Jump to content

Talk:Sidney Powell: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 331: Line 331:
:I agree it should just be "Views". "Political views" would be fine too. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
:I agree it should just be "Views". "Political views" would be fine too. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
:I agree, whether or not those views are controversial is either evident from the contents of the section or it isn’t. No need for us to editorialize. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
:I agree, whether or not those views are controversial is either evident from the contents of the section or it isn’t. No need for us to editorialize. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Agreeing''' with everyone above. [[MOS:HEADINGS]] refers back to [[WP:AT]], which refers back to [[WP:NPOVTITLE]], which refers back to [[WP:POVNAMING]]; and when you've unpacked all those [[matryushka doll]]s, you find: "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias". Saying someone's views are controversial in a section heading is - well, controversial.
:If there are [[WP:RS]] which say that the subject is an outspoken proponent of motherhood and apple pie, we can say so in WP's voice. Should we place them in a separate "Uncontroversial views" section? Obviously not.
:"Political views" would suit me just fine too, or be even better. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 19:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


== Dominion Voting Systems response ==
== Dominion Voting Systems response ==

Revision as of 19:16, 29 November 2020

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2020

Baseless claims is an opinionated statement not founded in fact until court cases are resolved, also the 2020 election is still disputed so marking it as a fact that Joe Biden won before hes been certified is not factual but merely based on media claims 68.48.240.134 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And with respect to the semi-protected status, the partisan narrative control on wikipedia is blatant. The cost of this unwarranted self-righteousness is credibility. It's a shame to see such an institution be taken over by increasingly brazen authoritarian propagandists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turninout (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Took it out based on NPOV. We'll see if it sticks. Pkeets (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a NPOV violation to say that Biden won the election, and that Powell's rhetoric that largescale fraud occurred is baseless (that's what RS say). Anyway, I've thrown this to the NPOV noticeboard since this is an issue that has cropped up several times now[1]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just marking this as answered while discussion continues elsewhere—edit requests are meant for edits that are either uncontroversial or already have consensus, and this is neither. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, none of the states have certified the results yet. Deadline is December 8. Until then, claims should not be made about who won and assertions one way or the other are opinion and represent POV. Pkeets (talk)
Not super key to this discussion, but FYI several states have certified their results already. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Pkeets, should be semi protected. Also there are ongoing investigations on the status of the election. Thats a fact. Eruditess (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need a court to certify every single fact, otherwise Wiki would be a very empty website. Further, the "alleged" need not be weighted evenly if the sources do not support that. "It has been alleged that Powell falsely claimed ... " with an appropriate source is fine. So there is a middle ground here. 2A01:388:390:151:0:0:1:102 (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is one thing to say, "Powell alleged . . ." and "X has alleged otherwise." It is quite another to say,"Powell falsely claimed . . . ." At this point, the truth of the claims is an open question; the truth of such claims will be adjudicated in court. To assert at this point that Powell is falsely claiming anything appears as evidence to reading audience that this platform is biased. It undermines the credibility of Wikipedia, which is not in its interest 216.128.226.111 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)herrperfessrdoktordenknmeister[reply]

I think Wikipedia has become embarassing over the past years, and that the bias is too obvious. I urge you to stop taking political sides. For example, phrases like "...Powell has alleged that a secret cabal of international Communists, Venezuelans, Cubans, Chinese, George Soros, the Clinton Foundation, "globalists", thousands of Democratic officials, as well as thousands of Republican officials..." is an obvious attempt to make illegimate the claims she put forth during the Trump campaign press coference. It is also not true she has claimed this, but it is a negative-skeptical interpretation of what she has said. She merely mention there may be or seems to be ties between several of those groups in the alleged election fraud. In addition, she has never "baselessly alleged" Bernie Sanders being defrauded in the Democratic primaries, but that they have recieved and is working with information claiming this. Baseless or not is not up to the Wikipedia editor to decide. This is just one of perhaps several hundred pages where Wikipedia has been rotting lately and it's truly a sad sight. I know many people agree with me on this. Get your act together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.143.203 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the recent addition about her claims about Sanders, which was unsourced. However the description of her embracing conspiracy theories is accurate and well-cited, and reflects what has been said in reliable sources. Wikipedia has a policy to not treat fringe theories, such as those conspiracy theories, as though they were equally plausible as mainstream views. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gorilla. I can see on your personal page that you spend a lot of time deciding what is "fringe"- and / or "conspiracy" theories. I don't generally care about the material of this page but it's become obvious that Wikipedia is not going to handle the ongoing political turmoil very well, and terms like "well-cited" is not going help about that, as they become increasingly meaningless. Best regards, non-alt-right and non-incel person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.143.203 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Servers seized by the US military?

Um, I watched the press briefing. That's not what Powell said about the servers. In response to a question about it, she said it was true the servers had been seized, but she didn't "know if it was by the Good Guys or the Bad Guys." There was no mention of the military. I see this statement is sourced, but I'd recommend another source. Plus, somebody is wearing out that word "false." POV is showing. Pkeets (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By confirming the claim the server was seized, by whomever for whatever reason, she is confirming the underlying story beneath that. Why else would a server had been seized? Only because of the rest of the story. As far as POV, do you dispute that Trump and Team Rudy have made a relentless barrage of false claims in recent days? soibangla (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading the sources. A couple seem to be making light of the accusations, but I don't see that word "false" or any synonym of it used in most of in them. Please check your sources against your language. Also, what's posted in the article about the servers is apparently what OANN said, and not what Powell said about them. If you need it explained: when she says "good guys or bad guys," she's suggesting that Dominion or their backers have seized the servers and not representatives of the US government. Pkeets (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They seized their own servers? Is that logically possible? You can't just say what she means. It has to be an objective interpretation exercise. 2A01:388:390:151:0:0:1:102 (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went with a reliable source. She would not have been asked that question and answered it if not for the underlying Scytl claim. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/19/fact-checking-craziest-news-conference-trump-presidency/ soibangla (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But she didn't say that, and the source doesn't say she said that, so its reliability doesn't even enter into the question. You should quote what she said for the article, and then you're free to add a comment on it from the source you've listed. Otherwise you're putting false words into her mouth. As mentioned above, a lot of people read Wikipedia, and it would be helpful to its reputation for you to be accurate. Pkeets (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tidied up, replacing "false claims" with "allegations." I just can't see where most of these sources are using the word "false." The factcheck source is referencing CISA's comments to claim that the allegations are false. Pkeets (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Apparently Powell appeared on Glenn Beck today and said she has been told it was the US government that seized the servers. Pkeets (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theorist

