Talk:Sidney Powell/Archive 3

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


 * Support I believe that we should describe Powell as an "attorney, former prosecutor, and conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. Powell's work as a "Conspiracy theorist" is a core element of her notability.Remember, that how much weight should be attached to an aspect ("x", let's call it) of someone's biography is not a value judgment on our part, about what we think matters. Instead, it is determined by how frequently "x" is mentioned in reliable sources. Though she has practiced law in some prominent cases, the MAJORITY of mentions of Powell in reliable sources, across her life, have arisen from her promotion of conspiracy theories in regards to the 2020 presidential election. (As an illustration of her relative obscurity prior to the election controversy, note that she didn't even have a Wikipedia page prior to last week.)Thus, in deference to the weight assigned Powell's conspiracy theories in reliable sources, we should characterize her as not only a lawyer and former prosecutor, but as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. (In contrast, though he is also a conspiracy theorist, listing Rudy Giuliani as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence would be more dubious, since other RS discussions of him over the years outweigh his promotion of conspiracy theories.)Final note: please accept my apologies for repeatedly re-adding "conspiracy theorist" to the article, prior to achieving consensus. I pledge I will not do so again until (and unless) there is consensus. CozyandDozy (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I hope you don't mind me reformatting this properly as an RfC. RfCs are meant to have a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" and then you can follow that with your vote. Feel free to adjust my edit to your comments as you like, just trying to be helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, funny thing: I just asked you for help in this regard on your talk page. Thanks! CozyandDozy (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice, glad my edits were welcome :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. It appears to be somewhat recent (on the order of years) that the conspiracy theory stuff has become a notable characteristic for Powell, who is primarily known for her career as an attorney and prosecutor. I think introducing it to the first sentence is more heavy weighting than the sources support—although there is a glut of sourcing about her promulgating conspiracy theories as it has been a very newsworthy topic in recent weeks, I think it may be WP:RECENTISM to add it so prominently to the lead sentence. There are some people out there, for example Alex Jones or Jacob Wohl, who are primarily known for their conspiracy theories, and who have largely built their entire careers (if a "career" is the right descriptor for what Wohl does...) around spreading them. I don't think Powell is such a person. However, I do support inclusion of what is currently the fourth paragraph of the lead ("Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories...") GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, I think CozyandDozy makes a strong case, and Reliable sources describe her as such. Sources:
 * Marketwatch "Trump campaign attempts to distance from conspiracy-theorist lawyer Sidney Powell"
 * Forbes "Trump Campaign Cuts Ties With Lawyer Sidney Powell Who Promoted Wild Election Fraud Conspiracy Theories"
 * Forbes again "Who Is Sidney Powell? Meet Trump’s New Top Conspiracy Theorist."
 * Daily Beast "Trump Campaign Disavows Its Own Election-Conspiracy Lawyer"
 * The Independent "Donald Trump’s legal team has distnaced itself from attorney Sidney Powell after she spread wild conspiracy theories about election fraud."
 * New York Times "The president’s allies quickly closed ranks behind Sidney Powell and her pro-Trump conspiracy theory, accusing the Fox host of betrayal."
 * Washington Post "Here’s how seriously you should take the Trump legal team’s conspiracy theories"
 * IHateAccounts (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would note the distinction between sources that describe her as a conspiracy theorist (1, 3, 4 kind of), and sources that mention she has promoted conspiracy theories (2, 5, 6, 7). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gorilla, I don't think this definitional distinction means much. One who is known for promoting conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theorist, in my view. Although I accept that reasonable people could disagree on the importance of the semantics here. CozyandDozy (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the sources specifically said she was known for spreading conspiracy theories I might agree, but only saying that she has done so is a distinct matter in my book. I have played a game of baseball before, that does not make me a baseball player. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, my point is that she is known for "playing baseball"; or at any rate, that is a key aspect of her notability. CozyandDozy (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do see what you're saying. I just don't think those particular sources are worded strongly enough to support the addition of the descriptor, but I totally see your perspective. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * * Oppose: per . It's a close call, though. soibangla (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: due to “Misinformation messengers pivot from election fraud to peddling vaccine conspiracy theories” soibangla (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per GW; that there seems to be a whole heck of a lot of content unrelated to this classification in the article. The whole "legal career" section, "She began her legal career as the youngest Assistant United States Attorney in the US", et cetera. The conspiracy theory business seems to be only in the last few years. I don't know how much coverage of that is WP:UNDUE, but it certainly doesn't seem like it belongs in the first sentence. jp×g 02:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Numerous reliable sources describe her as such, and similar articles for other right-wing media personalities such as Laura Loomer and Dinesh D’Souza include such a description in the first sentence. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 02:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I generally agree with GW that the conspiracy theory aspect of her persona is not defining, and I end up on GW's side of the baseball analogy. However, it seems like she is the primary or one of the primary proponents of the international communist + Dominion Voting theory, which would make her a theorist as opposed to a just an adherent of the theory. But it's a fairly recent development all things considered and thus not enough for us to define her as a theorist. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A plethora of reliable sources describe her as such. As to the idea that conspiracy theories are not a defining aspect of her persona, I would point out that her twitter feed is almost exclusively devoted to either presenting conspiracy theories herself, or re-tweeting Qanon and other conspiracy theories and theorists. It has become such a central aspect of her persona that it is cited as a primary motivation for the Trump legal team from distancing themselves from her (not-a-forum but... pot, meet kettle) If anything, it seems to be perhaps the most defining aspect of her persona. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a couple (days? weeks?) worth of posts on Twitter are sufficient evidence to suss out what the defining aspect of someone's persona is. jp×g 13:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: per GorillaWarfare. She's not primarily known for being a conspiracy theorist unlike Alex Jones, etc. so it seems undue to add that alongside "American attorney and former federal prosecutor". Some1 (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. She certainly qualifies for the "conspiracy theorist" label, and fortunately RS aren't so cowardly that they won't mention it. Therefore we do too. Trump might have chosen her because she pushed his nonsense and cut her off because of the backlash. That's his typical plausible deniability pattern. In this case she did the smearing and damage for him, but he never accepts the consequences when it blows up. He throws her under the bus. -- Valjean (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's possible that she continues to promote conspiracy theories in some notable manner, but it's equally possible that the last week is the full extent of it. I think it's right to include description of the conspiracy theories in the article as they currently are, but they do not need top billing until this facet of her career is shown to stand the test of time. Awoma (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. She is widely described as a conspiracy theorist, and in fact she is only notable for promoting "outlandish conspiracy theories" that were "too conspiratorial even for [Trump]" --Tataral (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Though it may be true, it doesn't rise to the level of significance to be placed in the opening sentence of the lede. I disagree that it is a core element of her notability. WP:UNDUE.Kerdooskis (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. 100% a conspiracy theorist, embraced Trump's 2020 electoral fraud conspiracy and then spun her own line of bullshit to try and up the ante. