Talk:Sidney Powell/Archive 2

The Argument against calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" is now obsolete
The original debate in the RfC, over whether Powell should be labeled a "conspiracy theorist," was based on a semantical argument about whether one who is known for promoting conspiracy theories can be described as a "conspiracy theorist." Specifically, proponents of excluding "conspiracy theorist" from Sidney Powell's description (such as User:GorillaWarfare)) argued that sources didn't explicitly call her a "conspiracy theorist," but merely a promoter of conspiracy theories. They grounded their objection in this regard in MOS:LABEL, and this was also the policy User:ProcrastinatingReader invoked when he closed the RfC.

However, while this argument may have been valid when the RfC began (on November 23rd), it is now clearly erroneous. Simply put: MOS:LABEL, and the semantical debate about the difference between a habitual promoter of conspiracy theories and a conspiracy theorist, is now irrelevant. Because, now, a copious number of RS refer to Powell explicitly as a "conspiracy theorist."

Here are some very recent examples, all of which were written within the last 10 days, in which RS explicitly call Powell a "conspiracy theorist" (emphasis mine in all examples):


 * "The lawyer and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell was back at the White House on Sunday night" (The Guardian, 21, Dec 2020)


 * "In a statement to Fox News on Tuesday, Pro-Trump attorney and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell said she has been barred from interacting with President Trump" (Forbes, Dec 22, 2020).


 * "The meeting . . . included lawyer and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell" (New York Magazine, Dec 19, 2020).


 * "President Donald Trump told advisors that he is considering appointing the far right attorney and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate allegations of fraud in the 2020 election." (CNBC, Dec 20, 2020).


 * "Trump considered appointing conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as DOJ ‘special counsel’ on voter fraud." (The Independent, Dec 20, 2020)


 * "President Donald Trump met with Sidney Powell — the conspiracy theorist who was formerly on his legal team — and the recently pardoned Michael Flynn." (Politico, Dec 21, 2020).


 * "Trump Sought to Tap Conspiracy Theorist Sidney Powell as Special Counsel on Voter Fraud." (Slate, Dec 19, 2020)


 * "Trump mulls new election gambits as conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell returns to White House." (NY Daily News, Dec 21, 2020).


 * "The president considered appointing conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel before aides talked him out of it." (ABC News, Dec 19, 2020).


 * "President Trump met Friday with lawyer and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell and discussed placing her in charge of a federal investigation of the election he recently lost, news outlets reported Saturday." (Washington Times, Dec 19, 2020).

This is just a sampling.