If you type sidney powell conspiracy theories into a search engine you'll see what looks like ample RS that supports adding Powell to the CT category and calling her a CT in the lead. This woman has been making very bold statements (can't tell if she is delusional and actually believes what she is saying or simply trying to gaslight people) the past week that voting systems stole the election away from Trump. On the other hand someone like Ron Johnson (Wisconsin politician) somehow gets placed into the same category even though only one RS (NY magazine) supports Johnson being a conspiracy theorist. Johnson should be removed from that category, Powell should be added to it. Yodabyte (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this feels like the realm of conspiracy theory. However, the Trump team has stepped out into the light with it and made serious allegations of criminal conspiracy to commit election fraud, pointing at some possible culprits. They stated at the press conference that they wanted to say this up front because of the short time frame before the vote certifications and that they expect to present their evidence in court as their suits proceed. I expect the evidence will shed some light on the veracity of the claims. Pkeets (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If it's in the lede, then the details should be covered further down in the article. I don't see that you've done this. Pkeets (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so now we've got an objection to the addition (see below). Any input from other editors on the claim? The sources do talk about conspiracy theory, but I think "frequently" might be going a bit too far. It's clear from the bio materials that Powell is highly effective as an appellate lawyer and not averse to controversial cases. And again, this addition needs to be addressed further into the article if it's in the lede. Pkeets (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia usually flags articles and entries for opinion or lack of sources. The CT section should be removed for this reason. ````JR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.164.43 (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you do a "find on page" and "conspiracy theory" on the article, you get 19 hits. I believe this excessiveness alone shows that a dozen of the usages be removed simply for the sake of style re: repetitiveness. Besides that, when a lawyer such as Powell files a suit, it is the place of the court, not a Wikipedia editor, to decide whether the lawsuit is meritless, baseless, frivolous, or a conspiracy theory. Most of the usages of this term should be removed, as well as some usages of baseless, etc. It reads like an article in a college magazine written by angry pubescent activists. MorganDWright (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, if you actually read the article rather than just search for terms you feel triggered by, you would find that it only appears in the text of the article 8 times (one more than the 7 that you presumed would appear after removing "a dozen"). 10 are in the citation section, and 1 in the categories. Perhaps you might want to actually read articles before casting aspersions on the hard work done by other editors. Also, you are correct that it is not up to Wikipedia editors, such as yourself, to decide whether a lawsuit is "meritless, baseless, frivolous, or a conspiracy theory". That is the job of reliable sources, and they have helpfully weighed in on this matter already, hence the wording used in the article. NonReproBlue (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic dogwhistling

This article makes mention of Powell being a subscriber to the anti-Soros and anti-globalist movement. These terms are almost always antisemitic (and originally also antimasonic) dogwhistles connected to the New World Order and rootless cosmopolitan conspiracy ideas. Maybe this should be stated more explicitly in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.58.162 (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While that is generally true, we should not imply that her mentions were antisemitic without a reliable source to specifically confirm this assertion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

It was added today that "She has frequently been described as a conspiracy theorist, having made claims invoking a “Deep State” plot to frame Flynn[2][3][4]" which is a lie and slander. Her record is impeccable in fighting crime, especially in the government, with a best-selling book, "Licensed to Lie". The editor added "frequently" to discredit her assertions with evidence of a blockbuster scandal involving the election. Wikipedia is not the place for bias and this is an obvious attempt to discredit Sidney Powell. To make the claim that she has "frequently" been described this way when he footnotes it with three articles from today that are trying to slander her for the FIRST time is outrageous. Nobody has ever called her a conspiracy theorist until today, certainly not "frequently". This is an outrageous edit.

This line should be removed, it is inherently biased and based on biased articles so delete: "She has frequently been described as a conspiracy theorist, having made claims invoking a “Deep State” plot to frame Flynn[2][3][4], as well as a scheme involving secret “Communist money” and “globalists” to change ballot totals in the 2020 election, which she claims Trump won “by a landslide.”[5][6]" Squirrel1515 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even crazier the FBI documents have been declassified. She's absolutely correct in that it was a plot to frame Flynn and as many people as possible from the Trump campaign. https://www.scribd.com/document/477364140/Explosive-FBI-Texts-Show-Internal-Furor-At-Crossfire-Hurricane-Handling has the FBI docs. And here's the Obama/Biden admin attorney pleading guilty to falsifying documents to get the wiretap after they failed twice to get wiretaps: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-crossfire-hurricane. Labeling her as a conspiracy theorist is absolutely a lie and slander, when court documents very clearly show that what she said was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.149.241 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

check Partially implemented I have removed "frequently" as a weasel word. However, the remaining sentence is supported by reliable sources. The Washington Post and The New York Times are high-quality sources both considered to be generally reliable by the Wikipedia editing community (see WP:RSP#WaPo and WP:RSP#NYT); any new discussion of their overall reliability would need to happen at the reliable sources noticeboard, not here.
As for the second comment, we do not do original interpretation of source documents. Articles must be written based on reliable, secondary sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize how absurd this is, right? NYT and WaPo are tabloids. The justice department release on his guilty plea proves them entirely wrong. The text messages prove them entirely wrong. NYT claimed that "Trump claims Obama wiretapped him without evidence" when even NYT's reporting just a few months prior admitted Obama wiretapped Trump. There is no amount of secondary source slander that changes these facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.149.241 (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you would like to begin a discussion on the general reliability of either of these sources, which are widely used across Wikipedia and not just in this one article, the reliable sources noticeboard is the place to do so. Until then, the publications are both perfectly usable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's asinine and illogical. Whether they're deemed reliable sources or not, on this occasion a more authoritative source exists that contradicts them both. They're wrong. They're demonstrably wrong. "Oh but we trust them" is not evidence, it's bias. This article is a biased hit piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.254.162 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is that more authoritative source you're referring to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per That's asinine and illogical, see also WP:NPA. Do not level personal attacks at other editors. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Some sources have described Powell as a 'model of a high achieving lawyer' while other sources have called her a conspiracy theorist"