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose putting it in the lead sentence. Yes, she spins conspiracy theories; we already make that very clear in the final paragraph of the lead. No, she is not a "conspiracy theorist" as her profession - not in the same sense as her being an American attorney and former federal prosecutor. That is what belongs in the first sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a question because I have seen this argument several times before, notably in regards to prominent Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists (For instance David Irving's page has seen this argument several times through the years "Holocaust denial isn't really a profession, any ideas on a more appropriate wording?" and "Is Holocaust denier a profession? What an extremely biased article!" from that page's talk page archives) (However I want to make it clear that I am in no way accusing you of pushing any kind of fringe POV, just noting where I have seen this particular argument regarding profession and the opening sentence). Is there actually a policy that says that a person's profession, as opposed to other things they are equally or more well known for, is what the first sentence should be? It borders on an other-stuff-exists argument, but I would point out that an enormous number of pages lead with the thing someone is most well known for despite the fact that it is not a profession. For instance, outside of conspiracy theorists, the opening sentence for John Wayne Gacy's bio is "John Wayne Gacy (March 17, 1942 – May 10, 1994) was an American serial killer and sex offender known as the Killer Clown who assaulted and murdered at least 33 young men and boys." despite the fact that this was not his profession. His political career, which was his profession and the thing he was nominally notable for before being convicted, is not mentioned anywhere in the opening sentence, because it is not what he is now known for. I would argue the same applies to Powell. Her profession may be/have been lawyer, but what she is actually known for currently is her conspiracy theories. As far as I can tell, she didn't even have a Wikipedia page prior to coming into the spotlight due to her promotion of conspiracy theories, with this page being created November 15th of this year. If she wasn't notable enough as an attorney to warrant a page before receiving press for promoting conspiracy theories, should the emphasis really be on the profession that had garnered her no real notability? NonReproBlue (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO, The problem a lot of people are having here is that they are using their own value judgment about what is important in Powell's life; e.g. they say her profession is what matters, not her conspiracy theories. But RS call her a conspiracy theorist as well as a lawyer, and it is they, not us, who determine what is notable about a person. So we should include both in her description, as I have suggested doing; the first sentence of the bio should read "lawyer, former prosecutor, and conspiracy theorist." CozyandDozy (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Notice the accumulation of sources on statements about her accomplishments. This is an indication they have been challenged. It's an effort to make her look less accomplished and more like a crackpot. Pkeets (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason her "accomplishments" were challenged is because they were unduly self serving and cited to her own websites rather than reliable sources. I'm sure that she would love and embrace the idea that there is some conspiracy to make her look bad, but that is not the case. She is, however, doing a fine job of making herself look like a crackpot, as evidenced by the reporting in all reliable sources about her. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree. However I know that MelanieN has been here much longer than me and I felt they may have a deeper knowledge of policy than I do, and I have seen this specific argument before and wanted to know if it was on account of a policy of which I was unaware. I agree that the vast majority of RS refer to her as a conspiracy theorist, and that coverage of her conspiracy theorizing is the bulk of all the press she has received. As the New York Times put it :"Until late last week, most Americans who aren’t regular consumers of right-wing talk radio and cable news probably had not heard of Sidney Powell, an appellate lawyer from Texas who joined President Trump’s legal team earlier this month as it undertook a fruitless pursuit to prove that fraud cost him the election. Ms. Powell burst into national attention on Thursday, when she appeared alongside Rudolph W. Giuliani, who is leading the president’s legal efforts, at a surreal news conference where she made claims that strained credulity, even for a presidential campaign that has repeatedly lowered the bar. In a matter of minutes, Ms. Powell blamed Cuba, Venezuela, the Clinton Foundation, the billionaire George Soros and Antifa, a loosely defined left-wing movement, for somehow making votes for Mr. Trump disappear". It seems like reliable sources explicitly agree that she was pretty much unknown until she started getting press as a conspiracy theorist. To me that indicates that she is at least as known as a conspiracy theorist as she is as a lawyer. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be so conciliatory; we simply have a stronger argument than Melanie, as well as the other admin, Gorilla. Their point about notability is inflected with their own value judgments about how Powell's decades of work as a lawyer is more important than her much briefer and more recent work as a conspiracy theorist. Their judgments in this regard are not at all unreasonable, but the problem is that they are irrelevant to Wikipedia policy, which defines notability not as a matter of editorial discretion, but as an extension of what RS emphasize about an individual.
 * As you indicate, the RS mentions of Powell, across her life, are mostly in regard to the events of the last few weeks, and her work as a conspiracy theorist.
 * Finally, Melanie's and Gorilla's concern about what is more important is somewhat of a non sequitur, insofar as nobody is arguing that we shouldn't describe her as "lawyer" and "former federal prosectuor"; we are only saying that we should also describe "conspiracy theorist."  CozyandDozy (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CozyandDozy brings up an excellent point. Sidney Powell wasn't even notable enough for Wikipedia until her recent conspiracy theorist antics. The initial article (created November 15, 2020 by an editor who also seems to spend a lot of time trying to spread doubt on Dominion Voting Systems, , as well as something that looks like WP:CANVASSING... ) listed her personal website as a source three times, IMDB (not reliable either) a fourth, and "federalappeals.com" which is... wait for it... the business website of "Sidney Powell P.c." Her entire claim to notability centers around her recent conspiracy theorist antics, there's virtually nothing prior to it to even establish notability for her. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm glad you appreciate my work. So now let's decide Powell's not notable at all, and delete the article.Pkeets (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support because of a combination of the evidence offered by and because I don't think the opposing arguments make a ton of sense. She's not a professional conspiracy theorist? What? How many people are professional conspiracy theorists? And some people are trying to make some kind of distinction between a "conspiracy theorist" and an "adherent of conspiracy theories"? What? An average person would never make these sorts of distinctions, which is why they don't appear in the sources. To most people, if you ask them if someone who believes in an international conspiracy to steal an election is a conspiracy theorist, they would say "yes", and would not need to know whether the conspiracy theorist is being paid to say this nor whether or not they originated the theory. Loki (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given that this is a biographical article, and in view of its current topicality, it should be suitably written and edited. Alex Jones and some others may feel denigration as a "conspiracy theorist" to be a badge of honor, and a desirable tag to attract, retain and expand an audience. But Sidney Powell's career as a reputable attorney shows that she is of different mettle. While she has opponents who, by reference to QAnon, seek to discredit her - and by association President Trump - the sources here called "reliable" are more pov opinion than verifiably factual in that respect. Powell's lawsuit involving allegations about Dominion is not at this stage rebutted, and Wikipedia npov should be treating that as an open question, at least until otherwise determined. Qexigator (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether reliable sources say she was once particularly reputable, the nearly total consensus of reliable sources now say the opposite. There is nothing NPOV about treating something which every single reliable source has definitively stated is baseless as an "open question" any more than it would be appropriate or neutral to say that the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an "open question". To demand that people must prove a negative (which is literally impossible) before a crazy conspiracy theory can be described as false is a logical fallacy, and probably the most common argument when people want to present a false balance between a fringe position and the mainstream consensus. We report what reliable sources say, and the sources that are saying this are indeed reliable rources regardless of whether or not you think they are "pov opinion". In many cases these sources are in fact beacons of journalistic integrity, which is something that cannot be said about literally any of the "news" outlets that are presenting Powell's theories in any kind of positive light. NonReproBlue (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It can be seen that, if NonReproBlue's hyperbolic or straw man pov assertions are meant to be taken as a cogent response, they fail. My points were:
 * 1. 'the sources here called "reliable" [in connection with Powell] are more pov opinion than verifiably factual'.
 * 2, 'Powell's lawsuit involving allegations about Dominion is not at this stage rebutted, and Wikipedia npov should be treating that as an open question, at least until otherwise determined.' Qexigator (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No straw man. Direct rebuttal. You called non-opinion pieces in reliable sources "pov opinion". They are not opinion pieces. They are reliable sources. You said we should be treating the lawsuit as an "open question" until otherwise determined. Reliable sources have determined otherwise. You are presenting your own opinion that reliable sources are wrong. That is not based in any policy. We follow reliable sources. That is based on policy. NonReproBlue (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted that these generalities are failing to answer my two points above, made in respect of the RfC question "Should the first sentence of this article describe Powell as an "attorney, former prosecutor, and conspiracy theorist "? It will not be long before events will allow the issue to be npov determined, and this will be reported in reliable sources. Qexigator (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When you say "'the sources here called "reliable" [in connection with Powell] are more pov opinion than verifiably factual'" do you have any sources to back up your claims? Can you name the sources and provide detail on WHY you believe they are "are more pov opinion than verifiably factual"? Or do you simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT the conclusion they came to?
