Talk:Judicial Watch

Untitled
"The organization has described climate science as "fraud science""

Shouldn't this be in quotes?
These documents show the talking points used by the White House were misleading and were an attempt to blame the attack a video rather than administration policy. Specifically, an email from White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes which was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09PM shows an orchestrated a campaign to mislead. The email “prep” was for Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.[30]

Your link is to an article BY JW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.79.148 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Many violations of NPOV
This article contains many instances which violate the neutral point of view Wikipedia guideline. On example, the subsection "Commerce department trade mission scandal" begins "The scandal involved a scheme by Clinton administration officials ...". Titling the subsection as a scandal and then stating that it was a scandal that involved a scheme implies wrongdoing was found as a result of legal action(s). No wrongdoing was found. Many other examples of blatant bias can be found in almost every section. How could this article have gotten to be in such a horrid state ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition, I think the extensive citing of material from the Judicial Watch website is problematic. This reads like a piece of marketing material for Judicial Watch. Tagging NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.9.64 (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The Benghazi section is especially bad. And too much detail as well. 2600:1002:B112:D094:48A2:7422:3595:68FF (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've cut down much of this crud. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not cut out the entire first paragraph of the Benghazi section. Or, better yet, cut it out entirely. JW has made hundreds of FOIA requests in its history. Adding a section specific to Benghazi highlights its conservative agenda, even though many editors try to hide the fact that it's a partisan organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.127.133.254 (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to cut the first paragraph and still give sufficient background to make the second paragraph intelligible. The second paragraph is noteworthy, as evidenced by articles such as this one from the Tampa Bay Times. If we're giving undue emphasis to this part of JW's agenda--a concern I share--then the solution is to tighten it up/and or add additional content about other parts of JW's agenda. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not "impossible" to cut out the first paragraph. In fact, the first two words of the second paragraph ("In response") is speculation, since it's not even clear that the video referenced in the first paragraph is at all the reason that JW made the FOIA request. Even the citation of the findings from JW on Benghazi in the second paragraph is to a "Press Release" that isn't even linked.

The events of Benghazi that occurred on 9/11/12 has it's own page, and it's unnecessary to have another version of the events in this page, especially when they're not even properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.127.133.254 (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of Judicial Watch press releases as citations
Several of the citations used in this article are press releases put out by Judicial Watch. I do not believe those are legitimate citations. They should be removed and the statements they provide citation for either revised or removed. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed most of these references, though there are probably more to go. Some of these press releases may be appropriate per WP:ABOUTSELF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

NYT article
There was a NYT article on this outfit a few days ago, in case it might help with sourcing:. -Darouet (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Klayman birtherism
contends: I have no problem with the established fact that Klayman is an established birther. What I do have a problem with is describing him simply as "conservative attorney and birther Larry Klayman," which puts far too much emphasis on only one controversial aspect of his career of many, and doesn't reflect the lead section of his article, which makes no mention of his birtherism. From a neutrality perspective I'd be much more comfortable describing him as "conservative attorney and conspiracy theorist Larry Klayman," or "conservative attorney and wingnut Larry Klayman," provided we have reliable sources that support these descriptors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

IRS controversity.
You have said here [] that the IRS targeted conservative groups. You restate that several times. However, it was eventually revealed that right-wing groups were not alone. In the Wikipedia article IRS targeting controversy, other organizations are mentioned, too - ones that also include such terms as "progressive", "occupy", "open source software", "medical marijuana", and "occupied territory advocacy" in their names. The IRS section here needs to be amended to state that political groups of both sides were targeted.

Here are the sources for that inclusion as used by the main article:


 * http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-24/irs-screened-applications-using-progressive-israel-
 * http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_irs_scandal_narrative_unwi.php

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thank you. By the way, no single person writes articles here (there is no "you") and you are free to make changes, provided of course that you try to follow our policies and guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Rated as a Fake news website
See rating of the group as a fake news website: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/judicial-watch/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.56 (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything there rating JW as a fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It has 2 ratings, 1 is false on ISIS camp set up close to Texas, 1 is mostly False about Trayvon Martin. Why is wikipedia allowing this not to be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.55 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That Politicfact ranked one of Judicial Watch's statements as "false" and another one as "mostly false" is not particularly noteworthy; it did not state that Judicial Watch was a "fake news website". --Weazie (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * False and fake are two very different things. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judicial Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yNEZ0PLs?url=http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/bin-laden-dead-u-s-official-says/ to http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/bin-laden-dead-u-s-official-says/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Non-partisan"
I just made a change to the introduction (sorry, wasn't logged in) to try to balance the first article which makes a brash claim that Judicial Watch is "non-partisan". While I know that that is how Judicial Watch labels themselves, it seemed unlikely that anyone else would. A quick look at some of the bazillion articles (okay, actually five) used as citations for that one word showed newspapers that were simply mentioning the group, not making any claims about partisanship. There was one citation that might have been relevant (WaPo: Chairman Polishes Non-partisan Credentials), but the link goes to the Star Tribune, so I'm not sure what the article actually says.

For now, I've left the claim that they're "non-partisan" in the intro, but made it more clear that this is a claim by the group itself and that it is not universally held. I also left in all five citations even though they have dubious value. I think it will be much cleaner to delete them all and just link directly to where Judicial Watch claims to be non-partisan instead of trying to reference newspapers that are just referencing Judicial Watch's claims. Ben (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This issue was discussed somewhere - "non-partisan" is actually a tax status designation (iirc), it really has nothing to do with "non-partisan" as commonly understood.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ben, I'm sorry, I don't understand. CNN, The Boston Globe, the Star Tribute, CNSNews, and The Washington Post all call JW non-partisan. What do you mean these reliable sources were "not making any claims about partisanship?" When they say the organization is non-partisan, it seems to me they are making a claim about partisanship. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * is correct and this is a point I have made before. Not one of the cited sources are researching the nonpartisanship of JW; they are just passing along its self-description, which in turn simply describes its tax status.  How one can in good conscience use the term nonpartisan to describe an organization that collaborated with Steve Bannon is baffling.  Indeed, the designation of 'conservative' for this alt-right conspiracy-oriented group could be questioned as well.  (That it is extreme right is documented by Media-Bias Fact Check, which I realize you will dismiss despite its good reputation.)


 * Ten sources, not five. (reason for not citing is pure apathy.) Evidence shows, in practice, others do label JW as such, contrary to baseless assertions otherwise. Reliable sources say it, as do we. If reliable sources disagree, they may be worked into a section covering differing views; properly attributed, of course. -- dsprc   [talk]  10:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They are equally happy to attack anyone who does not meet their fundamentalist libertarian purity test, regardless of party. They are not aligned to a party, much as Mercer and the Koch brothers are not aligned to a party - this view of nonpartisanship might, of course, change over time, as the hostile takeover of the Republican Party by the Kochtopus brings the two ideologies more closely into alignment. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC).
 * That's a pretty good summary. The New York Times explains how JW's self-description as non-partisan is controversial. Nevertheless reliable sources consistently call JW non-partisan, as pointed out by dsprc. Our job is simply to pass that on to our readers. If/when a reliable source says that JW has crossed the line into partisanship, then we can and should include that per our neutrality policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

what about trump?
so what has this "non-partisan" organisation done about trump's increasingly dubious legal track record?

& did they have anything to say about the arpaio pardon?

did they have anything to say about ANYTHING in trump's record?

did they even bother TRYING to get info about the multitude of lawsuits he's been in, & mostly settled, mostly on closed terms?

Lx 121 (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

undoing collapse of my comment by a user who didn't even bother to comment.

"not a forum" rationale in no way invalidates my points that:

1. the article needs updating re: activities during the trump administation

&

2. the claims of "non partisanship" are looking increasingly dubious.

respectfully,

Lx 121 (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying. Your first comment didn't say anything about our article, so I thought you were just ranting about JW. Please try to focus your comments on improvements to the article, as you did in your second comment. So, as to your second comment:
 * If you find reliably sourced content about JW's activities during the Trump administration, by all means be bold and add them!
 * Whether JW is or is not non-partisan isn't our call to make. It's make by the independent reliable sources, which at this point all say that JW is non-partisan. Perhaps someday there will be sources saying that JW is partisan, at which time we can adjust our article to reflect them. If you find such sources by all means provide links to them here!
 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

New section for Controversial, False, or Misleading comments
Hello, I had created a new section that was partly combined with another and partly removed. When I responded I was encouraged to discuss it here-the wisdom of which I can see as there are multiple people discussing various things. So here is a copy and paste of my response to what happened to the section I added. Thoughts?