@Pkeets: Did you see my edit summary? To repeat: this is a weird sentence—first, the two are not mutually exclusive; secondly, I'm not sure I've ever seen a sentence like "some sources have described x as a model of a high-achieving lawyer" in Wikipedia articles anywhere–we just call people prominent lawyers etc if that is what the sources say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I put it back in. It's a direct quote from the article. It's fairly clear from Powell's bio that she's a brilliant, respected, hard-hitting lawyer, and I think that needs to be indicated in the article, especially to counter the negative connotations recently added to the lede. There's no reason to belittle her accomplishments because she's taken on Trump's legal fight.Pkeets (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Once the election scandal blows over, we can likely delete that whole paragraph.Pkeets (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you delete relevant information just because the election scandal is over? Is that how Wiki works? 2A01:388:390:151:0:0:1:102 (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pkeets: My concern is not with the sourcing, it's with the bizarre wording of the sentence. (Noting I've just clarified some of my wording above because I realized it might have been misinterpreted to mean I hadn't read a sentence like that in the sourcing.) It also appears that it's inaccurate to say that "Some sources have described Powell as a 'model of a high achieving lawyer'" when it's just one source. It also cherrypicks the sentence from Politico somewhat: "Sidney Powell’s story, up to a point, is the very model of a high-achieving lawyer." (emphasis mine) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment above. The quote is not the same as just saying she's "prominent." I purposefully picked something positive to balance the negative tone of the most recent addition to the lede (see objection above). You think it's too promotional? Pkeets (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's inaccurate given the context of the Politico piece. The lead already describes her successful career (sentence beginning "Her work has included..."), so I'm not sure an additional statement is needed. If it is, we should find a better source than one that basically adds a huge caveat to the claim that she's a high-achieving lawyer, and we also should word it so it's not claiming one cannot be both a high achieving lawyer and a conspiracy theorist (as she appears to be both). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So now it's an edit war, right? It looks better, but there's still a POV issue in the lede. "Conspiracy theorist" suggests a kook who is off the deep end. Referencing the complaint above, why is it even it the lede, anyhow? It's a attempt to notify readers within the summary that she's a wacko, when it's not even mentioned in the rest of the article. This is fairly standard treatment for Trump supporters, but it's inappropriate for Wikipedia, and leads to the kind of comments above about blatant POV. I'd vote to remove that whole paragraph. Pkeets (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an edit war. Per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit, I reverted it, now we discuss until we find a suitable solution. You're right that the Flynn conspiracy theories ought to be explicitly mentioned in the article body; the Trump ones largely already are though it can be made clearer. However I do think the weight of the sourcing supports inclusion of the sentence in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with GorillaWarfare here. The point is not to seek an artificial balance between positive and negative coverage. The point is to correctly reflect what reliable sources have said. The Politico article is, as far as is demonstrated thus far, the only reliable source to say she is "high-achieving"—and even that is qualified. Moreover, her long, successful career is described in the first paragraph. I think the graf on conspiracy theories is a bit too detailed for the lede in any event, but it should not be qualified by a statement whose only purpose is to establish a sort of "balance" that does not exist in the sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is not to add highly contentious, volatile claims to Wikipedia articles, whether based on reliable sources or not. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not try to be a reflection of short-term battles going on in the media. We've also not addressed the matter of drive-by editing where someone has added this to the lede without further explanation and discussion below. That needs to be fixed. Pkeets (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why should well sourced points be omitted because they are contentious or relate to short-term battles? 2A01:388:390:151:0:0:1:102 (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Politico confirms that "conspiracy theorist" is a "widespread" descriptor for Powell. I think it is balanced to mention it, given its prominence in quite reliable sources (which I will add momentarily). I've already added the point about Flynn to the article body, so that's handled. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding last edit, I think you should take out the word "unsubstantiated" as Powell says she had the evidence and will present it in court. Pkeets (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The claims are described in sourcing as unsubstantiated, and given she has so far refused to provide evidence, I think it's an appropriate descriptor until such a point as she substantiates them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming increasingly clear User:Pkeets is unable to remain objective on this subject. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:488F:36E8:4EE0:1D1B (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So then you get into questions about whether you should add "as yet." Meanwhile, you're contributing to the implication is that the claims are baseless, when actually they're just going to court over it. Pkeets (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reliable sources are describing the claims as baseless, and we are reflecting them. If the RS suddenly all shift to describing the claims as potentially true pending some evidence presented in court, then so too can we, but only then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life vs. Personal life

Early life is generally early, including origins and education/career preparation. Personal life normally includes later non-career info, beliefs, etc. It's normally placed near the end of the article. Pkeets (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the source for info on her marriage, though it looks unreliable and is out of date:https://edailybuzz.com/2019/09/21/sidney-powell-attorney-wiki-bio-age-birthday-husband-married-children-net-worth-education/ Uncertain whether this is the coach Ike Powell. Will need more research. Pkeets (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have sometimes seen articles that are laid out with sections in the order "Early life", "Career", "Later life" (where "later life" describes post-retirement). But I have not seen "Early life" at the beginning and "Personal life" at the end -- normally I see the two combined under a single "Life" or "Personal life" heading which is usually the first section in the article. Regarding the edailybuzz.com source, that's no good. The statement probably ought to be removed pending a RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla: Pinging you since I see you just made an edit related to this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, in my travels “personal life” seems to come last, though I could be wrong. soibangla (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'd really think there'd be a guideline somewhere on this, but I'm not seeing anything at MOS:BIO or WP:WPBIO so far... GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whups. Just found her son. He's an analyst and has done some of the research on the election dataset. System won't allow me to add the link here. Pkeets (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAMBLACKLIST? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This may be him: https://www.wilsonbowdenpowell.com/about-us Pkeets (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're having to do this much work to track him down, this seems to me a good sign we should omit the names per WP:BLPNAME/WP:BLPPRIVACY. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that hard, just that the sources are unreliable. This is him with an analysis on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE0dwbd3nWM&feature&ab_channel=PredicttheStockMarket%26Politicsw%2FMarketRaven/ A clue about why she's willing to bet her reputation on this contest. On privacy, it looks like she's always been willing to take on high stakes cases, so probably keeps her personal life quiet. The lessons in the Chagra case probably stuck. As you say, best not to include this in the article, especially since the sources are poor quality. Pkeets (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney_Powell#Enron_scandal

This section says next to nothing about how Powell was personally involved. What did she do, exactly? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Represented executives on appeal, apparently, and overturned at least two convictions. Not much about it in this particular source. Added more info from another source. Pkeets (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancies in the lede

@CozyandDozy, I didn't remove your paragraph, but combined it with the one above. If you don't like the way I revised to remove redundancies, then please do it yourself. There is no need to say things twice in three paragraphs. Pkeets (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latest revisions of the lede

Shouldn't the last sentence "Powell has also falsely asserted that more votes were cast in Michigan during the election than the state's population, a conclusion she drew from a mistaken comparison of the Michigan vote total with Minnesota population data." be further down in the article? It's another example of a drive-by edit that has no basis in the text of the article. Pkeets (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mix-up is mentioned in the article body, see Sidney Powell#2020 presidential election or ctrl-f for the state names. I do, however, share your concerns that it does not appear properly weighted for the lead—the sentence is entirely based on one source, and smacks of WP:RECENTISM. In the context of her career, the conspiracy theories are noteworthy enough for the lead; the specific error around Michigan and Minnesota is not. I will remove the sentence pending consensus here to re-add it, since there are now two of us that share this concern. Courtesy ping CozyandDozy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