 * Reliable sources, and fact checks, have repeatedly deemed the Trump campaign's conspiracy theories regarding Domionion to be "unfounded" . Why are you claiming that Wikipedia is somehow obligated to ignore this and treat her error-riddled    lawsuits as if they are legitimate, especially since even when she is in friendly territory "Powell has never provided evidence of her claims, and Fox News’s Tucker Carlson said last week that when his show pressed her for proof, she “got angry and told us to stop contacting her”"?
 * It would be nice if you could answer these basic questions, rather than calling NonReproBlue's cogent response to you a "straw man" without cause. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read what I have actually written. I have not denied that the commercially published sources linked above can be accepted as reliable reporters of fact, but their opinions are not sufficient to establish fact. That is a well-known criterion in good journalistic practice. Can you point to any fact reported as distinct from pov that shows that Powell indulges in "conspiracy theory". For instance, it is verifiable that Powell's lawsuits are not filled with misspelled words, and while there are some typos, that has no bearing on the question of "conspiracy theory", nor has opinion-laden headlines. My reference to "straw man" was directed to the comment not the commenter. Qexigator (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read what I have actually written. I have not denied that the commercially published sources linked above can be accepted as reliable reporters of fact, but their opinions are not sufficient to establish fact. That is a well-known criterion in good journalistic practice. Can you point to any fact reported as distinct from pov that shows that Powell indulges in "conspiracy theory". For instance, it is verifiable that Powell's lawsuits are not filled with misspelled words, and while there are some typos, that has no bearing on the question of "conspiracy theory", nor has opinion-laden headlines. My reference to "straw man" was directed to the comment not the commenter. Qexigator (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. She wasn't called that until she got into heavy-duty partisan wrangling. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: Do you believe she was notable "until she got into heavy-duty partisan wrangling"? And if so, for what? IHateAccounts (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * She also wasn’t notable "until she got into heavy-duty partisan wrangling.” Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, this figure appears to be *primarily* notable for conspiracy theories. If we want to mention things they do but aren’t notable for like being a lawyer we can as well but we must focus on their primary claim to notability. Remember that this page was only created after they became notable due to the current controversy. Now whether we word it as “is a conspiracy theorist” or “is primarily notable for spreading conspiracy theories related to the 2020 presidential election” is a more nuanced argument that the decidedly pointed and overly specific RfC kind of jumps. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. It's what she's known for; I cannot see how she would get through WP:GNG and WP:NBLP without it. Nor can I see why anyone would be reading our article, or indeed the sources, otherwise..
 * In contrast, the lede of our article about Donald Trump broadly describes him as US president, businessman and TV personality. It does not mention his activities of more local interest, e.g. Narky Blert (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per the many sources provided by others above. This is essentially a 2020 version of Orly Taitz, where the media coverage of the large swath of frivolous lawsuits overwhelms everything else concerning the subject. Zaathras (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support There is ongoing and increased reporting of her conspiracy theories. This is now her legacy in RS coverage. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support When something is blatantly true I think it is best to say it is true Giant-Dwarfs Talk  13:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Most of the sources cited in favor of this mention that she has promoted a conspiracy theory, though, they stop short of calling her a conspiracy theorist. The handful of sources that do use the term conspiracy theorist define its application only within the context of the current CT. In previous cases where we've invoked conspiracy theorist as an occupational description to be applied to someone in WP's own voice (e.g. Frank Gaffney), there has been a long pattern of the promotion of conspiracy theories to the point that the promotion of CT is either the individual's vocation or the defining element of their life story. In this case we seem to be dealing with a 60 day period in the life of a 65 year old woman. If I took two months of tennis lessons I'm not sure it would be accurate to describe me as a tennis player. If I took two months of tennis lessons and, while playing tennis, a plane crashed into me and I became the subject of worldwide press coverage for the unfortunate mechanism of my death I'm still unsure that describing me as a tennis player would be quite right. To the argument that her promotion of a CT is the only thing that allows her to pass GNG, if that's the case then the article should be deleted for BLP1E. Chetsford (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is because having a hobby that doesn't merit press isn't notable. However, if instead you decided you wanted to be a pilot, spent two months taking flying lessons and getting a pilots license, and promptly crashed your plane into a tennis player, killing them and garnering worldwide press coverage, we would certainly consider that notable enough to include "Pilot involved in the fatal crash at..." prominently on your page. Especially if, like Sidney Powell, you were not considered notable enough to even have a Wikipedia page prior to receiving said world wide press about your brief foray into that which made you notable. Also I would like to point out, again, that the initial descriptors of people are not "occupational descriptions", they are the things that are most notable about the person. Sometimes that is an occupation, sometimes it is a ideological stance, sometimes it is something they did, sometimes it is something that happened to them. The fact that some conspiracy theorists have formed their career around their beliefs does not mean that having an actual career promoting conspiracy theories is a prerequisite for the label. (although the fact that she is pushing these conspiracy theories as part of her professional work means that it probably qualifies in the same way anyhow) NonReproBlue (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose- Liberals should not get to label every conservative a conspiracy theorist on Wikipedia, an allegedly unbiased information source. Display name 99 (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Even the Trump legal team has distance itself from her. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Powell's notability stems primarily from the crazed conspiracy theories she has spun about the presidential election. Well supported by sources. Zaathras (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support She is described using the label in countless reliable sources. KidAd   talk  02:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is core to her notability. Notably, the conspiracies extend beyond the election. The sources say that Powell both "promoted conspiracy theories about rigged voting machines" (cite) and, more recently, have shifted to coronavirus conspiracy theories (NYT: "Misinformation messengers pivot from election fraud to peddling vaccine conspiracy theories.") Neutralitytalk 18:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support WP:DUEWEIGHT. The vast majority of her coverage in reliable sources relates to her being a conspiracy theorist, and it's really not for us to decide if that is important enough to include in the lead; RS do that, and they describe her as a conspiracy theorist or in relation to conspiracy theories most of the time.   Zoozaz1    talk   18:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It is the chief reason for her notoriety notability. CapnZapp (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Neutrality. Many recent news articles are calling her a "conspiracy theorist" in their very titles, such as the Guardian headline "Conspiracy-theorist lawyer Sidney Powell spotted again at White House" or the CNBC headline "Trump reportedly asked about naming far-right conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell to investigate election fraud".Patiodweller (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Whatever Powell might have been known for before, her notability now stems overwhelmingly from her pushing outlandish election fraud conspiracy theories. The amount of coverage from WP:RS that she has received as a conspiracy theorist dwarves, by a couple of orders of magnitude, all of the other coverage combined she receved prior to that. Nsk92 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GorillaWarfare and others. Powell was clearly on the wrong side of things with respect to the election lawsuits.  However, her legal and public career outside of the election disputes doesn't support a conspiracy theory claim.  Since the lead mentions her promotion of conspiracy theories with respect to the election that is sufficient.  Additionally, per WP:IMPARTIAL Wikipedia should not be applying controversial labels to people in Wiki-voice.  Claims that she is a conspiracy theorist need to be attributed. Springee (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Was on the wrong side of things? Excuse me? She has not retracted any of her crazy conpiracy theories, some of her lawsuits are still pending and now there are fresh lawsuits being filed against her, according to this report by the Idependent less than a day ago. And according to NYT, Trump had a discussion with his senior staff less than a week ago about appointing Powell a special counsel on election fraud. Powell's days in peddling lunacy are far from over. On your other point, GNews gives 195,000 hits for "Sidney Powell" "conspiracy theories". With that kind of consensus description of Powell by WP:RS we should absolutely describe here as a conspiracy theorist in the lede, preisely as WP:DUEWEIGHT requires. Nsk92 (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your statement that is simply incorrect. As I pointed out above, Powell has also spread COVID-19 conspiracy theories (NYT article) and kook QAnon conspiracy theories (NBC article). Neutralitytalk 20:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