I noticed you did 2 major things to a relatively well referenced section I added. I read the reasons for each action and have 2 questions about that.

1. How many false statements are required to provide a section noting that this organization has generated "Controversial, False, and Misleading" statements?

2. And this is more complex so I'll go into greater depth. The only place source you cited as contradicting me was Politifact (which I am familiar with and often read). I believe I found the article in Politifact which you are referring to and would point out that there are different implications in the different statements Scott Walker made in 2013 (which it evaluated in that article) and Judicial Watch in 2011.

Specifically the 2013 statement was that FDR "felt there wasn’t a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people."

The Politifact article that rated this as true noted FDR's feelings on public unions may be debated this is more in terms of the range of things a public union could do (not on if they existed) and at the time there was not much of a public sector union tradition while private sector unions already had been building for several years.

While the 2011 Judicial Watch statement said FDR "opposed" public unions. This is on if they may exist and therefor advocate for public workers on any of the issues unions typically do.

Additionally Large numbers of public workers had not yet been unionized so that was a decision of someone before this time.

Moreover his administration's actions (as mentioned in the Politifact article) did not "oppose" the formation of public unions or public worker membership within them. The article referred to unions of workers associated with the Tennessee Valley Authority. Also it noted FDR said that federal workers were "free to join 'any union they want'" and that "managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not".

Since Governor Walker refused to even meet with union members or representatives during the time Act 10 was being debated and protested this arguably was a violation of the spirit of FDR's views on how to interact with public workers and their treatment.

Judicial Watch exaggerated, at best, FDR's views on public workers and their unions and did so during a time of political unease over an unexpected change in several decades of traditional and legal recognition of public sector unions in Wisconsin. This was misleading.

What was also misleading in the Judicial watch statement was the claim that this was done for fiscal reasons when statewide unions had offered to take every fiscal cut he requested-meaning this was not over fiscal matters.

Perhaps I should have added that to my explanation of how the Judicial Watch commentary was misleading but this does qualify as misleading commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplr (talk • contribs) 13:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing. To answer your first question, there is no hard and fast rule, but the relevant standard is WP:UNDUE. I'd think you'd need several falsehoods or misleading statements at a minimum before they warranted their own section. As for your second question, the problem with the content as you wrote it is that it was classic original research. We need a reliable source that explicitly says something is false before we can say it's false, or a reliable source that explicitly says something is misleading before we can say it's misleading. So, you need to cite a source that explicitly says JW's statement about FDR was false or misleading before we can add this content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take "several" as the equal to seven for a minimum. And thank you for defining what is both "original research" and a "reliable source". Though this leads me to a different question relating to one of the other parts of the talk page.

Is mediamatters considered a "reliable source"? Someone claimed it did not, but if it does not match what is a "reliable source" then other organizations like Judicial Watch and watchdog.org don't as they do not fit the definition of a "reliable source" and thus should not be used as sources either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplr (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Some sources are borderline and consensus could come out either way on them. MediaMatters might be one of those. You can dig through the WP:RSN archives to see if the issue has come up one way or the other on that one. I don't know about watchdog.org either. As for JW itself, no JW is an activist organization and is generally unreliable; however see WP:ABOUTSELF--organizations that are otherwise unreliable may be reliable for information about themselves, depending on the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judicial Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608130352/http://www.mediatransparency.org/scaifeaggregate.php to http://www.mediatransparency.org/scaifeaggregate.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

No longer a ‘lonely battle’: How the campaign against the Mueller probe has taken hold
Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, said “our concerns about Mueller are beginning to take hold.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/no-longer-a-lonely-battle-how-the-campaign-against-the-mueller-probe-has-taken-hold/2017/12/24/441fc726-e5cb-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.11b6e8a48fb7

Wikipietime (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Mass-removal of reliably sourced text
In mass-removing reliably sourced text, one user asserts that (1) the text violates WP:DE, (2) content was removed without explanation and (3) that text was unsourced. All these assertions are complete and utter nonsense. #2 is at the very least a bold-faced lie. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * user:VirgilGilmour, I have not been "banned or blocked" from editing this page or any other page. I've been banned from copy-pasting the same content (more or less) to more than two pages. As you've now only provided incorrect (if we assume good faith) or deceptive (if we assume bad faith) edit summaries and crossed WP:3RR, I encourage you to self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fully support Snooganssnoogans' position on this. VirgilGilmour please do not engage in this sort of disruption. If you want to delete reliably sourced content you'd better explain yourself here first. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I've gotten something wrong here, but I've been trying to stop the disruption, not engage in it. Upon looking at this page I immediately noticed that there was a ton of biased content, and after looking at viewing the history I noticed that most of that content came recently from Snooganssnoogans. For example, user removed part of the first paragraph where it referenced that Judicial Watch had sued the Bush administration. I then noticed that Snooganssnoogans had been banned from mass edits, which was defined as making similar edits to more than one page. Snoog had already made similar edits to Tom Fitton's page, so this seems like a clear violation of that ban. To clear things up I reported this matter to Dennis Brown - 2&cent;) the administrator who banned Snooganssnoogans. Dennis had previously warned Snoog as follows, 'You need to remember how we got here. There were serious concerns about your editing and WP:NPOV as it seems you were focusing solely on adding material to many politicians of a single party, material that could be seen as reflecting negatively on them. That isn't allowed. Doing it en mass compounded the problem. We collectively decided to give you the opportunity to correct that error yourself by only limiting the mass contributions. If your editing continues to be biased when taken as a whole, I would expect more sanctions. You need to take these concerns to heart, and take them seriously as you are already under Arb sanction now. By only limiting the mass postings, we have shown a tremendous amount of good faith that you will "get it".' Given all that, I thought it would be most appropriate to revert the page back to the way it was before Snoog's edits, pending either a consensus or a determination by Dennis Brown - 2&cent;. VirgilGilmour (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who made you enforcer of Snooganssnoogans' sanction? If you really want to take that approach, then report Snoog to an administrator. But mass-reverting content on this basis is hogwash frankly. If you believe the content is non-neutral then please explain why. All I see is reliably sourced factual content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a deep breath, doc. I DID report Snoog. And I never tried to enforce anything...just deleted clearly biased content from a user known (and banned) for biased content. If you honestly think this page passes the giggle test with regard to objectivity, then fine by me. VirgilGilmour (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you want content removed on the basis of neutrality, then you have to explain why. Simply saying it doesn't pass the giggle test isn't enough. Identify which content doesn't fairly reflect which sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, you need a diff to that exact sanction, and DrFleischman is correct. That looks like that wasn't imposed by me, that looks like that was a close by me at ANI, which means I merely summarized and closed a discussion. ie: it wasn't a unilateral sanction.  If it was done at ANI, then file a complaint at ANI.  If it was done at AE, then file a complaint at AE.  What you don't do is go all vigilante and interpret the close by yourself.  That is is disruptive, as in WP:DE kind of disruptive.  Let admin do their jobs by taking it to the appropriate admin board.  Otherwise, you risk getting blocked yourself.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Vince Foster
Removed section that stated the Judicial Watch had sired controversy over Vince Foster Suicide. Source is 2016 article making passing non-cited references to Klayman in 1993 before Judaical Watch was founded. If supported it could should be on Klayman's bio not Judical Watch. Attributing it to Judaical Watch before Judicial Watch was founded is patently false. Bigred58 (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the source doesn't say that Klayman stirred the conspiracy theory in 1993. It doesn't say when he stirred the theory, but what is known is that the theory heated up after Klayman founded JW. Read Vince Foster for more details. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Lede
, would you mind proposing your edits here before making them? I'm not trying to be obstructionist, just compliant with our community standards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Which citation states that most of Judicial Watch's lawsuits have been dismissed? The reference cited made no such claim.Phmoreno (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This one: "Judicial Watch’s strategy is simple: Carpet-bomb the federal courts with Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. A vast majority are dismissed." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The lede is biased POV and needs to reflect some of the notable accomplishments of Judicial Watch. Right now it is a discrediting hit job.  It is highly significant that Judicial Watch uncovered Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, as well as the conspiracy between the FBI and IRS to try to prosecute donors to Tea Party organizations.Phmoreno (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While I think the lead is fairly neutral, I'd be fine with adding a brief (perhaps 1-2 sentence) summary of JW's most noteworthy activities. The tricky thing is that it's hard to summarize JW's successes succinctly since they require a lot of backstory. Also, we shouldn't be focusing on just one project to the exclusion of all others, as you did here. And we definitely shouldn't be using JW's website to decide what's noteworthy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Clinton's private email server is one of the most noteworthy events in recent political history. Though Judicial Watch didn't discover it themselves, their FOIA lawsuit led to the discovery.  The IRS colluding with the FBI evidence is fairly recent.  The FBI had 1.5 million IRS documents in it's possession. Perhaps we will hear more about that from Inspector General Horowitz.  My edit clearly attributed this as a quote by Fitton, which you can read on the Judicial Watch website.  I am not using that source to veryify Fitton's claim, only that he he made it tn the J.W. website.Phmoreno (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fitton's claims aren't significant. What belongs in the lead are the most important verifiable facts about JW. This means that they have to be supported by reliable independent sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * C-SPAN is a secondary source on one reference.Phmoreno (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the C-SPAN source isn't independent or reliable. It's just an interview of Fitton. No one has fact-checked Fitton's statements. We need independent sources that have been fact-checked, like newspaper articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think you're going to be able to obtain consensus that HRC's e-mail server is "one of the most noteworthy events in recent political history." Perhaps try a different argument that's not so blatantly polarizing? Many editors (myself) tend to focus on what has received the most media coverage. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, Judicial Watch's activities are cherry picked. J.W. has a long list of significant information gained from FOIA lawsuits.Phmoreno (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe they're cherry picked based on what has received coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, which is how they should be picked. If you find an activity that you think we're missing, you can note it here along with the relevant sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Judicial Watch's success stories have received extensive media coverage, but this article is not my main focus. I came here looking for some specific information and found a very slanted article. At the very least the lede should be improved.Phmoreno (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Your help identifying the activities that have been covered by the reliable media would be helpful, but of course we're all volunteers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The Washington Free Beacon and the ACLJ aren't reliable sources. Can you please post your proposed changes here before implementing them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Not RS, according to you, but they are according to Wikipedia guidelines.Phmoreno (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Because I said so" is not the most convincing argument to use here. How about pointing out why you think it's true? --Calton | Talk 04:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 50 Top Conservative Web Sites Phmoreno (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * And just what the HELL does a conservative website's popularity contest about its little walled garden have to do with WP:RELIABLESOURCE? --Calton | Talk 15:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to point out the blindingly obvious, the less likely a source s to appear on a list of sources preferred by one ideology or another, the more likely it is to be usable on Wikipedia. we prefer objective fact from analytical sources, ideally ones that don't have a strong ideological commitment to a specific point of view. Also the idea of "bias" against conservative websites is a stable trope of the far right, but not backed by objective evidence. I think I understand the reason behind it though. The right is dominated by thought leaders from the fields of religion and economics, two areas where rhetoric, not evidence, is the test of Truth&trade;. That's fine until they start entering areas where empirical fact comes into play. Thus, it is fine to argue, philosophically, that climate change is not real or tax cuts cause everyone to become richer via trickle-down, but the observed facts show these to be incorrect views, and that will tend to lead to friction between those who consider that rhetoric is sufficient to establish truth, and those who consider objective evidence to be important. It's a rehashing of the 17th Century debate between philosophy and natural philosophy, which became science. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Off topic.Phmoreno (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not "off topic" to explain why biased sources are unlikely to successfully offset reality-based commentary on Wikipedia. Wikipedia follows empirical reality, not rhetorical reality. That's the point. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Given your inability to realize the importance of facts and the unimportance of rhetorical games in deciding what goes into Wikipedia articles, I'm going to say that it's perfectly on-topic. --Calton | Talk 15:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration DS
This article is clearly under the scope of Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Due to revert warring and the politically charged nature of the topic, I have added standard discretionary sanctions. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank Guy. While I’m totally in line with you on the goal, perhaps you’d reconsider the editing restrictions or at least tone them down? This article really hasn’t seen much long-term disruption. Isolated problems can be dealt with in other ways that don’t inhibit productive editing quite so much. Personally I think bare DS without the editing restrictions is more appropriate when there’s little or no edit warring. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am happy to review in a month, but there are live news stories on Fox referencing Judicial Watch and I don't think the recent edit war is necessarily a coincidence. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not my first choice but I'm okay with that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The N-word
There's a lot of noise above about the word nonpartisan. Although this is supported by sources, I see the confusion: "conservative nonpartisan" is pretty close to an oxymoron in 2018. Given that conservative and Republican are actually different words but with almost indistinguishable meaning right now, is there any reason we should not move this lower down? It's a technical point: Yes, they have no party alignment. They agree with many Republicans, a few independents, and pretty much no Democrats.