Sydney Powell is described as a right wing conspiracy theorist which is not true and has never been true! It will be in everyone's best interest to remove this bias unsubstantiated description! 96.28.142.226 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the section below. Please also note that the edit request template is meant for minor, uncontroversial changes to an article (typos, etc.) or to ask for the implementation of changes which have already gained consensus, and should not be used when starting a new discussion about a potentially controversial change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Right wing conspiracy theorist" in lead sentence

While I think it's appropriate to describe Powell's promulgation of conspiracy theories in the lead as we currently do in the last paragraph, I don't think the sourcing is so consistent on the matter that we should describe her as a "right-wing conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. This is reminiscent of the discussions happening on the talk page of another Trump lawyer: Talk:Rudy Giuliani#"Conspiracy theorist". GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just added refs for it under the presumption this had already passed scrutiny, but I’m inclined to agree with you...for now. soibangla (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gorilla, can we do an RfC devoted to this question? I think the case for calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" is much better than Giuliani, because, while she has been a prominent attorney, she is actually much better known, in terms of mentions in RS, for her promotion of conspiracy theories. CozyandDozy (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, feel free to start one if you think it's worthwhile. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020 (2)

The fact is, the author has no idea if the accusations of election cheating are true or not. Just state what you do know. "Baseless and unfounded" have yet to be established. This way, one has the appearance of fairness versus looking like a hack. 174.28.175.211 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

check Partially implemented. I have added {{better source needed}} to the claim about baselessness. You have, however, not provided (1) any alternative text that you would like the article to reflect; nor have you (2) provided any reliable sources to indicate that your proposed version should be adopted. Please do so if you wish to change the text more substantially. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the sentence since other RS largely don't seem to be reporting about Powell's appearances on Bartiromo's show. However the fact that Powell's claims about election cheating are completely unevidenced is well-supported by reliable sources, which are cited inline throughout. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Describing Powell as conspiracy theorist?