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


 * Comment Wanted to add some more reliable sources that are now using "conspiracy theorist" (as opposed to simply saying she pushes conspiracy theories) and often dropping "lawyer" from the first mention of her:
 * Trump wanted conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel on voter fraud
 * Trump reportedly asked about naming far-right conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell to investigate election fraud
 * Trump mulls new election gambits as conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell returns to White House
 * Trump considering conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel NonReproBlue (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As this question arose nearly one month ago, I ask, and others if subsequent reporting such as above and this might persuade them to reconsider their position, as it has caused me to do. soibangla (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiteinthewind wording
I just reverted Kiteinthewind's edit because this RFC is going on but I think their proposed wording is very solid and should be considered for at least a temporary consensus.
 * Sidney Katherine Powell (born 1955) is an American attorney and former federal prosecutor who is known for peddling conspiracy theories related to the 2020 United States presidential election. "

It does not directly reference as "conspiracy theorist", which can still be discussed since many Reliable sources use that wording, but it does get to summarizing the primary point of her notability as covered by the overwhelming WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * add “known primarily for peddling” and I’m onboard soibangla (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * would you be ok with Soibangla's suggestion? IHateAccounts (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose "peddling". "Promoting" sounds more neutral to me. Also, since the RfC does not seem near consensus, this wording could not constitute a temporary consensus, unless you mean that this would be the consensus wording if consensus is to include. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, promoting is better. soibangla (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with adding "primarily" to the wording, and replace "peddling" with "promoting". Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 22:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sidney Katherine Powell (born 1955) is an American attorney and former federal prosecutor who is known primarily for promoting conspiracy theories related to the 2020 United States presidential election. "
 * How does that look? IHateAccounts (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is good. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many people need to support it before it can be put in, but I support adding it. Not going to comment much further for now since I'm in the hot seat for making a report to WP:ANI. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, Support Giant-Dwarfs Talk  15:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Objection to closure
I object to the closure. I believe that the weight of WP:RS has only grown over the past two months. Specific sources - such as the New York Times - which previous commenters claimed did not refer to Powell as a "conspiracy theorist" explicitly, now do so. "Trump Weighed Naming Election Conspiracy Theorist as Special Counsel" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-voter-fraud.html IHateAccounts (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting as well a few things that came up when I questCapnZappioned the closer:
 * 90% (9/10) of the final respondents to the RfC, the ones who had the chance to see all the updated WP:RS information, were in favor. (per CozyAndDozy).
 * While not ALL initial opposers changed, at least one - Soibangla - reversed their position on seeing the updated WP:RS information presented by Neutrality, NonReproBlue, and in the section "The Argument against calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" is now obsolete" by CozyAndDozy below.
 * This really was closed poorly and it's very disappointing. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting that no one changed their votes based on the section "The Argument against calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" is now obsolete" by CozyAndDozy below. The section was opened at 07:06, 29 December 2020, 6 days after the 30-day RfC period had elapsed and 4 days after I had requested closure of the RfC. It was made only hours before the RfC was closed, there were no edits between it and the close, and Cozy did not extend the RfC based on it. That ProcrastinatingReader should have for some reason taken this separate section into account, and that the RfC was "poorly closed" and that it's "disappointing" that they didn't, is an example of why I'm referring to them unfairly getting flak. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck erroneous portion of my comment per ProcrastinatingReader's clarification on timing below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's unfair to blame CozyAndDozy for not extending the RFC since you did not post a notation in the talk page here that you had requested closure. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I requested the close after they posted on my talk page about it, and told them I had done so there. See User talk:GorillaWarfare. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I originally closed the above at 2:50 am, and amended slightly at 3:14 pm (mainly to make it less binary and add wording relating to promoting conspiracy theories). Section below seems to be 7:06 am, in between my original close and amendment; it didn't exist when I originally closed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree.
 * The rationale for closing the RfC was expressed in good faith, but was also flagrantly erroneous. Numerous RS have emerged in December explicitly referring to Powell as a "conspiracy theorist" (see my thread below: "The Argument against calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" is now obsolete"), so WP:MOS doesn't apply. Moreover, consensus was clearly building for "conspiracy theorist"; nine of the last ten commentators voted to include that language, and one of the previous "no" votes changed his/her vote. CozyandDozy (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Copying a comment from my talk page to here, since it's relevant: 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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the closer is getting flack. I admit that my tone is not as oily or ingratiating as it should be, but I have consistently said the closer acted in good faith, even if on an erroneous basis. I've also said that his rationale for the closure (your argument, based on WP:MOS) was reasonable when you expressed it back in November, and is now erroneous only as a result of the emergence of new RS. CozyandDozy (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the references to an "erroneous close". From what I can see, they closed the discussion properly, and the challenges are based on information that was never raised in the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are being overly defensive of the closer, who has thicker skin than you presume (though perhaps not as thick as that of a gorilla). In my original criticism of the closer, I specifically said that while the closing rationale was "erroneous", it was "presented in good faith and with reference to policy." CozyandDozy (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Erroneous" is not the only flak they're getting (see "This really was closed poorly and it's very disappointing." above), and I generally object to the idea that it's "overly defensive" to object to someone receiving undeserved criticism by people who are expecting them to have acted outside of policy, but perhaps we are diverging from the point here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I note that Soibangla, following their reversing their !vote, pinged you and asked you to consider the updated evidence and all available sourcing, and I do not see anywhere you have provided a reply? IHateAccounts (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They also struck their comment shortly after (and before I saw the ping–I was largely away from the wiki due to some real-life business from December 19–23), so I did not reply. However I did review the sources they provided and did not feel they were sufficient to reverse my vote. Three of them are decent but three sources did not outweigh the more conservative wording I was seeing in the bulk of sources at the time. Had they been in combination with Cozy's longer list of sources provided below, after the close, I might have–if a new discussion begins, I will go through them in more detail. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that the closer suggested on their talk page that I ask you to reconsider, consider this the formal request. Also, same request to, , (since Powell's lawsuits have now been thrown out of every possible court and thoroughly debunked), and  as I believe those were the other individuals that  referred to in their talkpage suggestion. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Are you asking us to reconsider our !votes? Given that the RfC has already been closed, I'm not sure what the appropriate response is. Fwiw, I would probably !vote differently if I were doing so today, per, , and , among others. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This appears to be based on ProcrastinatingReader's suggestion at the section about this on their talk page: It's a bit unusual, but seems reasonable given there does seem to be substantial new sourcing emerging post-close.