I'm not saying remove it ,just move it down. "Conservative nonpartisan" in the opening sentence of the lede on such an obviously political organisation violates the principle of minimum astonishment. If you sue for White House access records in 2009 and not in 2017, when they stopped being provided, you may not be technically party aligned, but you're sure as hell partisan. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding whether JW is nonpartisan, we've been over this a million times: you can believe they're partisan, and that's a reasonable personal belief, but it can't be reflected in our article the sources are unanimous that JW is nonpartisan. I am okay with bumping "nonpartisan" down in a vacuum. However I think that "conservative" definitely belongs at the top of the first paragraph. It's an intrinsic part of who they are and leaving it out is doing a disservice to readers. And shouldn't "nonpartisan" be alongside "conservative?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, conservative stays right up front, because it is their defining characteristic. Nonpartisan is a thing they have to claim to be in order to qualify for 501(c)(3). It would be interesting to see if it survived a challenge from the IRS, but under the current regime that's not going to happen. As per the opening statement: it's in sources, we're not going to exclude it, but "conservative nonpartisan" is a "WTF?", especially for this organisation, given its history. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting conversation. Most convincing to me is the fact that they must claim to be nonpartisan to hold their 501(c)(3) status, but do we need to say that in the opening sentence?  I'm in agreement with placing it farther down in the lead, assuming that there is agreement that it must be in the lead besides the body.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we misleading readers by saying they're conservative without also saying nearby that they're also nonpartisan? It seems like the two concepts are closely tied in that they're two important aspects of JW's political positioning. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Er, no. They are a fundamentalist libertarian organisation whose agenda overlaps almost entirely with the Republican Party. While they are not affiliated, their points of disagreement with the GOP are arund areas where JW thinks the GOP is too left-wing. JW has close to zero overlap with the Democratic Party. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by ResearchApproach
, can you please discuss your major changes here before implementing them? I'd personally like to understand a more about your approach. Regarding the note you left on my user talk, I generally try to avoid criticism ghettos for the reasons articulated in WP:CRITICISM. There may be a way to address your concerns without creating a criticism ghetto. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey - I'm not trying to remove negative information about Judicial Watch. I want the page to be clean, organized, and fair. I don't think it makes sense to have many random claims of falsehood (and other criticism) listed in the "major investigations and lawsuits" section. That section should explain what activity Judicial Watch does, not be merely a list of complaints about the group. Is that fair? ResearchApproach (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

For a specific example, the "Trump Nazi Billboard" reference, by all means feel free to keep that in, but it is really a "major investigation or lawsuit"? I think it would be fair to list that somewhere else, such as a "disputed claims" section. I'm just trying to be fair here. ResearchApproach (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We're merely including the activities that have been covered by independent reliable sources. It would be great to have an overview at the top of the section - perhaps you can add one? In the meantime, I agree that "major" is problematic. We don't have verification that these activities are "major." I'm going to change this to "notable," which is more consistent with other similar articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Nothing about these loons is "major" - they generally lose, after all. Ed Brayton refers to Klayman as "the dumbest lawyer in America not named Mat Staver", and vice-versa. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Undue to mention lawsuits against Republicans in the lede
The organization occasionally files lawsuits against Republicans. This does not belong in the lede, and gives a misleading appearance of non-partisanship. RS do not describe Judicial Watch as an organization that goes after both Democrats and Republians, and it's ludicrous to suggest that this is the case given the near-singular focus on attacking Democrats through all kinds of smears and BS. This is how WaPo describes Judicial Watch: "Judicial Watch’s main targets have been Democrats, particularly the Clintons and the administration of President Obama." The only ones saying that JW goes after Republicans is JW itself. JW is not a RS about itself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be easy enough to establish of this is WP:UNDUE: can you provide counts of lawsuits targeting Republican vs. Democratic administrations? Guy (Help!) 14:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WaPo: "Judicial Watch’s main targets have been Democrats, particularly the Clintons and the administration of President Obama." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, duh, but in order for the complained-of text to qualify as WP:UNDUE we need more than just it not being the main target. After all, that source actually supports the claim tat they have targeted Republican administrations. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing that the source says is that JW claims to be bipartisan in its investigations. WaPo did not opt for a description of "oh, they go after both GOP and Dems". That's only what Fitton, a serial liar and conspiracy theorist, says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So we have a claim of bipartisan targeting backed by at least one example. And what was your counter-evidence, again? Counts would settle it. If it's 300:1, easy. 10:1? Maybe. 5:1? Tricky. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why I used the qualifier "although" before mentioning George W. Bush. Judicial Watch has sued Republicans and I feel it is fair to note that. They even have an anti-Trump blogger now. A few citations are below. Thank you! ResearchApproach (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In July 2003 Judicial Watch joined the environmental organization Sierra Club in suing the George W. Bush administration for access to minutes of Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force. Judicial Watch was involved in a similar legal dispute with Vice President Dick Cheney in 2002 when the group filed a shareholder lawsuit against Halliburton. The lawsuit, which accused Halliburton of accounting fraud, alleged that "when Mr. Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton, he and other directors inflated revenue reports, boosting Halliburton's share price." As reported by the Wall Street Journal the court filing claims the oil-field-services concern overstated revenue by a total of $445 million from 1999 through the end of 2001.