The argument that Gorilla and others made against the "conspiracy theorist" addition was presented in good faith and with reference to policy; but it is now completely obsolete, since copious RS now call her a "conspiracy theorist" explicitly. CozyandDozy (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Cozy. I'm sorry, I didn't get your ping here (Special:Diff/996936297 didn't include your signature, so Echo doesn't send out ping notifications), but I've noticed your comment whilst I was amending my close above. The new close should give you a route forward on wording which did have consensus. Does this help?
 * I think it's outside of my remit as closer to analyse the sourcing myself. Rather, I believe my role to be to analyse what other editors thought with what was on the page. I've more fully expanded on this at a concern raised on my talk. I also mention a route forward (other than starting a new RfC) if you believe this wording is better than the one there was a consensus on, but I cannot guarantee what result it will produce. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your change to the article because the closing rationale is quite clear: "Ultimately there is no consensus in this discussion to label the subject as a "conspiracy theorist", which means that the label should be removed." What was the point of starting a whole RfC about this if you were just going to come back and make the change anyway, against the closer's judgment and with no new consensus? Start a new discussion to reach explicit consensus to introduce the label in the first sentence if you like, but in the meantime it should not be there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:GorillaWarfare, the point was that the rationale on which the closer relied is no longer valid. I'm not going to edit war, but circumstances/the RS basis for calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" have changed since I opened the RfC. I pinged both of you here in hopes of getting you to see things my way; if you still don't, I'm disappointed, but am not going to edit war. CozyandDozy (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary: if you disagree with their close, take it up with them or at dispute resolution. If anyone who disagreed with an RfC closure could just ignore the close to implement their preferred revision, what would be the point of RfCs at all? I can see that some sources are indeed being stronger in their descriptors, so you might have a basis for a new discussion, but that doesn't change that the previous RfC did not establish consensus to include the descriptor in the lead sentence. It's also worth noting that the full paragraph starting "Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories" is still in the lead, as it ought to be–it's not as if the RfC removed any mention of her conspiracy theories from the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just don't attach the same weight to formalistic concerns (like the 'closing' of an RfC) as you do, Gorilla. Perhaps this stems from my youth and inexperience, although you also appear young in your profile pic. Anyway, as I said, the stated basis for closing the RfC (WP:MOS) is now erroneous in light of new RS mentions of Powell; as I say, this substantive concern about a blatantly erroneous (though good faith) basis for closure should matter more than a basically technical one. But I will not edit war to enact this change. CozyandDozy (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why my age, or yours, is relevant here. It's not the job of closers of RfCs to review all available sourcing themselves–that would effectively be a supervote. Closers simply evaluate the opinions expressed at the RfC and articulate the overall consensus. If sources shift during the RfC and that needs to be taken into account, that should be brought to the attention of those who have participated in the discussion so they can re-review their !vote. From what I can see, these new sources were not mentioned at all during the RfC, but now the closer is getting flak for somehow not considering them, which is unfair to them.
 * Since that didn't happen, a new discussion is necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The allusion to my youth and callow temperament was, of course, an attempt to candidly acknowledge my own vulnerabilities and shortcomings, in hopes of making my criticism of the closer's conduct less personal and judgmental. But I concede I should have never brought you into it, and will stick to my scrupulously respectful prior tone with you (referring to you only as "Gorilla" or "Miss/Missus/Ms. Gorilla"). CozyandDozy (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Gorilla", "GorillaWarfare", "GW", etc. are fine, no honorifics are needed... GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with GorillaWarfare; once the RfC is closed, it can't simply be unilaterally overturned by an editor's fiat; however, a new RfC can certainly undo the previous one and is the appropriate way forward if the information landscape has changed (and I'm cautiously agreeable with CozyandDozy's position that it has). CozyandDozy - I get the sense, from your comments, you feel this needs to be so urgently incorporated into the article that it can brook no delay. However, Wikipedia does not have a deadline and is a permanent WP:WORKINPROGRESS. This article isn't going to the printer any time soon, or ever. Since none of us are here, hopefully, to right great wrongs we can certainly spend another month or two on a new RfC. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Also consider a location below the first sentence where it might fit. The bottom of the lead makes it sound a bit like an afterthought. Also, without the label "theorist", the language from the end of the lead might easily go in the first paragraph after the current opening. The RfC was only about the label. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better discussion for a separate section, but I also think the third and fourth lead paragraphs ought to be combined somehow into a more cohesive, single paragraph about both the Trump lawsuit involvement and the conspiracies. Right now the fourth paragraph reads as somewhat redundant. I wonder if ordering the lead in reverse chrono order might help as far as properly weighting the information is concerned? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. Her notability is related to the recent past, not to her legal career. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

