegas, where he was living last year. He ordered new decor for his Washington office and asked for his personal trainer to be cleared to enter the building for his workouts."

Inside FBI Director Kash Patel’s Whirlwind Start - WSJ

Redecorating an office is probably a regular thing for newly appointed government officials (although I'm just guessing about that). Asking for one's personal trainer to be allowed to enter FBI headquarters sounds a little odd, but who knows. What about his intention to "spend a lot of time in Las Vegas"? Does that simply mean he'll be away from D.C. on weekends? Or does it mean he plans to work from Nevada?

If the latter, an FBI director who worked "a lot" from home in another city would probably be noteworthy in any administration, but it's particularly notable in an administration that has repeatedly declared that government employees should not be allowed to work remotely. That said, he's only just started, so maybe this shouldn't be mentioned here until there's further reporting about it, preferably reporting that compares Patel's work schedule to those of his predecessors. And if that time comes, then it may also be time to reconsider the matter of his living at the home of a major Republican donor, Michael Muldoon, with whom Patel also has had business dealings going back five years:

Trump FBI pick Kash Patel’s Vegas home belongs to timeshare tycoon accused of shady practices - The Nevada Independent (Feb. 4)

Kash Patel Wants to Work From Home for FBI. But Who Does He Live With? | The New Republic (Feb. 28)

But for now, I just think the Wall Street Journal article should be added as a citation to the Director of the FBI > Tenure section. NME Frigate (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

A sentence, but no more would be my recommendation. BootsED (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)