Should the first sentence of this article describe Powell as an "attorney, former prosecutor, and conspiracy theorist"? CozyandDozy (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I believe that we should describe Powell as an "attorney, former prosecutor, and conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. Powell's work as a "Conspiracy theorist" is a core element of her notability.
    Remember, that how much weight should be attached to an aspect ("x", let's call it) of someone's biography is not a value judgment on our part, about what we think matters. Instead, it is determined by how frequently "x" is mentioned in reliable sources. Though she has practiced law in some prominent cases, the MAJORITY of mentions of Powell in reliable sources, across her life, have arisen from her promotion of conspiracy theories in regards to the 2020 presidential election. (As an illustration of her relative obscurity prior to the election controversy, note that she didn't even have a Wikipedia page prior to last week.)
    Thus, in deference to the weight assigned Powell's conspiracy theories in reliable sources, we should characterize her as not only a lawyer and former prosecutor, but as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. (In contrast, though he is also a conspiracy theorist, listing Rudy Giuliani as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence would be more dubious, since other RS discussions of him over the years outweigh his promotion of conspiracy theories.)
    Final note: please accept my apologies for repeatedly re-adding "conspiracy theorist" to the article, prior to achieving consensus. I pledge I will not do so again until (and unless) there is consensus. CozyandDozy (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope you don't mind me reformatting this properly as an RfC. RfCs are meant to have a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" and then you can follow that with your vote. Feel free to adjust my edit to your comments as you like, just trying to be helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, funny thing: I just asked you for help in this regard on your talk page. Thanks! CozyandDozy (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, glad my edits were welcome :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. It appears to be somewhat recent (on the order of years) that the conspiracy theory stuff has become a notable characteristic for Powell, who is primarily known for her career as an attorney and prosecutor. I think introducing it to the first sentence is more heavy weighting than the sources support—although there is a glut of sourcing about her promulgating conspiracy theories as it has been a very newsworthy topic in recent weeks, I think it may be WP:RECENTISM to add it so prominently to the lead sentence. There are some people out there, for example Alex Jones or Jacob Wohl, who are primarily known for their conspiracy theories, and who have largely built their entire careers (if a "career" is the right descriptor for what Wohl does...) around spreading them. I don't think Powell is such a person. However, I do support inclusion of what is currently the fourth paragraph of the lead ("Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories...") GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Marketwatch [2] "Trump campaign attempts to distance from conspiracy-theorist lawyer Sidney Powell"
  2. Forbes [3] "Trump Campaign Cuts Ties With Lawyer Sidney Powell Who Promoted Wild Election Fraud Conspiracy Theories"
  3. Forbes again [4] "Who Is Sidney Powell? Meet Trump’s New Top Conspiracy Theorist."
  4. Daily Beast [5] "Trump Campaign Disavows Its Own Election-Conspiracy Lawyer"
  5. The Independent [6] "Donald Trump’s legal team has distnaced itself from attorney Sidney Powell after she spread wild conspiracy theories about election fraud."
  6. New York Times [7] "The president’s allies quickly closed ranks behind Sidney Powell and her pro-Trump conspiracy theory, accusing the Fox host of betrayal."
  7. Washington Post [8] "Here’s how seriously you should take the Trump legal team’s conspiracy theories"
IHateAccounts (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would note the distinction between sources that describe her as a conspiracy theorist (1, 3, 4 kind of), and sources that mention she has promoted conspiracy theories (2, 5, 6, 7). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gorilla, I don't think this definitional distinction means much. One who is known for promoting conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theorist, in my view. Although I accept that reasonable people could disagree on the importance of the semantics here. CozyandDozy (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources specifically said she was known for spreading conspiracy theories I might agree, but only saying that she has done so is a distinct matter in my book. I have played a game of baseball before, that does not make me a baseball player. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my point is that she is known for "playing baseball"; or at any rate, that is a key aspect of her notability. CozyandDozy (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see what you're saying. I just don't think those particular sources are worded strongly enough to support the addition of the descriptor, but I totally see your perspective. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per GorillaWarfare. It's a close call, though. soibangla (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per GW; that there seems to be a whole heck of a lot of content unrelated to this classification in the article. The whole "legal career" section, "She began her legal career as the youngest Assistant United States Attorney in the US", et cetera. The conspiracy theory business seems to be only in the last few years. I don't know how much coverage of that is WP:UNDUE, but it certainly doesn't seem like it belongs in the first sentence. jp×g 02:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Numerous reliable sources describe her as such, and similar articles for other right-wing media personalities such as Laura Loomer and Dinesh D’Souza include such a description in the first sentence. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 02:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I generally agree with GW that the conspiracy theory aspect of her persona is not defining, and I end up on GW's side of the baseball analogy. However, it seems like she is the primary or one of the primary proponents of the international communist + Dominion Voting theory, which would make her a theorist as opposed to a just an adherent of the theory. But it's a fairly recent development all things considered and thus not enough for us to define her as a theorist. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A plethora of reliable sources describe her as such. As to the idea that conspiracy theories are not a defining aspect of her persona, I would point out that her twitter feed is almost exclusively devoted to either presenting conspiracy theories herself, or re-tweeting Qanon and other conspiracy theories and theorists. It has become such a central aspect of her persona that it is cited as a primary motivation for the Trump legal team from distancing themselves from her (not-a-forum but... pot, meet kettle) If anything, it seems to be perhaps the most defining aspect of her persona. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a couple (days? weeks?) worth of posts on Twitter are sufficient evidence to suss out what the defining aspect of someone's persona is. jp×g 13:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per GorillaWarfare. She's not primarily known for being a conspiracy theorist unlike Alex Jones, etc. so it seems undue to add that alongside "American attorney and former federal prosecutor". Some1 (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. She certainly qualifies for the "conspiracy theorist" label, and fortunately RS aren't so cowardly that they won't mention it. Therefore we do too. Trump might have chosen her because she pushed his nonsense and cut her off because of the backlash. That's his typical plausible deniability pattern. In this case she did the smearing and damage for him, but he never accepts the consequences when it blows up. He throws her under the bus. -- Valjean (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's possible that she continues to promote conspiracy theories in some notable manner, but it's equally possible that the last week is the full extent of it. I think it's right to include description of the conspiracy theories in the article as they currently are, but they do not need top billing until this facet of her career is shown to stand the test of time. Awoma (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. She is widely described as a conspiracy theorist, and in fact she is only notable for promoting "outlandish conspiracy theories" that were "too conspiratorial even for [Trump]"[9] --Tataral (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Though it may be true, it doesn't rise to the level of significance to be placed in the opening sentence of the lede. I disagree that it is a core element of her notability. WP:UNDUE.Kerdooskis (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 100% a conspiracy theorist, embraced Trump's 2020 electoral fraud conspiracy and then spun her own line of bullshit to try and up the ante. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose putting it in the lead sentence. Yes, she spins conspiracy theories; we already make that very clear in the final paragraph of the lead. No, she is not a "conspiracy theorist" as her profession - not in the same sense as her being an American attorney and former federal prosecutor. That is what belongs in the first sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a question because I have seen this argument several times before, notably in regards to prominent Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists (For instance David Irving's page has seen this argument several times through the years "Holocaust denial isn't really a profession, any ideas on a more appropriate wording?" and "Is Holocaust denier a profession? What an extremely biased article!" from that page's talk page archives) (However I want to make it clear that I am in no way accusing you of pushing any kind of fringe POV, just noting where I have seen this particular argument regarding profession and the opening sentence). Is there actually a policy that says that a person's profession, as opposed to other things they are equally or more well known for, is what the first sentence should be? It borders on an other-stuff-exists argument, but I would point out that an enormous number of pages lead with the thing someone is most well known for despite the fact that it is not a profession. For instance, outside of conspiracy theorists, the opening sentence for John Wayne Gacy's bio is "John Wayne Gacy (March 17, 1942 – May 10, 1994) was an American serial killer and sex offender known as the Killer Clown who assaulted and murdered at least 33 young men and boys." despite the fact that this was not his profession. His political career, which was his profession and the thing he was nominally notable for before being convicted, is not mentioned anywhere in the opening sentence, because it is not what he is now known for. I would argue the same applies to Powell. Her profession may be/have been lawyer, but what she is actually known for currently is her conspiracy theories. As far as I can tell, she didn't even have a Wikipedia page prior to coming into the spotlight due to her promotion of conspiracy theories, with this page being created November 15th of this year. If she wasn't notable enough as an attorney to warrant a page before receiving press for promoting conspiracy theories, should the emphasis really be on the profession that had garnered her no real notability? NonReproBlue (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, The problem a lot of people are having here is that they are using their own value judgment about what is important in Powell's life; e.g. they say her profession is what matters, not her conspiracy theories. But RS call her a conspiracy theorist as well as a lawyer, and it is they, not us, who determine what is notable about a person. So we should include both in her description, as I have suggested doing; the first sentence of the bio should read "lawyer, former prosecutor, and conspiracy theorist." CozyandDozy (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the accumulation of sources on statements about her accomplishments. This is an indication they have been challenged. It's an effort to make her look less accomplished and more like a crackpot. Pkeets (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason her "accomplishments" were challenged is because they were unduly self serving and cited to her own websites rather than reliable sources. I'm sure that she would love and embrace the idea that there is some conspiracy to make her look bad, but that is not the case. She is, however, doing a fine job of making herself look like a crackpot, as evidenced by the reporting in all reliable sources about her. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree. However I know that MelanieN has been here much longer than me and I felt they may have a deeper knowledge of policy than I do, and I have seen this specific argument before and wanted to know if it was on account of a policy of which I was unaware. I agree that the vast majority of RS refer to her as a conspiracy theorist, and that coverage of her conspiracy theorizing is the bulk of all the press she has received. As the New York Times put it :"Until late last week, most Americans who aren’t regular consumers of right-wing talk radio and cable news probably had not heard of Sidney Powell, an appellate lawyer from Texas who joined President Trump’s legal team earlier this month as it undertook a fruitless pursuit to prove that fraud cost him the election. Ms. Powell burst into national attention on Thursday, when she appeared alongside Rudolph W. Giuliani, who is leading the president’s legal efforts, at a surreal news conference where she made claims that strained credulity, even for a presidential campaign that has repeatedly lowered the bar. In a matter of minutes, Ms. Powell blamed Cuba, Venezuela, the Clinton Foundation, the billionaire George Soros and Antifa, a loosely defined left-wing movement, for somehow making votes for Mr. Trump disappear". It seems like reliable sources explicitly agree that she was pretty much unknown until she started getting press as a conspiracy theorist. To me that indicates that she is at least as known as a conspiracy theorist as she is as a lawyer. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be so conciliatory; we simply have a stronger argument than Melanie, as well as the other admin, Gorilla. Their point about notability is inflected with their own value judgments about how Powell's decades of work as a lawyer is more important than her much briefer and more recent work as a conspiracy theorist. Their judgments in this regard are not at all unreasonable, but the problem is that they are irrelevant to Wikipedia policy, which defines notability not as a matter of editorial discretion, but as an extension of what RS emphasize about an individual.