However frequently a label such as "conspiracy theory" is attributed by partisan opponents, Wikipedia should be careful to avoid taking sides. To assert that Powell is known primarily for such connection to 'conspiracy theories' as the article mentions would be to invert the truth. She has in fact come into the public eye primarily as an attorney engaged in more than a few lawsuits challenging - on the basis of law and fact, in filings submitted to federal and/or district courts, supported by eye witness and other testimony - the validity of some of the POTUS election counts in some of the states. Similar challenges have been made on behalf of some states and by former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani. At some stage Powell and Giulani were publicly acting in concert, and they may in some way have been conferring with the state litigants and many other actual or potential private litigants. When declining to proceed with these cases the courts have not ruled that they are based on conspiracy theory, nor have they judicially uttered alarmist declarations that the litigants are engaged in a coup threatening the public safety. Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your entire argument here seems based in WP:FALSEBALANCE, especially since the lawsuits in question have failed spectacularly, and the supposed "eye witness and other testimony" is roundly debunked in all WP:RS. Your demand that "courts" have to rule that the basis of the lawsuits is conspiracy theory before Wikipedia can accurately reflect the WP:RS coverage is in no way supported by wikipedia policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * IHA: If you wish to comment on my remarks please re-read and do not misrepresent. I am not invoking "false balance". The testimony has not been judicially "debunked", and it is, to say the least, an overstatement to assert anywhere that it has been. My remarks do not, in your words, 'demand that "courts" have to rule that the basis of the lawsuits is conspiracy theory before Wikipedia can accurately reflect the WP:RS coverage.' A Wikipedia article of this sort should be more than a mere collation of statements from partisan sources, that make no secret of their hostility or disrespect for President Trump. Please note my remark above (23:41, 30 December 2020) 'a non-participant who follows the course of events connected with President Trump's election in 2016 and his standing for re-election, and the controversies aroused among many of the participants (such as voting citizens, party campaigners, legislators, governors, public officials, commercial interests), is likely to be aware that the vehemence of such polemical remarks could disclose feelings unsuited to npov discussion of the content of a Wikipedia article.' Qexigator (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "the courts have not ruled that they are based on conspiracy theory", and "The testimony has not been judicially "debunked"" - We follow WP:RS here. But heck, per WP:RS coverage such as this... "Two of Powell’s lawsuits had already failed Monday in Michigan and Georgia, with the judge in Michigan noting Powell’s claims are “nothing but speculation and conjecture,” and the case appeared to be primarily about undermining “people’s faith in the democratic process.”"
 * Your accusations that the wording is "a mere collation of statements from partisan sources, that make no secret of their hostility or disrespect for President Trump" are... revealing, at least.
 * I think NonReproBlue has it right; your comments here show troubling attempts to normalize WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories regarding the election, especially when you try to baselessly assert that all of the sources CozyAndDozy provided above - including CNBC, ABC, Forbes, the New York Times, The Guardian - are nothing but "partisan opponents." IHateAccounts (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link to Forbes. Do you happen to know whether that publication has an anti-Trump stance, or appeals to a Never Trump movement readership? These links and  and  look like straight reporting. Anyway, without comparing the linked report with the court's ruling, it is uncertain whether the report is inadvertently giving a one-sided account, which is not difficult even in good faith. If I am not misreading your comment, you agree with me that  'A Wikipedia article of this sort should be more than a mere collation of statements from partisan sources, that make no secret of their hostility or disrespect for President Trump.' I expect you will also agree that the Powell article is better than that, and should maintain a good standard - and let me assure you I have no interest in 'normalizing conspiracy theories'. Qexigator (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * IHateAccounts is correct when they say Wikipedia articles reflect what reliable sources are saying. Your comment that Anyway, without comparing the linked report with the court's ruling, it is uncertain whether the report is inadvertently giving a one-sided account appears to be suggesting that we should decide whether to use a source (or that we should weight a source) based on our own personal opinions on whether the RS is "inadvertently giving a one-sided account", which we do not do. If there are reliable sources that present another side of the story, we should absolutely include them—after all, per our neutral point of view policy we must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. But we do not omit the views published in reliable sources even if we think they are biased towards one side or another; see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. We also don't introduce false balance by tempering reliable sources' statements based on claims made in unreliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your friendly remarks. I have been