Talk:Sidney Powell/Archive 4

This article is way too POV
For example, this sentence: 'Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories. She has claimed that Flynn was framed by a covert "deep state" operation' needs to be re-written. Comey himself has admitted that he and his team cooked up a scheme to question Flynn off guard. And it's also true that at the time the FBI questioned Flynn, they already had the phone call itself, so they already knew that Flynn did not do anything illegal. Also, the word "frame" has specific legal meaning, so unless we cite a reliable source which quotes Powell using that word, this sentence is thin gruel. I suggest, rather than merely posting "deep state" in quotes, we post an actual full verbatim Powell quote which expressly establishes what this sentence asserts (by by characterization). 98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's easiest if suggestions are in the form of "Change X to Y based on source Z". Otherwise we don't know what the "full verbatim Powell quote" you're referring to is (there is more than one), or what sources back up what you're saying. Levivich harass/hound 16:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a Newsweek article: https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-plot-frame-michael-flynn-claims-lawyer-1503070 they use 'frame' in the article title, not "framed" like we do. Why? Because though Sidney is quoted as saying "So they kept him relaxed and unguarded deliberately in part of their efforts to set him up and frame him.", she is not quoted as saying they accomplished that; she's quoted as saying they tried to frame him, which is a big difference. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It would save keystrokes to just write "Change 'framed' to 'frame' per Newsweek". I do not think that change would be an improvement because it would be ungrammatical. Also Newsweek is not a generally reliable source post-2013 per WP:RSP. Levivich harass/hound 16:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Very difficult these days, to see Powell in a neutral light. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are correct in that, which is why we need to be that much more vigilant 98.118.62.140 (talk)
 * There's nothing wrong with the contents o the article, if the sources describe her as a conspiracy theorist in regards to the Flynn stuff, then we follow suit. ValarianB (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to hat this WP:FORUM stuff in a moment. Arguing over present versus past tense based on Newsweek, which is already questionable per WP:RSP, is silly. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your assertion, the discussion was not about "Arguing over present versus past tense". Rather, it was whether or not, it's good editing to deliberately misquote a lawyer's precise words, when understanding those words is the linchpin to readers assigning meaning to the quote. What Powell did, per Newsweek (which quoted her accurately) is assert that certain actors tried to "frame" Flynn, which is her legal assessment and opinion. She did not assert that they "framed". Her assertion is that the steps they took towards the sneaky interview were "part of their efforts to set him up and frame him", but she did not assert that there has been a finding to that effect. Properly speaking, a conspiracy theorist is one who asserts something to be true, usually for off-kilter reasons, and contrary to the established factual conclusions. But there have not been any factual conclusions that Flynn was framed; and Powell does not assert that there have been. However, the DOJ did request that the charges be dropped, and there were internal findings from the DOJ which establish that there were genuine problems with the case, but the DOJ did not concede that Flynn was framed. And even WAPO admits that it was Flynn himself who claimed he was "framed" and that Powell, as his attorney, is making his argument for him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/michael-flynns-defense-claims-without-offering-specifics-that-material-from-justice-department-review-includes-stunning-evidence-of-fbi-misconduct/2020/04/24/abafc742-8664-11ea-ae26-989cfce1c7c7_story.html The point I'm making is that in our rush to paint Powell as a buffoon, we are glossing over important distinctions and are attributing things to Powell which, precisely speaking, are not her words. Also, according to NYT, the DOJ (under Barr, who is certainly no fan of Trump or Flynn) took this position when dismissing the case [the] Agents’ questioning “was untethered to, and unjustified by, the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/politics/michael-flynn-case-dropped.html And frankly, that concession by DOJ certainly supplies a reasonable foundation to the allegation that Flynn was "set-up". And if there's even a smidgen of truth to the allegation that Flynn was set-up, then it's fully reasonable for a zealous defense attorney to assert such. And by definition, reasonable behavior does not make one a "conspiracy theorist" . And this is why we need to avoid saying "framed" as if that word was a) Powell's verbatim word (it's not); rather than b) her client's defense (which it was; part of Flynn's defense, that is) 98.118.62.140 (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Inadequate sourcing on caustic characterization ?