 * But this was already known. What's needed are statistics or (better) independent commentary on the proportion of their activism that goes red versus blue. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Lawsuit against Larry Klayman
It would appear JW's long-running lawsuit against Klayman has resulted in a substantial verdict in JW's favor. Unfortunately, I presently cannot find a WP:RS. --Weazie (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Activist/watchdog
The article currently says JW is an activist group, and doesn't say it's a watchdog group. I'm not suggesting that these two things are mutually exclusive. There are a number of reliable sources calling it a watchdog group (ex: ) and a number calling it an activist group (ex:    ). So what do we call this thing? A conservative activist watchdog group? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "conservative activist group and watchdog group"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe because activist and watchdog are mutually exclusive. A watchdog is implicitly neutral and holds a body to objective standards, JW prefers to measure against conformance to its extremist agenda. Which is why its lawsuits mainly fail. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If they're mutually exclusive, then we must describe the contradiction among the sources with appropriate weight. This probably would mean we'd have to exclude both descriptors from the first sentence. But, in my view they aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think it's true that watchdogs have to be neutral or hold any body to an objective standard. An organization like JW clearly watchdogs some government activity and also has an activist agenda. Other watchdog groups are similar. It's hard to argue that an organization like Common Cause isn't both a watchdog group and an activist group. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need for us to do so. We can call them activist (which they unashamedly are) and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting a justification from you for suppressing verifiable and noteworthy information supported by multiple reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not "suppressing", it's their self-identification uncritically reported by some sources (see churnalism). They are not a watchdog They are an ideologically motivated organization. Same as FFRF and any number of left-leaning activist groups. We need to be careful not to fact-wash self-serving bullshit. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV issues
I just was watching a video with Judaical Watch and googled to find more information about it then I came across this article. Which had numerous problems first of all it misattributes a quote from the NYT to indicate that it loses most of FOIA lawsuits. Maybe it does or doesn't but the article is specifically mentioning the lawsuits related to Clinton.

"Judicial Watch’s strategy is simple: Carpet-bomb the federal courts with Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. A vast majority are dismissed. But Judicial Watch caught a break last year, when revelations about Mrs. Clinton’s private email server prompted two judges to reopen two of the group’s cases connected to her tenure as secretary of state

The lawsuits have since led to the release of hundreds of Mrs. Clinton’s emails — which have, in turn, spurred dozens of news releases and fund-raising letters from Judicial Watch that hype the significance of these documents, while putting them in the least flattering light possible for Mrs. Clinton."

Also if they do lose a majority of their cases the information should be cited not linked to a single source liberal newspaper where they don't cite the information either. Writing an article on a conservative subject using NYT viewpoint as a basis is akin to using foxnews to define a liberal group like Moveon.Org. It's fundamentally unfair.

I also find it curious no mention was made when the Obama administration improperly stripped it of it's media credentials and then was forced to try to limit and impose higher fees on their requests. They were sued, lost the lawsuit, and were forced to settle for damages with Judicial Watch. Yet no mention anywhere in the article strange. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/29/obama-operatives-stripped-judical-watch-of-media-s/ 13:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)72.139.199.117 (talk)


 * So you saw a video on the internet and believed it. Good for you. If you want to propose any additions please feel free to make specific proposals, not forgetting to identify reliable independent secondary sources to support them. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I just made two first revise or remove the misleading and false opening statement which is not verifiable and defamatory. Two, include the controversy regarding the Obama administration improperly classifying Judaical Watch then being forced to properly reclassify them after being sued.


 * Other problems I noticed via a quick scan of the article was the "Vince Foster" section the link is not attributable to Judicial Watch. It's attributable to Klayman.


 * The article is full of lies and half truths. It needs an entire rewrite with it sources investigated to make sure what the source claims is attributed properly. I found two in just a 15 minute scan I can only imagine what someone would do in a deep dig. I made changes earlier (that were reverted) but I am not a wikipedian. I have a life I'm not going to engage in edit warring and spend hours fixing this article only to have it reverted 72.139.199.117 (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Another example but not as egregious is the others is the portion about ISIS operating at the border. The reality is none of the sources prove it to be false. What they do mention is they were unable to verify JW claims there is major difference.
 * And that was reverted by DrFleischmann (who is hardly a communist) . You appear to believe that disputing a fact somehow makes it not a fact. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It is important to note that JW stands by reporting and reference Hendricks as further evidence of their claims being true. https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/08/isis-terrorist-tells-feds-jihadist-brothers-mexico-confirming-jw-reports/

"Though a number of high-level law enforcement, intelligence and military sources on both sides of the border have provided Judicial Watch with evidence that Islamic terrorist cells are operating in Mexico, the Obama administration has publicly denied it, both to Judicial Watch and in mainstream media outlets. Now we have a terrorism suspect in custody proudly affirming it. His name is Erick Jamal Hendricks and the U.S. has charged him with conspiring to provide ISIS and ISIL material support. Hendricks created a sleeper cell with at least ten members, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), and claims that some of his jihadist “brothers” are just south of the U.S. border in Mexico. The 35-year-old lived for a short time in Charlotte, North Carolina and was arrested and charged in Ohio last week. Hendricks tried to “recruit people to train together and conduct terrorist attacks in the United States,” according to the government’s criminal complaint."

Who is Hendricks and what are they referring to?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/north-carolina-man-convicted-attempting-and-conspiring-provide-material-support-isis

Hendricks had contacted Al-Ghazi over social media to recruit him in the spring of 2015. Hendricks allegedly told Al-Ghazi that he “needed people” and wanted to meet in person; that there were several “brothers” located in Texas and Mexico; that he was attempting to “get brothers to meet face to face;” and that he wanted “to get brothers to train together,” according to court documents and trial testimony

Al-Ghazi believed that Hendricks and the “brothers in Texas and Mexico” may have been responsible for a thwarted terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, on May 3, 2015, and therefore he decided to stay away from social media for a period following the attack to minimize detection by law enforcement.

That section should be rewrote something to the effect:

In 2014 and 2015, Judicial Watch claimed that ISIS had set up camp in Mexico; Judicial Watch's claims were picked up by several news outlets but were unable to be verified and also denied by the Obama Administration.

However, JW stood by their claims and in 2016 Erick Jamal Hendricks was arrested for providing material support to ISIS. Hendricks claimed to have brothers Mexico he was attempting to get across the border and may have been responsible for the thwarted attack on Garland, Texas, on May 2015.

JW uses this recent arrest as further evidence of their claims being true 72.139.199.117 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You've raised a bunch of issues. I'll take a look, but a few comments first. First, you'll get more traction is you stop talking about lies and defamation. It's inflammatory and counterproductive. Keep the focus on "such-and-such content does not agree with such-and-such source." Second, you'll get more traction by backing up your assertions with independent reliable sources, which in this context usually means stories by reputable news outlets. Alleged political biases of reputable news outlets is generally ignored, so it's not helpful to say for example that we shouldn't rely on the liberal New York Times. Third, if this discussion goes much longer then I suggest we break it out into subsections so that no one gets their wires crossed. It's hard to respond to a whole bunch of unrelated issues in the same discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I addressed your concern about the Vince Foster content. The cited source was a bit ambiguous, so I added two more that make clear that JW (and not just Klayman) promoted the Vince Foster theory. I disagree with your reading of the New York Times source about the dismissal of most of JW's complaints. The source wasn't just talking about Clinton. Regarding the Hendricks stuff, this appears to be impermissible original research; please provide reliable independent sources.
 * Regarding the GSA report on the Obama administration stripping JW of its media status, that's a tough one. The issue there is whether this is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion given that the only reliable source that appears to have covered it was the Washington Times. That's a tough one and I'd appreciate other editors' input. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear it isn't original research it's from Judicial Watch own website which speaks on Hendricks I then gave a link to justice.gov indictment they reference. This my fault I think because I wrote in a way that made it unclear that the claim regarding Hendricks came from Judical Watch.