As you indicate, the RS mentions of Powell, across her life, are mostly in regard to the events of the last few weeks, and her work as a conspiracy theorist.
Finally, Melanie's and Gorilla's concern about what is more important is somewhat of a non sequitur, insofar as nobody is arguing that we shouldn't describe her as "lawyer" and "former federal prosectuor"; we are only saying that we should also describe "conspiracy theorist." CozyandDozy (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CozyandDozy brings up an excellent point. Sidney Powell wasn't even notable enough for Wikipedia until her recent conspiracy theorist antics. The initial article (created November 15, 2020 by an editor who also seems to spend a lot of time trying to spread doubt on Dominion Voting Systems , [10], as well as something that looks like WP:CANVASSING... [11]) listed her personal website as a source three times, IMDB (not reliable either) a fourth, and "federalappeals.com" which is... wait for it... the business website of "Sidney Powell P.c." Her entire claim to notability centers around her recent conspiracy theorist antics, there's virtually nothing prior to it to even establish notability for her. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm glad you appreciate my work. So now let's decide Powell's not notable at all, and delete the article.Pkeets (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because of a combination of the evidence offered by IHateAccounts and because I don't think the opposing arguments make a ton of sense. She's not a professional conspiracy theorist? What? How many people are professional conspiracy theorists? And some people are trying to make some kind of distinction between a "conspiracy theorist" and an "adherent of conspiracy theories"? What? An average person would never make these sorts of distinctions, which is why they don't appear in the sources. To most people, if you ask them if someone who believes in an international conspiracy to steal an election is a conspiracy theorist, they would say "yes", and would not need to know whether the conspiracy theorist is being paid to say this nor whether or not they originated the theory. Loki (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Given that this is a biographical article, and in view of its current topicality, it should be suitably written and edited. Alex Jones and some others may feel denigration as a "conspiracy theorist" to be a badge of honor, and a desirable tag to attract, retain and expand an audience. But Sidney Powell's career as a reputable attorney shows that she is of different mettle. While she has opponents who, by reference to QAnon, seek to discredit her - and by association President Trump - the sources here called "reliable" are more pov opinion than verifiably factual in that respect. Powell's lawsuit involving allegations about Dominion is not at this stage rebutted, and Wikipedia npov should be treating that as an open question, at least until otherwise determined. Qexigator (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether reliable sources say she was once particularly reputable, the nearly total consensus of reliable sources now say the opposite. There is nothing NPOV about treating something which every single reliable source has definitively stated is baseless as an "open question" any more than it would be appropriate or neutral to say that the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an "open question". To demand that people must prove a negative (which is literally impossible) before a crazy conspiracy theory can be described as false is a logical fallacy, and probably the most common argument when people want to present a false balance between a fringe position and the mainstream consensus. We report what reliable sources say, and the sources that are saying this are indeed reliable rources regardless of whether or not you think they are "pov opinion". In many cases these sources are in fact beacons of journalistic integrity, which is something that cannot be said about literally any of the "news" outlets that are presenting Powell's theories in any kind of positive light. NonReproBlue (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It can be seen that, if NonReproBlue's hyperbolic or straw man pov assertions are meant to be taken as a cogent response, they fail. My points were:
1. 'the sources here called "reliable" [in connection with Powell] are more pov opinion than verifiably factual'.
2, 'Powell's lawsuit involving allegations about Dominion is not at this stage rebutted, and Wikipedia npov should be treating that as an open question, at least until otherwise determined.' Qexigator (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No straw man. Direct rebuttal. You called non-opinion pieces in reliable sources "pov opinion". They are not opinion pieces. They are reliable sources. You said we should be treating the lawsuit as an "open question" until otherwise determined. Reliable sources have determined otherwise. You are presenting your own opinion that reliable sources are wrong. That is not based in any policy. We follow reliable sources. That is based on policy. NonReproBlue (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that these generalities are failing to answer my two points above, made in respect of the RfC question "Should the first sentence of this article describe Powell as an "attorney, former prosecutor, and conspiracy theorist "? It will not be long before events will allow the issue to be npov determined, and this will be reported in reliable sources. Qexigator (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Qexigator:
  1. When you say "'the sources here called "reliable" [in connection with Powell] are more pov opinion than verifiably factual'" do you have any sources to back up your claims? Can you name the sources and provide detail on WHY you believe they are "are more pov opinion than verifiably factual"? Or do you simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT the conclusion they came to?
  2. Reliable sources, and fact checks, have repeatedly deemed the Trump campaign's conspiracy theories regarding Domionion to be "unfounded" [12]. Why are you claiming that Wikipedia is somehow obligated to ignore this and treat her error-riddled [13] [14] [15] lawsuits as if they are legitimate, especially since even when she is in friendly territory "Powell has never provided evidence of her claims, and Fox News’s Tucker Carlson said last week that when his show pressed her for proof, she “got angry and told us to stop contacting her”"?
It would be nice if you could answer these basic questions, rather than calling NonReproBlue's cogent response to you a "straw man" without cause. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I have actually written. I have not denied that the commercially published sources linked above can be accepted as reliable reporters of fact, but their opinions are not sufficient to establish fact. That is a well-known criterion in good journalistic practice. Can you point to any fact reported as distinct from pov that shows that Powell indulges in "conspiracy theory". For instance, it is verifiable that Powell's lawsuits are not filled with misspelled words, and while there are some typos, that has no bearing on the question of "conspiracy theory", nor has opinion-laden headlines. My reference to "straw man" was directed to the comment not the commenter. Qexigator (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do you believe she was notable "until she got into heavy-duty partisan wrangling"? And if so, for what? IHateAccounts (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She also wasn’t notable "until she got into heavy-duty partisan wrangling.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this figure appears to be *primarily* notable for conspiracy theories. If we want to mention things they do but aren’t notable for like being a lawyer we can as well but we must focus on their primary claim to notability. Remember that this page was only created after they became notable due to the current controversy. Now whether we word it as “is a conspiracy theorist” or “is primarily notable for spreading conspiracy theories related to the 2020 presidential election” is a more nuanced argument that the decidedly pointed and overly specific RfC kind of jumps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's what she's known for; I cannot see how she would get through WP:GNG and WP:NBLP without it. Nor can I see why anyone would be reading our article, or indeed the sources, otherwise. Associated Press (November 23, 2020). "Trump campaign cuts ties with attorney Sidney Powell after bizarre election fraud claims". The Guardian. Powell made multiple incorrect statements about the election voting process, unspooled complex conspiracy theories and vowed to "blow up" Georgia with a "biblical" lawsuit.
In contrast, the lede of our article about Donald Trump broadly describes him as US president, businessman and TV personality. It does not mention his activities of more local interest, e.g. "South Ayrshire Golf club owner loses 2020 presidential election". Ayrshire Daily News. November 7, 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Comment Question to those arguing she is "not a conspiracy theorist" either "primarily" or "as her profession"... is it not possible for someone to be multiple things, at once? She is a lawyer... she is ALSO a conspiracy theorist. Her major claim to notability via news coverage is the 2nd (being a conspiracy theorist), even though the first (being a "lawyer" by some definitions of the term) is how she got into Trump's orbit and onto his legal team... and arguably, the 2nd is now how she got removed from same. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the argument I have tried to drive home. Notability is defined by mention in RS, not our value judgments; according to RS, she is notable as both a lawyer and a conspiracy theorist; and in fact, in her most widely covered legal case (as defined by RS mentions), namely her representation of Trump, her roles as conspiracy theorist and lawyer have merged. Therefore we should describe her as a "lawyer, former federal prosecutor" and "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. CozyandDozy (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But Trump says she doesn't represent him or his campaign. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the Trump campaign is saying that now. But a week ago they were referring to her as a member of the legal team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: She was a member of the Trump team... until she wasn't. [16] "“Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump legal team. She is also not a lawyer for the president in his personal capacity,” Giuliani and another lawyer for Trump, Jenna Ellis, said in a statement on Sunday. Trump himself has heralded Powell’s involvement, tweeting last week that she was part of a team of “wonderful lawyers and representatives” spearheaded by Giuliani." IHateAccounts (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conspicuously, she went from being lauded "as a member of the legal team’s “elite strike force” at the news conference on Thursday" to kicked-to-the-curb just four days later (today) [17]. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by this comment, or by the comment "lawyer" by some definitions of the term above -- do you mean to say that she's been disbarred, or that someone stops being a lawyer upon being fired from a job, or that you dislike her, or what? jp×g 10:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given her involvement with Enron, I personally think there are better and more accurate synonyms that would describe her. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a suggestion that changes be made to the article text? jp×g 17:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's apparent clarification on Powell's role from the Trump Team today, but it's not being covered by main stream media, so I guess it doesn't exist, right? Loss of information is the consequence of labeling particular sources as unreliable and preventing their use in Wikipedia. I disagree with the policy of picking and choosing sources based on pre-selected criteria. This lends strongly to bias in the articles. Pkeets (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The determination of the reliability of media sources is not a haphazard "picking and choosing" but the result of long debates on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, often several discussions on each source. Judgments about reliability been determined by consensus of editors participating in these discussions, it's not a whimsical determination and the "pre-selected criteria" is having a reputation of editorial oversight, reliability of reporting and fact-checking. This criteria applies to media publications regardless of their perceived political slant. Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering, that seems to confirm how some of the content here got to where it is. Rants about "main stream media" and failure to understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources explains a lot. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