 * I'll take a closer pass through the new sourcing after my workday is finished and come back with an answer this evening. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done a review of the new sources that were provided by Cozy (in addition to the newer ones from the RfC above, provided by NonReproBlue and Neutrality) and I'm a bit split. I still stand by my original oppose comment, which was based on the fact that this conspiracy theory stuff is relatively new for Powell (2018+ or so), and that it may be WP:RECENTISM to include it so prominently for someone with a decades-long career. However, my concerns that many of the sources that were being used to support the descriptor mentioned that she had promoted conspiracy theories but did not necessarily describe her as a "conspiracy theorist" (or as primarily known for this subject) have been assuaged by the new sourcing. I might have switched my vote to a weak support if the discussion was still open when those sources were provided, though I'm also pretty satisfied that two paragraphs about her conspiracy theorizing (making up more than half of the text of the lead) accomplish the same goal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to harp on a tired point or risk the appearance of haranguing, but a genuine question; Do you feel that the WP:RECENTISM argument is at all undercut by the fact that her decades-long career never rose to the level of garnering notability for a Wikipedia page? It just seems to me that many people who rise from obscurity into notability have decades-long careers that, although a much bigger part of their own life, are not really notable when compared to the event or behavior that thrust them into the spotlight. Taken to perhaps an ad absurdum extreme, Trump's time as President is also relatively new when compared to the prior 70 years of his life (during much of which, unlike Powell, he was already notable enough to have a page), but I don't think anyone would argue against its being the most notable thing about him. NonReproBlue (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly. It's one factor to consider, but I think we agree that recent events will naturally need to be weighted more heavily (as they are in this article, which devotes all but a few paragraphs to events from 2018 forward) for someone who has only recently become notable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support close Looks like a good, well considered closing. This isn't a case where material is being excluded from the article based on this closing.  All the content is still in there and in the lead.  Also, the supporting links added on Dec 22 show the label is used in headlines.  Per WP:HEADLINE the actual article headline is not considered reliable.  Regardless of the views expressed above (mine included) the correct next action would be a close review. Springee (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Springee. Your claim that "conspiracy theorist" is only used in headlines is false/outdated. Please refer to my thread, "The Argument against calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" is now obsolete," on this talk page for various examples (many of which are not confined to the headlines). CozyandDozy (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I said Dec 22nd. Springee (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the four sources I added on the 22nd than you are still incorrect. In every source I provided save Market Watch, the label is used both in the headlines and in the prose of the articles. The Guardian: "Donald Trump pushed to have the lawyer and “kraken” conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell named as a special counsel to investigate supposed electoral fraud, as he grasps for straws to stay in power", CNBC: "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, multiple outlets reported" and Newsminer: "President Donald Trump has ratcheted up his efforts to overturn the results of the election as right-wing conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell returned to the White House". NonReproBlue (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Close as it seems the standards for closing were followed. Closures generally can't be challenged on the basis that new arguments are being offered, which seems to be the OP's basis for challenge, only that the closure was somehow improper or failed to follow closing procedures or a reasonably possible consensus reading. That said, I believe the proper format for challenging a close involves (a) discussing with the closing editor, (b) bringing it to AN; per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Probably not much can happen at the Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear: my basis for challenge is that I believe the closer's review of the arguments that developed as more and more WP:RS reported was incomplete, and discounted the sources provided by editors such as NonReproBlue and Neutrality more than they should, especially since at one editor changed their position based on the sources Neutrality provided. I have raised this here and pinged the editors as suggested by ProcrastinatingReader and if necessary I will post a close review as well, especially since per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, "if significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion and the closer was not aware of it" applies to the sourcing provided by NonReproBlue and Neutrality, and in particular the significantly longer list provided below by CozyAndDozy. ProcrastinatingReader suggested review in this case may include knowing if other editors would change their mind given the new information. Thus far Soibangla has already changed their position prior to the closure, and AleatoryPonderings also indicates above "Fwiw, I would probably !vote differently if I were doing so today". IHateAccounts (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right. I hesitate to say this (because the closing editor clearly acted in good faith) but their argument lacked nuance and context. Even reading the RfC one could see the overwhelming momentum was in favor of including "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence, and could also see that RS were rapidly accumulating that supported this characterization. CozyandDozy (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I wrote on my talk page when you mentioned closing the RfC: "I think a request at WP:AN/RFC would be best, because I'm not sure I agree the consensus is as clear as you are reading it to be, and someone could easily argue that without a formal close by an uninvolved editor, your readdition of the descriptor was improper." I know you read the RfC to be obviously in favor of your proposal, but that is not what I see; evidently it was also not what the closer saw. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW that provision of CLOSECHALLENGE you quote doesn't really apply to new content arguments not made in the discussion, per my understanding. It means things like an archived RfC which wasn't mentioned but had a larger turnout and a different consensus; the closer may not be aware of it, and knowledge of it may influence the close. Or a parallel discussion going on elsewhere with larger participation (eg a PAG discussion) which may also influence the close. Hence these are things that generally fall under Closures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review: -- I'm not aware of any such circumstances in this case, so I don't believe that applies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is my understanding as well. Normally if new information/sourcing has become available that was not mentioned in an RfC, that is addressed via a new RfC, not a challenge to the close of the first one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support close I see Gor.W's wording "Powell has promoted conspiracy theories...", as acceptable, but inserting "numerous" too vague either way and adds no useful information. I do not see the text that follows ("She has claimed...") in the fourth paragraph of the lead as sufficient: the sources are evidently by persons inclined to be polemical opponents of Powell. Qexigator (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be best to start a new section if you want to discuss the later paragraphs of the lead as you are here—the RfC was specifically about the inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Given that the first sentence (paragraph) of the current version is OK, the bio summary in the next three paragraphs of the lead are OK. I would like to see "numerous" removed, as a minor copy edit, but that is not enough for RfC. There may be more to come fairly soon, or not, but the current version is usefully informative about a person who has been playing a prominent (if so far unsuccessful) part in the litigation strand of a major political / legal / constitutional debate that can be of considerable interest not only in the home country but worldwide, unlike, say, public protests about this or that in one or more states or cities. Qexigator (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * has been playing a prominent (if so far unsuccessful) part in the litigation strand of a major political / legal / constitutional debate This is dangerous talk. What she's done is playing a prominent part in an undemocratic coup (attempt). There's nothing reasonable or normal about it as your phrasing suggests, since it's all conspiracy based rather than evidence or fact based. CapnZapp (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be interesting to note that CapnZapp wishes it to be known that in his opinion the mild comment above (replying to Gor.W.), that Powell 'has been playing a prominent (if so far unsuccessful) part in the litigation strand of a major political / legal / constitutional debate', is dangerous talk, while he vehemently expresses a conviction that What she's done is playing a prominent part in an undemocratic coup (attempt). Qexigator (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In what way is that interesting? CapnZapp is entirely correct. It is dangerous to legitimize her wild conspiracy-theory-filled rantings and baseless, meritless, entirely-without-evidence lawsuits by calling them part of a "major political / legal / constitutional debate". They are not. Outside of the lunatic rantings of charlatans and conspiracy theorists, there is no actual debate, let alone a "major" one, and normalizing these rantings, or indeed elevating them to the level of a "major" debate, represents a dangerous widening of the Overton Window. NonReproBlue (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, given the Overton Window theory, it can be said that 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) 23:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Content is required to be neutral. Editors, to my knowledge, are not. And neutral content is simply that which accurately, and without editorializing, represents what reliable sources say (sources which themselves are not required to be neutral in the strictest sense of the word). Also I would not consider remarks that align themselves directly with the position taken by reliable sources to be polemical, though that is an argument of semantics into which personal interpretations of definitional terms introduce subjectivity. NonReproBlue (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming the point of my reply. Qexigator (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Content is required to be neutral." Not really, but it must be neutral in relationship to the often biased sources it comes from, so NonReproBlue's qualification is correct ("neutral content is simply that which accurately, and without editorializing, represents what reliable sources say"). So readers will come here and read content that is far from neutral because the sources are far from neutral. That's okay, as long as editors haven't gotten in the way and altered or neutered what the RS says. Since many, if not most, readers do not understand our NPOV policy (they think it means No Point of View), they object and claim that editors and Wikipedia are pushing their own opinions into articles, when that is not the case. We are faithfully documenting/reproducing the many notable POV found in RS. That's our job.