editing long enough to be aware of the guidance about RS and false balance, and to see how guidance is not always reliably applied. I have pointed out that vehemence, vituperation and alarmism are best avoided in these discussions, as it can be considered an indication of weak reasoning based on personal preference, and tends to get in the way of what others are saying. (Sorry about the blunder.) Qexigator (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * given that you're back to accusing WP:RS of having "an anti-trump stance", or "appeals to a Never Trump movement readership", it seems like those who have become frustrated because they perceive obstructionism and a lack of respect for wikipedia policies, are reading your comments quite correctly. I am similarly frustrated with the reply by above, who seems to be accusing editors of something when she says things like "How much do we need to hammer on it?" or uses pejorative language to describe WP:RS as "pinning this label on her", since if we gave DUE WP:WEIGHT to the overwhelming language that WP:RS now consistently use in describing Powell, it would make it easier to trim down the lead. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, if you wish to comment on my remarks, do not misrepresent what I say. In my view, the main point at issue in the discussion following the RfC is (as before said) that, regardless of the sources 'To assert that Powell is known primarily for such connection to 'conspiracy theories' as the article mentions would be [literally] to invert the truth.' That appears to me to be simple enough and logically indisputable. None of the sources would have been concerned with her if she had not been engaging in the litigation to challenge the validity of election results in some of the states that were in favour of the Democrat candidate for President against the Republican. Qexigator (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "None of the sources would have been concerned with her if she had not been engaging in the litigation to challenge the validity of election results in some of the states that were in favour of the Democrat candidate for President against the Republican." That's an awfully wordy way to say "the only reason she's notable is for being a conspiracy theorist", and to try to cast the conspiracy theories she's been peddling (both in courts, and in various press events she's held) as merely "democrat candidate against the republican" is most definitely WP:FALSEBALANCE misrepresentation. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The main point at issue in the discussion following the RfC is (as before said) that 'To assert that Powell is known primarily for such connection to 'conspiracy theories' as the article mentions would be [literally] to invert the truth.' Qexigator (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet the WP:RS overwhelmingly refer to her as a conspiracy theorist, which means that your claim is false. Powell is, in fact, known primarily for her connection to and peddling of conspiracy theories. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for continuing to take an interest in my remarks. Again, 'To assert that Powell is known primarily for such connection to 'conspiracy theories' as the article mentions would be [literally] to invert the truth.' I am sure you are aware that using 'peddling' there is suggestive. Qexigator (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree that the word "peddling" is suggestive at all. And your continual copy/paste spamming of an argument that's been thoroughly answered is turning into vexatious behavior. Powell IS known primarily for her connection to and promotion of conspiracy theories; that is not "an inversion of the truth", that is the consensus of Reliable Sources coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * you would have a point, except the sources above aren’t all partisan opponents of Trump/Powell et al. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Not all. Qexigator (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Persons who opposed Sidney Powell's actions or arguments are not her opponents. They rejected her arguments or actions. Like 57 US magistrates and nearly all RS media accounts, legal scholars and practitioners, and many Trump supporters. Nonsense tends to be called nonsense in the public square. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Qexigator, have you even read the following articles and their RS? Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election. The whole tenor of your arguments and descriptions of the views that come from those RS are things we have heard before from people who come here and complain because they don't know what RS say. Those readers take positions that are skeptical/hostile to RS, IOW they clearly side with Powell and Trump. Their views are completely contrary to facts. I suggest you read those articles and then realign your beliefs so they are aligned with the facts. RS policy expects editors to side with RS and against unreliable sources, or at least be able to fake it while editing. Those who can't do that should not edit controversial subjects. -- Valjean (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot answer for others who may or may not be misguided. I will assume that your remarks insofar as they are addressed to me are well-meant and in good faith.You are mistaken if you suppose I have not been following the development of the controversies surrounding the POTUS election of 2016 and the current contest, including the intervention of previously little known Powell and the well-known Giuliani. It is also well-known that much of the public comment is in support of the Democratic Party's candidate and against the Republican Party's, and was at the time of the 2016 election and after. It is also evident that, whether we like it or not, the current controversy has not yet run its course, and that the Republican Party's candidate is losing the support of some prominent Party members, including some in the Senate. In the meantime, we do well to remember that Wikipedia policy is against joining in partisanship or letting editing be drawn into over-badegging the pudding, or throwing other people's rotten tomatoes, especially in bio articles. Qexigator (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Presidential election was over a long time ago, the Democrat’s canidate won convincingly and I have not seen a single WP:RS say otherwise. Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe you’re the partisan throwing other people's rotten tomatoes? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be like saying the Iraq wars and Trump's Mideast policies were solely about advancing the Republican Administrations' financial interests in the Mideast. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely this. promoting WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories, disinformation about the election, and filing baseless lawsuits based on those conspiracy theories, is what Powell is known for. That is the consensus of Reliable Sources. To attempt to recast those conspiracy theories as merely "controversies surrounding the POTUS election of 2016 and the current contest" between "the Democratic Party's candidate and against the Republican Party's" is a galling and completely factless attempt at reframing that is definitively what the WP:FALSEBALANCE policy prohibits. To accuse editors here of "throwing other people's rotten tomatoes" for following Wikipedia policies is absurd, especially since you have provided precisely zero reliable sources to support your contentions that Powell's conspiracy theories have any legitimacy at all. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know not why so much attention is being given to misrepresenting my comments, as if my remarks could be of immense influence and consequence, but I must point out that asserting that I am promoting etc is manifestly false. The plain fact known to all the world, and presumably to all who are taking part in this discussion, and some who read the article, is that there is a continuing controversy about the POTUS election among those most directly affected (US citizens, state legislators, governors, public officials, Congress, various commercial interests), while most, perhaps all, the MSM assert, rightly or not, that the Democratic Party (United States) candidate has been duly elected and soon will be installed in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. My view, like that of countless others, is that, regardless of the controversy, the very probable outcome, which will become a known fact to all the world before this month is out, will be the succession to office of the Democratic candidate and his Vice-President, in place of the incumbents. Meantime, there are great threats to the livelihoods of many in the US who rely on their federal and state governments and agencies, not least the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and Computer security. Qexigator (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The plain fact known to all the world, and presumably to all who are taking part in this discussion, and some who read the article, is that there is a continuing controversy about the POTUS election" - This is false, and conspiracy-theory supporting language. There is not "controversy" supported by any actual evidence, as the WP:RS coverage makes abundantly clear, only conspiracy theories. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While I cannot see how such a remark contributes to improving the article, it can be seen as a good example or symptom of the ongoing public controversy affecting politics in the USA, which we may hope will soon be passing into history and retrospect, just as this section has already become terminally obsolete. Qexigator (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The only reason there is a "controversy" is because people believe lies. Jake Tapper makes that point well. It's a pseudo-controversy that editors should not perpetuate or lend any credence. There is ZERO controversy among RS, so any credence given to the false side by editors is just RGW behavior. Valjean (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have got to quit sourcing shit to twitter. Seriously. PackMecEng (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And you can stop objecting when I am not violating any policy. -- Valjean (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Though I agree that Powell is better known for her conspiracy theories & so that should be mentioned in the intro. I do understand where Qexigator is coming from. Having "conspiracy theorist" in the intro (though correctly so, IMHO), gives the impression that the article has a pro-Democrat, anti-Republican slant. During these weeks, it's not surprising that this discussion (or related discussions) would be energetic. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not OK to refer casually to "testimony" when there has been no testimony. And nobody is pushing "conspiracy theorist" at this time. Only the statement that she promotes conspiracy theories. That's a simple factual statement from countless RS, avoiding the pointless and ill-defined label "conspiracy theorist". We've used similar language at other articles to avoid labeling a person as an X. See, e.g. Stefan Molyneux. I see no problem leaving one of the two wordings cited in the close, pending any further discussion here. It may be that there's no disagreement or preference relating to the versions and we can get on to other things. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe Levivich's proposal would improve the article? Qexigator (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)