Powell apparently was fired from the legal team ([18]). 2603:6010:D400:1C41:9CA0:E035:E2E7:4198 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump campaign's distancing themselves from her is mentioned in the article already. If there's a more specific change you have in mind, feel free to suggest it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor clarification required

It is not fully clear to me exactly who the "she" is, in the sentence beginning "She also asserted that the CIA ignored warnings.." RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Powell is the "she" being referred to. "Powell promoted the conspiracy theory.... She also asserted". I don't believe there is an alternative antecedent in the preceding sentence. NonReproBlue (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems biased and short on who Sidney Powell is.

I understand that we are a "divided" nation.

And Politics is a difficult subject.

But I came here to read about Sidney Powell -as a lawyer. And this article makes her seem more of a conspiracy theorist than a lawyer.

I read in the footnotes that she helps represent Women's Charities, and I don't think I read her side of the story on the General Flynn case at all.

Enron is mentioned but her success in exposing the governments cases in General Flynn's and Arthur Andersen is only given in passing. While any mention of conspiracy theories about the "DEEP STATE" seem to have prominence.

I know we are not perfect, and bias can be just as much perceived as it announced. But this article is biased and needs review in my opinion.

Compare this to other prominent women' WIKIPEDIA Pages--Hillary Clintons is more of a timeline. Any negative scandals--are well into the article. --a very long article.

Or Laura Bush's page, Elizabeth Warrens Wikipedia Page--Susan Sarandons, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's page.

All seem to have negative remarks either lightly touched on or mentioned in passing.

I read Laura Bush's page and I get the feeling she is more friendly with the Obama's than she believes in any republican values.

14:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

November 23rd 2020

Thanks,

kejjer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejjer (talk • contribs) 14:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in contributing to the RfC above, on a somewhat related topic. Awoma (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Laura Bush, nor anyone you mentioned in fact, are retweeting Qanon accounts and currently making the headlines of nearly every news organization because they are spewing wild, unfounded, utterly false conspiracy theories. Women can be different from one another. NonReproBlue (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"And this article makes her seem more of a conspiracy theorist than a lawyer." - That's because she is more a conspiracy theorist than a lawyer, in Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the accumulation of sources on statements about her accomplishments. This is an indication they have been challenged. It's an effort to make her look less accomplished and more like a crackpot. Pkeets (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pkeets: Just for the sake of clarity, are you saying the accumulation of sources is an attempt to make her look less accomplished? Or the challenges are? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both, actually. The sections on her accomplishments keep shrinking and accumulating challenges, while it's clear the bulk of the research is going into connecting her to various conspiracy theories to discredit her as as a non-entity. You can tell from the complaints in Talk that readers are noticing this. I hate to bring up the issue of sexism, but compare to the treatment of L. Lin Wood who is taking a similar role in the challenges to the election. Pkeets (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well is Lin Wood being described as a conspiracy theorist in reliable sources? If so, then the correct course of action is to change his page to accurately reflect that, not to whitewash other people's articles simply because he has somehow avoided scrutiny. My guess is that it has to do with the fact that he has not received nearly the same amount of press as she has, due to him not appearing alongside Giuliani and Ellis at their little conspiracy presentation. I will take a look at Wood's page and reliable sources to see if there is indeed a correctable discrepancy, in which case I thank you for bringing this to my attention. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I read her side of the story on the General Flynn case at all Did you see her letter to Barr? Or her characterization of Sullivan’s role? soibangla (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. When I recently mentioned balance in Wikipedia articles, I was told that's not the point. Instead, the aim is to represent what popular media sources are saying about a particular person or topic at a given time. Plus, I'm told at Dominion a that scientific sources are too primary. Do I have that right? Look what that does to Wikipedia's credibility. Plus, what happens to the articles when, as in the case of Nicholas Sandmann, there is a sudden reversal of the story? These issues are why Wikipedia is described as an unreliable source by academics. 20:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
P.S. The Flynn contest apparently goes back to Enron. This is not the first encounter between Powell and Sullivan and these particular prosecutors. Analysis of these issues would be a more interesting read than all the effort going into what degree of conspiracy theorist she is. Pkeets (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This rhetoric is becoming a bit much, not to mention the complete misrepresentation of the discussions at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems, where I have also expressed concerns about your POV-pushing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cleary we have very different perceptions of bias and POV, as well as edit warring, which is repeatedly deleting large chunks of text without appropriate discussion. Pkeets (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I am familiar with the concept. You may wish to read WP:BRD, as well as read about the concept of casting aspersions, which applies to your recent habit of making handwavy accusations against me but not actually making a complaint anywhere when I suggest you follow through. Either start a noticeboard discussion, or drop it, but stop casting aspersions when you think it suits your argument when you have no intention of following through. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020 (2)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It would be nice if we could go to Wikipedia, like we used to, and expect non-politicized hack editing. The Qanon stuff on this page is ridiculous and an obvious hit job. Wikipedia is better than this. Can't we go back to the good 'ole days and stop with the politicization of an Encyclopedia? 76.240.101.20 (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTFORUM, thanks. You have provided no actual edit request here and demonstrated a failure to understand that wikipedia reflects the Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage, which in this case includes a large amount of her QAnon connections and other conspiracy theorist behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did we agree on a verbose lead?