 * Very few RS are neutral, which is good, because "truth" is rarely located in the neutral "middle". Most RS will usually side with the facts, and those facts are more appealing to one side of the political spectrum and unappealing to the other side, so this situation is time-dependent. It changes with time. At one point in history, a political party will be on the right side of facts and history, and the other will not. At another point in history the opposite may be the case.
 * RS which report the facts cannot stay non-committal in the face of lies about those facts. They must choose to be partisan and side with the facts. That's good. They are neutral in relation to the facts, regardless of where that puts them on the political spectrum. A bias that favors facts is good. Neutrality that plays bothsiderism and false balance games is really bad, yet many readers expect us to edit in that manner. RS policy expects editors to side with RS and against unreliable sources. Those who can't do that should not edit controversial subjects.
 * I often write that neither content nor sources are required to be neutral. Rather, it is editors who must edit neutrally. We must be neutral while editing. I have written an essay about this matter: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content . -- Valjean (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It's always difficult to accept a ruling, when it doesn't go your way. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Following up
, I am following up here. I will update this if/as more responses come. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Soibangla had already changed their position.
 * 2) AleatoryPonderings indicates " Fwiw, I would probably !vote differently if I were doing so today, per [22], [23], and [24], among others. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)" above.
 * 3) GorillaWarfare indicates "However, my concerns that many of the sources that were being used to support the descriptor mentioned that she had promoted conspiracy theories but did not necessarily describe her as a "conspiracy theorist" (or as primarily known for this subject) have been assuaged by the new sourcing" as part of a response above.
 * 4)  has not responded so I am pinging once more.
 * 5)  has participated and stated "I see Gor.W's wording "Powell has promoted conspiracy theories...", [26] as acceptable," but has not responded to the specific question of whether the specific words "Conspiracy Theorist" are now supported by enough WP:RS, so I am pinging once more.
 * 6) Chetsford indicates "(and I'm cautiously agreeable with CozyandDozy's position that it has)" in CozyAndDozy's section below.
 * 7)  pinging, please review the sourcing at Talk:Sidney_Powell and respond.
 * 8)  pinging, please review the sourcing at Talk:Sidney_Powell and respond.
 * 9)  pinging, please review the sourcing at Talk:Sidney_Powell and respond.
 * 10)  pinging, please review the sourcing at Talk:Sidney_Powell and respond.
 * 11)  pinging, please review the sourcing at Talk:Sidney_Powell and respond.
 * 12)  pinging, please review the sourcing at Talk:Sidney_Powell and respond.
 * When I said the opposers I did mean every opposer (especially those who had this specific concern), though it seems only a couple have been pinged, and really only once whether they respond or not. I will say, for the record, that it should be remembered that the suggestion I made isn’t standard. I think it’s an acceptable and sufficient option to try, somewhat a corollary of NOTBURO, if the sourcing has changed as obviously as you say. But I’ll reiterate that if it’s not very obvious in responses that this has happened then this option doesn’t really work imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you meant commenters who wrote arguments unrooted in Wikipedia policy but instead rooted in mere partisanship along the lines of "Strong oppose- Liberals should not get to label every conservative a conspiracy theorist on Wikipedia, an allegedly unbiased information source. Display name 99 (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)", but if you demand a 100% switch to unanimity, I don't think that's in line with either WP:CONSENSUS or anything else, and I guess a day has just been wasted. That makes me feel pretty terrible about this whole messy debacle. I'd start a new RFC right now myself since the evidence by CozyAndDozy below is so clear, but given the level to which I got shit on the last time I started an RFC, personally attacked repeatedly and accused of "wasting community time" I guess someone else can do that. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are the comments of jp×g, Some1, Awoma, Kerdooskis, etc, which are totally rooted in policy. Not necessarily unanimity, but this is a case of “I’ll know it when I see it” to be honest. I didn’t expect the suggestion to be too taxing, a simple ping to the sourcing below and “does this change your original views?” and waiting a few days or a week was all that was needed. Perhaps it will turn out to have been a bad suggestion, but I figured you wanted some option so I thought it might help, and I did say below that I can’t guarantee what the result will be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine. We'll try. Did I miss anyone that you think needs to be pinged? IHateAccounts (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On a phone, so bit hard for me to tell, but if you have everyone with “oppose” in front of their comment then that’s fine. Though I still feel there’s some confusion above (eg by the partial quote of GW) so I’ll clarify again so I don’t get blamed for this later: I think editors aren’t obligated to respond and also if they feel new sourcing doesn’t address their due weight/recentism concerns then that’s valid too. The purpose of this exercise is, as I say, a simple question of whether the change in sourcing would’ve led you to support now. It’s a broken format of discussion, hence why I say the outcome needs to be very clear, but if you’re confident the sourcing is so strong now that it caused the wall of supports you refer to, I think it’s a reasonable option to try. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Responding to ping: I acknowledge that some reliable sources are now pinning this label on her. I still personally oppose calling her a "conspiracy theorist" in the lead sentence as if it was her occupation. We already have an entire paragraph in the lead (actually a paragraph and a half) saying that she espouses conspiracy theories; IMO that should be enough. Do we really need it in the first paragraph as well? How much do we need to hammer on it? Anyhow, consensus will rule and I am just one person, but that is my response. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree labels are rarely encyclopedic and are often ambiguous. But I do think we can say at the top of the lead that she is known for promoting conspiracy theories. I endorse the wording of in the discussion now closed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 16:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd be alright with this suggested wording iff we remove "primarily". GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That would be better wording. She promotes conspiracy theories, unlike Limbaugh, Beck, and Trump who actually create them. -- Valjean (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also accept this wording - especially if we follow another suggestion above, to trim the excessive detail about her conspiracy promotion in the rest of the lead, possibly combining the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think the first sentence should be changed per the recent RFC. Saying she promotes conspiracy theories is no different than calling her a conspiracy theorist. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted the addition of the proposed language above. (I am not the first person to revert the addition of "conspiracy theorist" or similar to the first paragraph post-RFC. Really, nobody should be adding such language to the lead without consensus, given the RFC.) "who is known primarily for" is just another version of the God-awful "best known for" construction. I also agree that saying "attorney and conspiracy theorist" or anything like that in the lead sentence, as if it were an occupation, is misleading. That said, I wouldn't oppose combining the current third/fourth paragraphs and moving it up into the first/second paragraphs, moving the existing second paragraph (summarizing her career prior to 2020) further down in the lead. I think it's better for us to specify the conspiracy theories (as the third/fourth paragraphs currently do, albeit with too many words IMO) than to simply slap on the label "conspiracy theorist" or "known for promoting conspiracy theories about the 2020 election", which don't really tell the reader much about what kind of conspiracy theories those were. All of this should be workshopped and consensus reached before anyone adds "conspiracy theorist" or similar to the lead paragraph, because of the just-closed RFC, and the post-close discussion (where there is clearly no consensus to overturn the RFC, but also clearly consensus to continue the conversation in light of the new sources). Anyway, overturning a "no consensus" RFC is a fool's errand; better to just continue the discussion and work towards consensus. Levivich harass/hound 18:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The RFC close clearly states "There is, however, consensus to say the subject has promoted conspiracy theories somewhere in the opening paragraph", so citing the RFC while reverting an edit that does exactly that seems disengenuous to me. NonReproBlue (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It goes on to say, WP:BRD is part of the normal editing process, as are talk page discussions like this one. Levivich harass/hound 21:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but reverts should be made for policy based reasons. The only explanation you gave was "Per RFC", and the RFC supported this addition. NonReproBlue (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed workshopping
Levivich's proposal looks like a way for improving the article by 'combining the current third/fourth paragraphs and moving it up into the first/second paragraphs' and 'moving the existing second paragraph (summarizing her career prior to 2020) further down in the lead'.