 * "Though a number of high-level law enforcement, intelligence and military sources on both sides of the border have provided Judicial Watch with evidence that Islamic terrorist cells are operating in Mexico, the Obama administration has publicly denied it, both to Judicial Watch and in mainstream media outlets. Now we have a terrorism suspect in custody proudly affirming it. His name is Erick Jamal Hendricks and the U.S. has charged him with conspiring to provide ISIS and ISIL material support. Hendricks created a sleeper cell with at least ten members, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), and claims that some of his jihadist “brothers” are just south of the U.S. border in Mexico. The 35-year-old lived for a short time in Charlotte, North Carolina and was arrested and charged in Ohio last week. Hendricks tried to “recruit people to train together and conduct terrorist attacks in the United States,” according to the government’s criminal complaint."


 * However, one of the major problems I have with the article why would you use Poltificat and Snopes as a source? Sure they are useful to fact check the claims of Judicial Watch but you never include the claim itself nor Judicial Watch follow up. Judicial Watch is the subject shouldn't they be quoted directly?


 * Also from poltifact:


 * "Without knowing anything about Judicial Watch’s sources -- such as rank or agency -- it’s hard for us to assess the article’s credibility. In an interview with PolitiFact, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton would not go into any further detail"


 * "It’s possible, but unlikely"


 * Basically they go through and are unable to verify the claims made by JW. That doesn't make it true or untrue only that it remains unverified (aka dossier). Which is the way I wrote it from a more NPOV and included Judicial Watches claims. The fact checking website evaluation of the claims as questionable.


 * In 2014 and 2015, Judicial Watch claimed that ISIS had set up camp in Mexico; Judicial Watch's claims were picked up by several conservative news outlets but were unable to be verified and also denied by the Obama Administration.


 * However, Justice Watch stood by their claims and in 2016 Erick Jamal Hendricks was arrested for providing material support to ISIS . Hendricks claimed to have brothers Mexico he was attempting to get across the border and may have been responsible for the thwarted attack on Garland, Texas, on May 2015.


 * Justice Watch uses the recent arrest as confirmation of their previous reporting .72.139.199.117 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the WT is borderline reliable and I'd say the wrong side of the border. Certainly if we can't find several mainstream sources we shouldn't use it. Doug Weller  talk 17:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean there is legal documentation on Judicial Watches website proving it happened if that helps (http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/GSA-Judicial-Watch-Media-Status.pdf go through pages 8 onwards). I guess the point is if someone is reporting fact and not opinion like 2+2=4 as long as the source is reliable bias should be unimportant. If you were taking the opinions on Judicial Watch from the WT then I would see the issue. 72.139.199.117 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The WT story was picked up by the conservative blogosphere (of course), including prominent unreliable sites like Breitbart and The Daily Wire. The most reputable of these sites appears to be the Weekly Standard, which I understand has some support at RSN. Further thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Washington Times is hopeless, it's run by Moonies and prone to conspiracist bullshit. Anything that originates there and is repeated hearsay by shitty or marginal sources should be ignored per WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this your personal opinion or that of wikipedia? Because I did a quick search of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard" and found no consensus of whether or not it was WP:RS in any case like I said here is the GSA report the article is founded on via Judicial Watch. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/GSA-Judicial-Watch-Media-Status.pdf72.139.199.117 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You could always read our article, which I linked. So, have you understood yet why we can't trust JW's word on anything relating to JW (or indeed anything else)? Your link to yet another piece of JW special pleading suggests not. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It isn't the special pleading of JW it's a report on the findings of the Office Inspector General. It's only hosted on judicial watch server. Did you read the document?


 * Here is another source as I found the source document directly related on government servers.
 * https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/foia/GSA%20OIG%20FOIA%20Response%20to%20HSGAC%2011.20.15.pdf 72.139.194.170 (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this is of such surpassing importance, you will have no difficulty providing links to the reliable independent sources that cover it, thus establishing its significance. I am sure you would not want to give undue weight to material that nobody other than JW thinks is significant. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