It’s too detailed, IMO soibangla (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem arose from edits by User:MelanieN, which also violated the talk page consensus of devoting the last paragraph to Powell's promotion of conspiracy theories. I have rewritten the lede to conform to the consensus version. CozyandDozy (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear, the wordiness and excess detail did not "arise from edits by" me. I actually did not add ANY information or detail. Aside from a few minor tweaks, all I did was move two sentences, unchanged, into what seemed to me to be more logical positions. I see they have been rearranged now; I'm OK with that. I agree with Soibangla that there is too much detail in the lead now. The place where there is too much detail is the final paragraph, which goes into minute detail about her conspiracy theories. IMO that much detail belongs in the text but not the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CozyandDozy, did you see my edit summary? While I understand wanting to keep the paragraphs topically separate, I am concerned that a quick reader may leave with the impression that Powell is a member of the Trump legal team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gorilla. I don't want to place excessive weight on her activity as a conspiracy theorist; that's why I don't want to mention the reason for her firing in the second paragraph (which, apparently, was embarrassment over increasingly out-there conspiracy theorizing). If you think it needs to be included, how about you simply note that the Trump team distanced themselves from her in the second paragraph, without providing the reason? CozyandDozy (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, I just made an edit to try to resolve both of our concerns; go ahead and take a look. CozyandDozy (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works just fine for me, thank you for the edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest US Attorney

This is false. If anything she was the youngest Assistant US Attorney, but that is only sourced to her personal website. Big difference between US Attorney and Assistant US Attorney. Article won’t let me edit. Tpistell (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think at one time it did say Assistant, but various people have edited and dropped out information. I notice it now says "federal prosecutor" which should be true enough. Pkeets (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anything sourced to her personal website or her business needs better sourcing or removal. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Powell has filed cases in Michigan and Georgia already - should notice of this be included somewhere in the article?

The pdfs of her filings are available on https://defendingtherepublic.org/ (the links about "Krakens" being released). I can't find the Georgia one anywhere other than the website but the Michigan one has some sort of serial number associated with it which leads to https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18693929/king-v-whitmer/. Should this be included in the article, or only coverage of the court case by the media?--GenericName784 (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. We will cover it if reliable sources do, and if specifically mentioning each of them is due. Personally I'm not sure it is necessary to mention each and every lawsuit she files, especially if the end results are the same. Let's see how reliable sources handle it. NonReproBlue (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. Any two-bit crank is allowed to file pretty much whatever lawsuits they want, up until the point where a court actually sanctions them for filing too many frivolous lawsuits. It's not notable until there's some modicum of WP:RS coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2020

The present Wiki states that Powell "baselessly" filed suit in Georgia. That statement is factually incorrect given the plethora of polling witness testimonies, expert witnesses, Military Intelligence testimony that they have hacked the software in those machines, and for many other reasons. I suggest wiki remove the word " baselessly " and instead offer a link to the lawsuit so readers can make the determination of the lawsuit's veracity on their own. One such link follows: https://aim4truth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Michigan-Complaint.pdf Tomorrow you will likely find it available on the applicable district court's website, as well. When available, the secretary of state websites should be used as reference for the respective lawsuits, as these are least likely to have been tampered with. RedneckSavant (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RedneckSavant: Can you point to the sentence where it says Powell baselessly filed suit in Georgia? I'm not seeing it. As for the rest of your comment, I don't know what aim4truth.org is trying to be (cat stock photo repository? "news" source?) but it does not look like any reputable publication I've ever seen. We could possibly discuss linking to the suit if/when it appears on an official domain, but not there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, Unlikely we will find this on a non-paywalled official domain, unfortunately. It's a PACER filing, which is (inexplicably, inexcusably) a subscription-only service. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It would take some convincing for me to think it was worth linking at all, even on an official and non-paywalled domain. But we certainly shouldn't be linking to this location. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this is a complaint, not a decision. It alleges things; it does not prove them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial"

The One I Left reverted my change of the heading in Sidney_Powell#Sidney_Powell#Controversial_views. I think it should say "views", not "controversial views". It is my longstanding view (see Talk:Parler#"Controversial") that "controversial" is vague, nearly meaningless, but nonetheless imports an unnecessary POV. It should be obvious to any reader that Powell's views are controversial, given the heavy qualifications we use throughout the "[Controversial] views" section. I see no reason to belabor the point with a tendentious section heading. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, alternatively "Political views" would be an appropriate title too. LM150 22:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should just be "Views". "Political views" would be fine too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, whether or not those views are controversial is either evident from the contents of the section or it isn’t. No need for us to editorialize. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreeing with everyone above. MOS:HEADINGS refers back to WP:AT, which refers back to WP:NPOVTITLE, which refers back to WP:POVNAMING; and when you've unpacked all those matryushka dolls, you find: "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias". Saying someone's views are controversial in a section heading is - well, controversial.
If there are WP:RS which say that the subject is an outspoken proponent of motherhood and apple pie, we can say so in WP's voice. Should we place them in a separate "Uncontroversial views" section? Obviously not.
"Political views" would suit me just fine too, or be even better. Narky Blert (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion Voting Systems response

@AleatoryPonderings:, regarding your reversion, I agree with pulling it for the primary sourcing. Here are a couple secondary sources that might work if you feel they are valid to re-add?

  1. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/dominion-voting-systems-response-to-sidney-powell/85-af899a76-7a47-4d9c-8d1b-1a891dee2104
  2. https://www.fox61.com/article/news/politics/elections/dominion-voting-systems-response-to-sidney-powell/85-af899a76-7a47-4d9c-8d1b-1a891dee2104

I'll let you look them over, when you get the chance. I think it's WP:DUE with proper sourcing. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts, I added this. These look like the same article to me? Not thrilled with citing a local TV station, but I suppose a sentence doesn't hurt. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Hartford based Fox affiliate is one of the best. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sidney_Powell&oldid=991379527"