VERSION 1, reorder existing text
Here goes for a start, but awaits copy editing and maybe updating:

para.1 stet

Sidney Katherine Powell (born 1955) is an American attorney and former federal prosecutor, best known for promoting conspiracy theories related to the 2020 United States presidential election.


 * minor edit per current version. Qexigator (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

3+4 mv up

In 2020, Powell joined the legal team of President Donald Trump in an attempt to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election. After several interviews in which Powell spread increasingly outlandish election fraud conspiracy theories, Trump's legal team formally distanced itself from her, stating she was "practicing law on her own" and was not a member of the team, though she continued to meet with the president in the White House. Powell continued filing election lawsuits independently in district courts, and ultimately lost four federal lawsuits in Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin.

Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories. She has claimed that General Michael Flynn was framed by a covert "deep state" operation, and has also promoted personalities and slogans associated with the QAnon conspiracy theory. Powell alleges that a secret international cabal involving communists, "globalists", George Soros, Hugo Chávez (who died in 2013), the Clinton Foundation, the CIA, and thousands of Democratic and Republican officials&mdash;including Trump ally and Georgia governor Brian Kemp&mdash;used voting machines to transfer millions of votes away from Trump to Biden in the 2020 presidential election. After Powell baselessly accused Dominion Voting Systems and others of engaging in a conspiracy to rig the election against Trump, Dominion threatened to sue Powell for defamation. The city of Detroit asked a federal judge to sanction Powell for "frivolously undermining people's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government."

2 mv down

After graduating from law school in 1978, Powell began her career as an assistant United States attorney in the Western District of Texas. During her tenure she prosecuted Jimmy Chagra, who was implicated in the May 1979 assassination of United States District Judge John H. Wood Jr. She ceased working as a prosecutor in 1988 and established her own firm in 1993. She has acted in appellate matters as a prosecutor and defense counsel. She represented executives in the Enron scandal, and in 2019, defended General Michael Flynn in United States v. Flynn.

VERSION 2, condense
I think there's too much detail for the lead in the current 3rd/4th paragraphs as written, particularly along the lines of "giving air" to the theories themselves (and a lot of name-dropping/Streisanding). Here's a proposed condensed version, citations/links/markup omitted. Maybe this is too little detail (it brings the lead down to two paragraphs), and if so, perhaps someone can take a crack at a middle version:

Levivich harass/hound 23:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

VERSION 3, middle ground
This option reorders the lead and trims it somewhat, but not as dramatically as option 2. Open to wordsmithing suggestions, but this is roughly the amount of detail and the ordering I think we should aim for.


 * Would you be OK removing "briefly"? The whole public legal thing was somewhat brief, but she was a key member and a prime mover in some of it. She also appeared to have actual legal credentials. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, removed! GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

VERSION 4.0
Levivich harass/hound 19:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