ISIS in Mexico fringe nonsense
An IP number has added WP:OR and JW content to suggest that ISIS camps in Mexico are a true thing. RS say they are not. If RS say they are a true thing, then those RS need to be cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE. Nuke it. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why did you restore it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh. My bad. Let me fix that. Effing Twinkle. I wanted to roll back *one* revision, but it hit both. Sorted now. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Mass revert by Guy/JzG
, this mass revert is disruptive and unjustified. The Daily Beast is absolutely a reliable source, lots of support for that at RSN. And beyond that most of those edits had nothing to do with The Daily Beast. Among other things you removed other reliable sources such as the Washington Post, misrepresented still other reliable sources such as Snopes and Politifact, and restored blatant original research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we not use hyperbolic language like "mass revert"? And no, Daily Beast is not a reliable source. It is a source that may be considered reliable for certain specific claims under certain circumstances, which is different. It has a clear and obvious agenda, and the more its agenda is intertwined with a specific statement, the less reliable it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 12:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what folks at RSN would say about your position on The Daily Beast, but I suppose it's immaterial since there are other sources that support that content. If you remove it, please make sure that the remaining sources adequately address 72.139.199.117's concern stated in the "NPOV issues" discussion above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"Self-styled" watchdog
Can the editors warring over including the word "self-styled" before "watchdog" please explain how this improves the article? We have multiple reliable sources calling JW a watchdog, not a "self-styled" watchdog, including the two that are cited. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. They are not a watchdog. They are a political organisation, their goal is to advance an agenda. If they were a watchdog, they would be suing the Trump administration, which is, by all objective measures,. the most corrupt in living memory. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Guy, I agree with most of your comment, but would you consider striking the last part since this really isn't the forum for that. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much we can do with Guy's original research. It's contrary to what the reliable sources say. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources uncritically repeat the group's self-identification. We see this all the time with anti-vax groups and other cranks. There is no independent source for them being a watchdog, as far as I can see. Unless you can point me to a scholarly analytical article that concludes, based on the group's activities, that they are indeed a watchdog? Guy (Help!) 07:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can the editors warring over including the word "self-styled" before "watchdog" please explain how this improves the article?
 * Accuracy? That is important for Wikipedia articles, right? --Calton | Talk 11:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought our goal was verifiability, not truth or righting great wrongs? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is. I tried to verify that they are actually a watchdog from reliable independent sources (rather than apparent repetitions of their self-identification) and failed. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought our goal was verifiability... And who said otherwise? Hint: What is the point of verifiability? Is it so articles are a) obsequious? b) clairvoyant? c) purple? d) accurate?
 * ...not truth or righting wrongs If you got those from "accuracy", perhaps you need a better thesaurus, or should at least understand words instead of randomly cutting-and-pasting them from policy pages. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Is Judicial Watch a "self-styled" watchdog group?
Should we say that Judicial Watch is a self-styled watchdog group in the first setence rather than simply a watchdog group? The full sentence is: Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group[1] and self-styled watchdog group[2][3] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate alleged misconduct by government officials. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Alternate option: Omit all mention of being a "watchdog group". Guy (Help!) 23:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey
(Please !vote "Include" to include the "self-styled," and "Exclude" to exclude the "self-styled.")
 * Exclude. This is an unnecessary expression of doubt that's inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Sources that describe JW as a watchdog group without this qualification include The Washington Post, The Hill, McClatchy, CNBC, the New York Post, and many more in addition to the two cited sources from the Tampa Bay Times and Fox News. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First preference: exclude all mention of watchdog. Second preference: Include self-identified or self-described. I cannot find any reliable independent source that has analysed the group's activities and concluded they are a watchdog group, and the evidence very clearly shows that they are in fact a bunch of libertarian activists. They are not holding people to account against the constitution (hence most of their lawsuits fail) but against their agenda. That's the clincher, really. ACLU succeeds pretty often. Even the Satanic Temple has a better success rate than JW. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As Guy, First preference: exclude all mention of watchdog. Second preference: Include self-identified or self-described.  Doug Weller  talk 16:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Guy. Either leave out "watchdog" or add the proper adjective, like "self-styled" or "self-described". --Calton | Talk 16:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First preference: Exclude mentioning "watchdog group" entirely, as others have said.  Second preference:  Include self-styled or some similar wording indicating that it's purely self-description.  We can't cite them as the primary source for this if we're going to describe it as fact, since it violates the WP:SELFCITE restriction against self-serving claims.  Therefore, if it's included at all, it has to be made clear that this is a designation they apply to themselves and not something they're called by others. --Aquillion (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't follow. What the basis for your assertion that it's purely self-description? The sources listed in the RfC don't suggest that, unless I've missed something? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A watchdog that doesn't bark when the worst burglars break in, is not much of a watchdog. The GAO is a proper watchdog. But, you know, why not avoid the controversy and simply leave it out? Guy (Help!) 09:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My question was directed toward . --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If your question was directed towards Aquillon that doesn't mean that other editor cannot comment on your question or that you cannot answer his question. Thinker78 (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand you're trying to help, but that's not particularly constructive. I was asking what their reasoning was. Guy has already made his reasoning quite clear, and the answer to his question is already obvious elsewhere on the page, where  and I agreed, over Guy's objection, that we should call JW both an activist and a watchdog since both labels are used by multiple reliable sources. Because of Guy's participation in that discussion I doubt he was actually expecting a response from me here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * First preference: exclude all mention of watchdog. Second preference: Include self-identified or self-described, per Guy and Doug Weller. Vanamonde (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll say the same first and second preferences as the editors above. If there is a reliable source in which they call themselves that, then go with "self-described". If they do not self-describe that way, then leave it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , as far as I can tell JW doesn't call itself a watchdog, at least not on its own website. The term isn't on its about page, and other pages on the site that use the name are reprints of independent sources (example). So "self-described" may actually be unverifiable. Regardless, I don't understand the logic here. Even if JW did describe itself as a watchdog, we have multiple non-partisan, independent sources that don't use "self-described," "self-styled," or the like. WaPo, The Hill, CNBC, and the NY Post are hardly a right-wing bunch. (Here's a brand new one from today from News.com.au.) Organizations and people call themselves all sorts of things; we don't use qualifiers like "self-described" when those descriptors are corroborated by independent reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the issue is that they fail any reasonable definition of watchdog. The dog barks at the postman but remains silent when burglars arrive. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You have made your point clear, no need to bludgeon. I could be wrong but I suspect 's reasoning varies somewhat from yours. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information about the source material. The way that I see it, if they self-described that way, then we could have referred to it as self-described, but now I know that's not the case. If some other source describes them that way, I supposed we could say that they have been described as a watchdog group by so-and-so, but I would not want to do it in Wikipedia's voice. And something like that would better fit lower on the page. Beyond that, I actually do agree with Guy, because characterizing them as a watchdog group when they do not characterize themselves that way becomes a subjective judgment, and he is correct that we, as editors, would be distorting the meaning of the term if we said it that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion
, I don't understand the rationale for your !vote. Saying we should remove very well-sourced content, or in lieu of that qualify it with an expression of doubt, seems to be exactly the position taken by so many editors who have fought to remove terms like "alt-right" or "far right" in so many articles that you and I have been patrolling lately. The only difference I can see is that in this article's case the content reflects well on the subject, whereas in those other articles the content reflects poorly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying. Although, we could just remove the words "watch dog" altogether since they could be seen as more of an opinion, and an opinion, even in a trusted source, shouldn't be included without clearly attributing the opinion to the source. I see what you are saying though regarding original research, we can't just decide what we think is true on this website, we need sources that specifically describe each statement. Are there any sources that refer to Judicial Watch as a "self-styled watchdog group". Are any groups doubting that the organization investigates, even if it does so in an unfair or biased manner? The issue of sources also came up for the Cernovich debate, which I am now inclined to agree is pretty settled, even if I think sources are incorrect in labeling him "alt-right". It isn't my decision on this website to choose a political label for someone, it is the decision of various supported sources, if anyone. Likewise, unless a person can find a number of trusted sources calling this a "self-styled watchdog group," it would seem best to call it a watchdog group. We could leave it out, I suppose, if it isn't important. One of the problems is that very few people actually agree which sources should be trusted, but that is a debate for another page. So, given the current sources understood as trustworthy, do any of them question the title of "watchdog group" to describe this organization?
 * To answer your question, Dr, about whether I think sources like Washington Post or The Hill would carelessly label things, whether right or left leaning, yes, I do think those organizations might be careless. For example, CNN calling Jimmy Dore "far left", which is ridiculous. He strikes me, and I think many people, as left leaning. Then again, I don't think I have the same admiration for journalists that you do. But none of these questions are really relevant to whether a particular set of sources has said something. If enough sources call it a watchdog group, then this website can call it a watchdog group. Though I would agree that this is horrible set up, and Wikipedia should probably change its methods of verification. They may be trying to stop debates of methods of verification, but all they've done is change it to debates over various authorities. Again, though, a debate for another place. BenjaminMan (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm racking my brain to recall a similar situation, where it appeared that the media were not actually making a judgement but just copying what the organisation or person called themselves. It might have been Mark Dice. Here's our article Watchdog journalism. I just don't see how we can in Wikipedia's own voice call it a watchdog organisation if it isn't. Doug Weller  talk 18:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what folks regularly say about "far right," look at Far-right politics, it's all about fascists, so-and-so is such-and-such therefore they're not fascist, therefore they can't be far right, etc. etc. There is no evidence that reliable sources are simply parroting JW's self-description without applying any scrutiny. Do you really think that outlets like WaPo, McClatchy, and The Hill do that? Do you really think they're all doing that? This is truly a slippery slope. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess it would be. I'd still rather leave out the word or perhaps say "described as"? I'm off to bed soon. Doug Weller  talk 20:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How many articles have we patrolled together in which an editor conceded that the reliable sources said so-and-so was far right or alt-right and then fell back on the position that we should use "described as" language instead of just stating it outright? Such language is just a less extreme violation of WP:ALLEGED and WP:YESPOV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Damn. It just doesn't sit right with me. But I guess if we put the words conservative and watchdog together we are making it clear it's not impartial, which to me is key. Doug Weller  talk 21:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

False and unsubstantiated claims
Please do not edit war to say that JW has been "accused" of making false and unsubstantiated claims. Because it has verifiably made false and unsubstantiated claims, we can and should say this without expressions of doubt and without presenting facts as opinions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Pulitzer
Please do not restore content that JW was "nominated" 3 times for Pulitzer Prizes without a citation to a reliable source. The only RS I could find on this subject was the Daily Beast. It doesn't say JW was nominated, it says JW submitted three entries itself but was told it was ineligible. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The first source in the article covers that. As my edit summary said, it was Fitton himself who nominated it. Doug Weller  talk 21:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Rpche
Off to sleep now. Doug Weller talk 21:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Weasel wording in lead section
, WP:WEASEL says that broadly-stated language may be "used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." And there's nothing vague or weasel-like about the reliably sourced statement that most of JW's lawsuits have been dismissed. That's a verifiable, specific fact. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Misleading report about FISA court hearings
this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judicial_Watch&diff=861200594&oldid=859351578

was removed because "minimal independent source coverage, what there is does not say this is misleading"

the very document that Judicial Watch provided refutes their misleading blog assertion

the edit should be restored soibangla (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Is https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/court-order-that-allowed-nsa-surveillance-is-revealed-for-first-time related? If so there are more such sources out there.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not about Carter Page. It's from 2013. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed

 * The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed

Would be nice of someone cites examples of such lawsuits.  DAVRONOV A.A. ✉ ⚑ 11:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? We are quoting a reliable independent source:
 * Judicial Watch’s strategy is simple: Carpet-bomb the federal courts with Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. A vast majority are dismissed.
 * counting or listing cases with outcomes to replace this would be impermissible synthesis. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm meaning to clarify which ones are dismissed. Just to list several of them. The NY times just expresses its opinion and doesn't provide any example.
 * There are also a few exceptional cases described by the same article which are worth to mention I think.  DAVRONOV A.A. ✉ ⚑ 18:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't express its opinion, it states the facts as it has ascertained them. The status of the lawsuits is objectively verifiable, and if the claim were false they would certainly have been called on it. Guy' (Help!) 20:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed the citation for "Courts have dismissed the vast majority of its lawsuits" is not a factual source. It's the NYT's writer's opinion. The writer of that article made no attempt back in 2016 to itemize the cases and compare those which went to completion and those which did not and compare that to the fact that in general the vast majority of cases are dismissed in America usually coming to resolution. So we don't even know the context of the dismissal, for instance both parties agreeing to a dismissal because they reached a settlement prior to judicial award. This one article is from 2016 and does not attempt to compile any cases since then. It is blatantly biased and editors who refuse to address this ruin the Wiki experience. Guy argument is weak issuing a proclamation that anything written by a NYT writer is to be accepted 100% without any numbers because "they would have been called on it". It is indeed the opinion of the NYT writer who offers no calculation to confirm his assertion. and its not exactly an unbiased source. Chelsea4086 (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"Undue weight" tag
What is the "undue weight" being given in this article? Guy (Help!) 10:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That was added a while back by here. PackMecEng (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. It was added by Vlunteer Marek when the article was a ludicrous puff piece, that has changed quite a bit over time. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I only saw the old one for some reason. So what's up ? PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I still see a lot of problems with this article:
 * 1) The "Larry Klayman" section should be summarized in the "History" section, with the rest of the details about this career lawsuit-filer moved to his own biography.
 * 2) Several of the "investigations" don't seem to be of any importance; the "False Nancy Pelosi claims" are only sourced to FactCheck.org and appear to have only been covered on WorldNetDaily (accurately described as a "conservative conspiracy site").
 * 3) Overall, apart from a single NYTimes article (ref #1), I don't see anything that I would describe as both a secondary source and independent.
 * power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? So the Boston Globe, Time, Washington Post, Guardian, National Law Journal and the like are not reliable? And I thought my standards were unusually high! Guy (Help!) 20:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Conservative activist group
I know this was discussed above in Talk:Judicial_Watch but it still kind of sticks out in the lead and that thread is stale. The source supporting it here used advocacy group instead of activist and they use it in the context of stating a response from another organisation. "Last year, he nominated Judicial Watch for three Pulitzer Prizes. He was told that because Judicial Watch was an advocacy group, it did not meet the Pulitzer committee’s eligibility criteria, a ruling he attributed to liberal bias." Other sources like Time describe them as a conservative watchdog group. There is no doubt they mostly target Democrats, but they have also targeted at least Cheney from the Bush administration as well from the NY Times article. So should it be changed from activist to advocacy? PackMecEng (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * According to Merriam-Webster:

advocate: one who pleads the cause of another specifically : one who pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court specifically: one who pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court

activist: one who advocates or practices activism : a person who uses or supports strong actions (such as public protests) in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue

If we are going with the dictionary then Judicial Watch is an advocacy group. Phmoreno (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * They don't advocate conservatism, they engage in conservative activism, blitzing the courts with FOIA requests. This doesn't seem especially controversial to me. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Source? PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? DDOSing the courts is literally what they do. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That they get lots of docs via FOIA is not controversial, I fully support that. That they routinely misrepresent what the docs actually say, to push an agenda, is controversial. soibangla (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Media Matters as source for IRS targeting scandal
This edit was reverted because "Media Matters for America is not a good source for this info"

In fact, Media Matters directly cites the specific language in the Levin letters that Judicial Watch omitted, from the letters that Judicial Watch provided, showing that Judicial Watch's blog post was misleading. Media Matters linked to those same letters for confirmation.

The edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They are just a poor source, if it is true and noteworthy you should be able to find a better source for the info. PackMecEng (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will say though if you can find something I would have no problem throwing it back in. We could even talk about attributing the info to them as well I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is well-known that conservatives tend to dislike Media Matters, but can you cite the specific contents of their article that is incorrect? The facts are very clearly laid-out and verifiable. soibangla (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weird opener since I am not conservative but whatever. They are not a very quality source when they are reporting on their competition. I was just hoping to see if you had any addition verification for that source. Which it appears you do not unfortunately. PackMecEng (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, can you specify how their article is incorrect? soibangla (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If no one else picked up the story or reported anything supporting it, then it fails as undue weight. Has nothing to do with factually correct or not, I never made that argument. PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact no other source chose to report this relatively insignificant story does not mean Media Matters is wrong. Again, can you specify what they got wrong? soibangla (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If I had another source to compare with I could tell you if they had something wrong. But since no one else did it is undue weight for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The facts are very clearly laid-out in the article. The facts are easily verified from the source docs. Have you read the article? soibangla (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are kind of missing my point and whole argument. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Given your "I am not conservative" history, I'm pretty sure I know what your argument is, so I will solicit input from others now. soibangla (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The second paragraph of this reversion is currently under discussion here. Please restore it until this discussion is resolved. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is agreement on restoring the paragraph with the MMFA source, then it can be restored. The article shouldn't contain a paragraph fragment which only mentions JW's claims, sourced to JW itself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well...you're right, actually. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with Snooganssnoogans and PackMecEng, this is WP:UNDUE unless an independent RS reports it. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * MMFA is an independent source, and they have a very reliable track record. In this particular case, it is a simple matter of comparing what JW wrote with what Levin wrote, and MMFA makes this simple comparison, as any other reader can also do. There is no grey area of interpretation here. JW made a material omission to deceive, as they have a long record of doing. soibangla (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

George Soros smears and migration fearmongering
I agree that content on this needs to be added, but the sourcing must be better. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But absolutely not with the last set of sources it had: JW said racist and antisemitic conspiracy mongering (source: JW blog with racist and antisemitic conspiracy mongering), it was amplified by far-right websites (source: links to far-right websites amplifying it), there was a caravan (source: news story about the caravan that doesn't mention JW) and so on. Per all the usual WP:TLAs, we need reliable independent secondary sources discussion JW's racist and antisemitic conspiracy mongering before we can include it here. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I originally reverted this content and I would have reverted again, if not for the editing restrictions on this article. I will probably be able to add well-sourced text on this in the next 1-3 weeks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Claim re: Nancy Pelosi's travel

 * "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." The claims are considered inaccurate if you read the given reference:

"But Judicial Watch is wrong in several respects. Our examination of the documents reveals that Judicial Watch overstated the amount of money spent on “in-flight expenses” for Pelosi’s congressional delegations, or CODELs."


 * The claims are true enough that any objections amount to little more than frivolous cavilling. The sources agree much more than they disagree. The rival party having also been guilty does not minimize the issue, but rather doubles it. - JGabbard (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

In relation to WorldNetDaily being a "conspiracy site", see that article for nine references attached to that claim. Please undo your reversion unless you can supply a source for the change.  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work )  13:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Claims against inconsistencies of WND by NYT, WaPo and CNN are myopic and pale in comparison to their own egregious journalistic scandals. Some choice adjectives could be placed in the lede of their pages as well.  They position themselves as credible, but they can be relied upon to disparage any and all non-leftist sources. How can their allegations against other news outlets be taken seriously? - JGabbard (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How about Columbia Journalism Review or Business Insider? I'm not sure how you can take a news outlet seriously when they decide to republish this. It's almost as bad as this article (by a left-wing outlet). And anyway, Wikipedia gives both sides a mention of "conspiracy" (second) when it's necessary, and we call Daily Mail "widely criticised for its unreliability". We don't give right-wing outlets The Rebel Media and The Daily Wire a "conspiracy" tag because there's no obvious reason to. Also, the oldest in your 2017 list is from 2008. I'm sure there have been far more recent issues on both sides, but at least NYT doesn't publish glorification of the recent California fires. The issue has been resolved, and the article's consensus is to call it inaccurate and WND to be considered a conspiracy-related outlet. Both sides of politics have their conspiracy theorists, so let's leave it at that unless you can gather a consensus to remove or change the claims.  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work )  15:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Media Bias / Fact Check copyvio
An IP number added a copyvio template, suggesting that the lede to this page copied Media Bias / Fact Check's page on JW. However, the relationship is reverse!


 * This is what the MBFC page on JW looked like in March 2017:
 * This is what the lede to the JW Wikipedia page looked like on 18 July 2018:
 * This is what the MBFC page on JW looked like after a 23 July 2018 update:

So, to conclude, it looks like MBFC largely mimicked (if not outright copied) the lede to this Wikipedia page (the lede that I wrote, as a matter of fact). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Lede
I just removed the clause about Judicial Watch being a "self-styled watchdog group" from the lede. There are two problems with that clause. The first is that neither of the two cited sources says anything about Judicial Watch being a "self-styled" anything. Also, neither of the cited sources indicate that Judicial Watch calls itself a watchdog group. The two sources simply describe the organization as a watchdog group. This makes the "self-styled" characterization original research, which violates WP:OR. The second problem is that the inclusion of language like "self-styled" is pejorative and is a WP:NPOV violation. The consensus reached in an earlier discussion is problematic because the consensus that was reached violates two Wikipedia policies. To avoid having people get hung up on the word "watchdog," I removed that word, too. The lede now describes Judicial Watch as a conservative activist group. SunCrow (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judicial_Watch#RfC:_Is_Judicial_Watch_a_%22self-styled%22_watchdog_group? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?
I thought Wikipedia's policy on articles is that they have a neutral point of view. This is anything but that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.77.188.85 (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2019
Please change the inaccurate term "conservative" to the more accurate term "right-wing" in the very first line of the article. Here is a source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/04/george-zimmerman-sues-trayvon-martins-family-prosecutors-million/ Cerberus (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. In U.S. politics, the terms are approximately equivalent but conservative is more compliant with the Neutral Point of View policy.  One reliable source is not necessarily enough to change such a characterization. A consensus of editors is usually required to assess the characterization in a group by evaluating relevant sources.  Just as an indicator, the Google search for [//www.google.com/search?q= "Judicial Watch" conservative -right] has over a million results but [//www.google.com/search?q= "Judicial Watch" right-wing -conservative] only 60,200.  Which is more accurate should be a subject for discussion at this talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Multiple copy/paste "disclaimers"
Someone seems to be copy/pasting the same or similar disclaimer in an attempt to to disqualify claims of JW misconduct.

"Sources cited to disprove this are exclusively from left-wing factchecking sources https://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political-fact-checking-under-fire and a left-wing partisan newspaper The Washington Post, which is owned by Amazon owner Jeff Bezos. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/washington-post-media-bias"

This disclaimer is wrong and problematic: 1. Does not show why sources being from left-leaning sources is somehow noteworthy or problematic, or why these sources in particular are problematic justifying such a disclaimer, and is meant to attempt to discredit the claims of JW impropriety by appealing to partisanship 2. Makes the claim that ALL sources used in these controversies are from "left-wing factchecking sources" which seems like a claim that would need to be proven given the wide variety of news sources used; 3. The source for the claim "left-wing factchecking sources" is a NPR interview where they discuss the issue of bias in popular fact-checking sources but does not substantially make any claims as to whether or not they are generally untrustworthy, nor whether the sources used are exclusively left-wing; 4. The NPR interview has as a guest a journalist from the Washington Post who is responsible for the fact-checking portion of the WP which the disclaimer implies is untrustworthy (ironic) 5. The Washington Post being left-leaning is irrelevant to its credibility 6. The mention that it is owned by Jeff Bezos is irrelevant and clearly meant to appeal to the biases of the reader.

These disclaimers should be collectively deleted as they are clearly wrong, irrelevant, and attempts to discredit left-leaning sources without substantiating any reasons whatsoever other than the fact that they are left-leaning, and thus are clearly not neutral.

Whilst there may be issues with the fact that many primary sources for the controversies do come from only the Washington Post, that in and of itself does not mean the claims are not credible or untrue.

Judgiebudgie (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The disclaimer is absolutely appropriate. 1) Sources that are demonstrably left-wing and biased destroy the neutrality of the article. 2) The majority of sources cited for the one-sided claims are from the same sources. A wider variety of sources is needed to substantiate the "weasel wording" and yellow journalism. 3) Please read/listen to the article. The presence of bias is antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia's existence.  It destroys the trust and credibility of the source. 4) Not sure how you're not grasping the obvious. In a show about bias and fact-checking credibility wouldn't you interview the people involved? 5) Again, the obvious. Left-leaning destroys the neutrality you are claiming to be seeking. 6) The Washington Post being owned by Jeff Bezos is relevant. In fact, it is a massive conflict of interest and casts a large shadow of doubt upon the credibility of the source. If the entire article was substantiated by quotes from the National Enquirer would you take it seriously?

Credibility matters. Neutrality matters. If Wikiedpedia is going to be more than a propaganda site for group-think when it comes to politics and the major issues of our time, it must be a site for facts and a variety of opinions. This article is remarkably one-sided in tone and remarkably unsubstantiated by a variety of sources. The disclaimers have a place. In fact, the lack of substantiation from other credible sources demand demand them at the least. Let people do the research and make up their own minds, rather than providing only one side of the issue. The carelessly attached labels and weasel words are unacceptable if Wikipedia wishes to stay true to its founding principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.255.74.160 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There are no barriers to entry on Wikipedia. No one is being prevented from providing edits demonstrating JW’s long history of magnificent work. If the preponderance of evidence shows the opposite, that likely means it’s an accurate reflection of reality. As always, I encourage others to make edits to rectify their perceptions of unfairness, but my experience has been that few do.soibangla (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The Entire Intro Is Problematic
The intro goes on and on about how awful Judicial Watch is, and makes some very strong statements. It seems like they should be referenced, doesn't it? Or do we just not do that when we don't want to? Heavy10mm (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Biased language in "Mueller and FBI investigations into Russian interference" edit revert by Symmachus Auxiliarus
Had my edit reverted, I have undone this to highlight this talk page, not to start an edit war!! The edit was based on the part that says "Fitton furthermore called for shutting down the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) based on the false claim that the Obama administration had turned it into a "KGB-type operation.", the revert was based on an irrelevant source, hence the second revert.

Justification for previous edit as follows:

NPOV: removed "false" in claim that obama turned FBI into KBG type operation - the claim is subjective and rhetorical, the "fact check" cited has a very clear left-bias. To be clear, I disagree with the claim, in a literal sense it is untrue, however the original quote seems to be more of a metaphor for corruption; we cannot fact check metaphors!!!!

Symmachus Auxiliarus reverted in good faith on the basis:

The NYT is considered a highly reliable source, that can be usually be used for statements of fact.

I agree that the NYT is highly relaible, however the basis for calling it a false claim was from a "factcheck" by Newsweek which upon reading had a significant left-bias and was taking the statement far too literally. The source from the NYT made no comment on whether the claim was false or not, making the basis for the edit revert was irrelevant so I am reversing it. If anyone else has an opinion please post it here first!

Joseph722 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Article states opinions about Judicial Watch making false claims and cites a political opinion piece in the NY Times as evidence. Also adds irrelevant references to "right-wing" news outlets. Further article provides no explanation as to what would constitute a news outlet of being "right-wing". Article also connects Judicial Watch with Donald Trump in the topic of voter fraud, without explaining why is that relevant to explaining what Judicial Watch is.

Mueller investigation
The criticism of Tom Fitton for characterizing the Mueller investigation as a coup needs to be retracted. It is now clear that Hilary Clinton and the DNC paid for the creation of the Steele dossier and knew its contents were false. The FISA warrants issued to investigate President Trump and associates were based on knowing misrepresentations and falsehoods. The efforts of Clinton and the DNC and media cohorts were designed and intended to overthrow the Trump Presidency. These efforts meet the definition of a coup. 2600:4040:A009:9300:3D61:A987:DB17:BBAA (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the word coup in the article, warrants were not issued on Trump, he wasn't under investigation until he fired Comey, the dossier was never deployed during the campaign, and it's all related to 2016 so it can't be a coup because he wasn't president. soibangla (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Claims on COVID-19 origins
Judicial Watch has released a report claiming that they have received proof of United States funding gain-of-function coronavirus research at The Wuhan Institute of Virology. Whether or not this is true, this should definitely be included in the article, c'est non?
 * It would require a reliable source. --Weazie (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Fraud science
The article says The organization has falsely described climate science as "fraud science" and has filed lawsuits against government climate scientists. The sole source is a blog post on the Guardian site by lawyer Lauren Kurtz saying Judicial Watch claims climate science is a "fraud science". There's no indication there what the whole sentence was. It might be a mangling of this on judicialwatch.org: “We suspect fraud ‘science’ behind the Obama EPA’s claims in the Clean Power Plan, which is a scheme to end coal energy under the guise of combatting alleged global warming,” said Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton. Since the sourcing is vague and context-free, and the only thing I could find with "fraud 'science" is about a specific case not climate science as a whole, I favour removal, leaving only that the organization has filed lawsuits against climate scientists. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A week has passed, nobody stated other opinions, I removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)