VERSION 4.1
adjusting sequence of sentences in first paragraph for fluency

Qexigator (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

VERSION 5
soibangla (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal
To improve the article, this is to propose that of, the versions above, Version 2 Version 4.1 will be used to replace the current version, after a lapse of time for discussion, ending not later than January 4/5 Pacific Time Zone, or when consensus emerges. Please support and/or discuss. Qexigator (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC) edited Qexigator (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I could get behind version 2. It seems to cover all the bases. Cleaning up the last paragraphs and getting the conspiracy stuff in there without going against the RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support my proposed version 3, which reorders the paragraph similarly to version 1 and trims it somewhat less aggressively than version 2. As a note, I object to the arbitrary cutoff time of January 4/5. There is no deadline, and this should be discussed and workshopped as long as is necessary to achieve consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also support version 4.0 or 4.1, with some adjustments about the QAnon stuff. I believe the QAnon support for her, and vice versa, predated her leaving the Trump legal team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the issue with version 3 is the same issue with version 1 which is it ignores the recent RFC. It also puts undue focus on the conspiracy issues in the second paragraph while glossing over much anything else. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The RfC reached no consensus to describe Powell as an "attorney, former prosecutor, and conspiracy theorist", and version 3 does not attempt to use that wording. The RfC did achieve consensus to say the subject has promoted conspiracy theories somewhere in the opening paragraph, which this version does. What is being glossed over that you think ought to be included in the lead? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record this is the version I was replying to. You changed it a lot since then. The RFC said not in the first sentence, you had it in the first sentence. It did say maybe in the first paragraph, which version 2 does. The rest of my objects stand obviously. PackMecEng (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I should've finished tweaking my version when I left my !vote. From your comment it sounds like your last concern still applies, so can you clarify what is being glossed over that you think ought to be included in the lead? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Powell isn't known for anything else but being a conspiracy theorist who files vexatious and ridiculous lawsuits . Trying to insist coverage of that isn't WP:DUE is getting into whitewashing territory. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While it has and should receive a lot of coverage, it should not be basically the only coverage of her life as a whole. The way it is written, especially in version 3, reads to much like a POV pusher issue. Again I am not saying it should not be in the lead or get a good amount of coverage, but when it is crammed in the over and over to the detriment of the rest of the lead that is a problem. PackMecEng (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the notion of expanding beyond version 2, and I like version 3 better than version 1. Still, my issues with version 3 are: it's repetitive (the second sentence of the first paragraph is repeated in the second paragraph), and it still "name drops". I don't get why we'd detail the conspiracy theories in the lead, e.g. by mentioning Soros, the Clintons, the CIA, etc. etc. Why describe it as "President-elect Joe Biden's victory" and not "Trump's loss"? Why introduce "Biden" into the lead? It doesn't matter who the winning candidate was; Trump is trying to overturn his loss, not someone else's win. It's not like had someone other than Biden won and Trump lost, Trump wouldn't be mounting this attempt to overturn the result. Altogether it's too much detail for the lead IMO. In general, we should seek to keep the number of names other than the subject's in the lead to a minimum. "Flynn" and "Trump" are so important to the topic that it's unavoidable, maybe QAnon, too, but not "Biden" or "Clinton" or "Soros" or "Chavez". We don't need to confuse the reader by mentioning 6 names in the lead other than the subject's. Another question I have (rhetorical) is what is the function of each paragraph? In a 3- or 4- paragraph lead, the first paragraph often is a 1-paragraph summary of the entire topic (including the remaining paragraphs of the lead). In Version 3, the first two paragraphs are about conspiracy theories, and the third paragraph is about everything else. That seems duplicative. Also, "She has claimed that General Michael Flynn was framed by a covert "deep state" operation, and has also promoted personalities and slogans associated with the QAnon conspiracy theory" suggests the QAnon stuff was part of Flynn's defense, but as I read the article the QAnon stuff is actually part of the 2020 Trump defense (or even came after she was disavowed by Trump's legal team), not the 2019 Flynn defense.I have attempted a Version 4 that is in between 2 and 3 and addresses these concerns I have (and removes "briefly" per Specifico's comment). Sorry, I did it quickly so it's not very well written, but it demonstrates a middle ground in terms of level-of-detail, grouping-of-details, and order-of-details, that is less than Version 3 but more than Version 2. HTH, Levivich harass/hound 19:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * May I interject that a Version 4.1 might read more fluently if, in the first paragraph, the second, third and fourth sentences were re-positioned to stand between the fifth and the sixth sentences. Qexigator (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I'd also support version 4 (and will note in my !vote above). I do think the conspiracy theories ought to be named specifically in the lead (as they are in versions 1, 3, and 4) as there are all kinds of conspiracy theories, and I think we ought to be clear that she's the "deep state"/QAnon/Soros brand of conspiracy theorist rather than, say, a flat earther or UFO believer (well, at least to my knowledge). Regarding why I worded it as "President-elect Joe Biden's victory" and not "Trump's loss", I have no strong opinions on which we use and so just used the wording in the current lead. Would be equally fine with "Trump's loss". GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are good points. I'd support 4 in any arrangement of the details (so long as it complies with WP:V obvi). Levivich harass/hound 22:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After looking at 5, I still support 4.0/4.1 (or any reasonable re-arrangement of 4 that still meets WP:V). Some problems I have with 5 are: "rose to prominence", I'm not sure RSes describe her a prominent; not sure RSes describe her as "creating" and "originating" conspiracy theories as opposed to promoting/repeating them; it still mentions the name "Joe Biden", which is unnecessary in the lead; in "quickly dismissed as baseless", the words "as baseless" don't add anything (every legal action that is dismissed is baseless, by definition, otherwise it wouldn't be dismissed); it mentions the 2019 representation of Flynn but out of chronological order, in between stuff that happened in 2020; "which Flynn had earlier pledged an oath to" is irrelevant for the lead. (I assume version 5 is just about the first paragraph and would be followed by the second paragraph in the other versions, but if there's any doubt, I support that second paragraph about her education, etc., which doens't appear to be disputed.) If these concerns I have about v. 5 were addressed, we'd back to v. 4.0/4.1, so I still think those are the best of the options thus far. Levivich harass/hound 18:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"She has acted in appellate matters as a prosecutor and defense counsel" and "federal courts, which were quickly dismissed" need to be reworded. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As I read soibangla's Version 5, it is fairly close to 4.1 but adds some details that are or would be better in the main body. Qexigator (talk) at 16:17, 3 January 2021

In view of the discussion so far, the most favoured of the Versions 1-5 appears to be Version 4.1. Given that by the end of this week the POTUS and Senate electoral processes will be concluded, can we accept that Qexigator (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the time is ripening to select Version 4.1 as the one to use for improving the article's lead paragraphs, consequent on the RfC?

*citations in the lead can be few or none, but left to the relevant parts of the main body?
 * was born
 * law school and career, Enron, Flynn
 * Trump legal team
 * Dominion defamation
 * Detroit claims judicial sanction. Qexigator (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No. There is no deadline. Also, please fix the bad wording I listed in green above. SPECIFICO talk 10:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, time ripens anyway, and as said above, 'when consensus emerges', that is, after civil and reasonable discussion. Please give specifically the rewording you propose, so that all can see and support or not. I may not be able to give further attention to this myself today. Qexigator (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Version 5 is far better than any permutation of version 4. That being said, discussions below have made it apparent that the sticking point is largely those who want to portray election-related conspiracy theories and disinformation as if they had legitimacy. :( IHateAccounts (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In general I agree with IHateAccounts’ analysis, that does appear to be the sticking point. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quelle Surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say. That bias needs to be addressed before we publish article text. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing that versions 4 and 4.1 are not portraying 'election-related conspiracy theories and disinformation as if they had legitimacy', does that apply to any of the other versions? Qexigator (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. When wording changes are complete and consensus has been reached, we can change the lead. We do not need to rush things to coincide with the timing of various electoral matters or for any other reason–urgency might be required if there was uncited controversial material about a BLP or similar in the lead, but that circumstance does not apply here. I also don't think we should omit citations in the lead–per WP:LEADCITE, Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead, and the history of this talk page has certainly established that various statements in the lead are likely to be challenged. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Version 1 or Version 5 Personally I prefer Version 1, but I admit that most people tend to find more verbose versions less appealing than I do, so in recognition of that I would also support Version 5 as I think it most accurately summarizes the salient points (with one minor caveat). That caveat being that, as far as I can tell based on reliable sources, Powell's involvement with, and popularity within, QAnon predated her "leaving" Trump's legal team, as it began during her earlier defense of Flynn. See Sidney Powell is a beacon of hope to sad QAnon supporters " Trump's legal team distancing itself from her did little to change that in the minds of the QAnon believers who see her as their hero — indeed, for some of them, it has only strengthened their belief that she and Trump together have a plan for his ultimate victory". Perhaps "was embraced" could be turned to "grew increasingly popular amongst" or even simply "was further embraced". NonReproBlue (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording 'was further embraced' would be an improvement. Qexigator (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)