I believe that these sentences "Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories. She has claimed that Flynn was framed by a covert "deep state" operation,[5][10]" (see article, first two sentences of 4th paragraph) may violate WP:BLP. I say that because the claim "Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories" is not supported by the facts asserted in either of the two sources which are cited. Also, the Politico article is not reliable - it's chock full of accusatory invective, but very thin on facts; it's essentially an pastiche of various opinions, cobbled together to slime Powell. As for the Dallas News (it's behind a paywall, but I did read it), there are not even any quotes which purport to support the claim that Powell has "promoted numerous conspiracy theories". Rather, there is only a snide article title. I suggest we re-write the sentence to say "Powell has been characterized by some as a "conspiracy theorist". What are your thoughts on this? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would recommend taking a skim through, where this was all discussed at great length. I will add that there are many more sources in this article that verify that she has promoted conspiracy theories; the two you quote are specifically referring to the "Flynn was framed by the deep state" conspiracy theory. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence I take issue with is: "Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories". This sentence is not supported by any citation to a reliable source. And most specifically, we need a reliable source for the "numerous" qualifier. But to be clear: I am not claiming if numerous is true or not; but what I am saying is that we not have a reliable source which says that "numerous" is correct/factual/true. Rather, what I am saying is if we ourselves call what she did/did not do "numerous", without a citation, that's a WP:OR violation; and it's also a WP:BLP violation. The word numerous in this context adds pejorative weight and is clearly aimed at making her look like a kook. Such an editorial tone, if we are to take it (I think we should not) must be precisely cited on the exact accusation. But we have no citation to numerous and therefore, that word should be removed. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Those tiny, bracketed numbers you see in the text are called citations, and they support the text in question. 1) Flynn framed, 2) QAnon, 3) "deep state", 4) alleged Dominion election fraud. so yes, "numerous" is quite on point for the collection of conspiracy claims. ValarianB (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making my point. Your summary of her actions is your summary and as such, calling that summary "numerous" without citation to a reliable source which calls her actions "numerous" is your original research. Are you an expert on what is/is no "numerous" when it comes to advancing "conspiracy theories"? Have you been published in a reliable source? Are we citing you? No, no, no. Thus, even of you are convinced that the things listed are aptly described as conspiracy theories, the quantity you list (or any quantity) cannot be called "numerous" absent a citation to a reliable source which says that's what it is; numerous. The sentence at issue makes a specific allegation ("Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories") which in and of itself must be cited to a reliable source, else it's a WP:OR violation - and it's also a WP:BLP violation. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguing over how many conspiracies constitute "numerous" appears to be an exercise in pedantry to the point of absurdity. I'm reminded of a joke: "Is three a lot? Depends. A lot of macaroni noodles? Probably not. A lot of heart attacks? Yes." In the case of conspiracy theories, the number Powell has promoted is well above the norm for rational human beings, so it's safe to use the word "numerous." IHateAccounts (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with IHateAccounts and ValarianB here. The sourcing is more than adequate to say that she has "promoted numerous conspiracy theories". GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I second that emotion. A bit of common sense should be used here. The content is backed up by multiple RS. -- Valjean (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thirded. It's the RS themselves that say it, e.g. The Independent, Politico , and NBC News . Levivich harass/hound 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's good to see that we're now actually talking about citations. However, Politico is not reliable, neither is independent.co.uk. But NBC is and if that's what we are going to cite, then the sentence in question and the citation needs to be changed to comport the NBC article... Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All three are green at WP:RSP. Levivich harass/hound 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well cite on then - the current citations do not support the sentence in question Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to the earlier comment...um, no, counting things is not original research. 4+ conspiracy theories is "numerous", by any reasonable speaker of the English language. As for Politico and the Independent, they are both listed at WP:RSP as reliable sources. Why do you claim otherwise? ValarianB (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, merely counting is not; but the word "numerous" is a descriptor, not a number. If we have (let's say) 5 sources, all reliable, which each reliably tell us about a particular conspiracy theory which Ms. Powell advanced, then we can say "Ms. Powell has advanced at least 5 conspiracy theories". We can do this, because we are are not inventing a new fact. The number 5 is a fact, it exists on it's own and we show that, by linking to enough articles that a reader can add up to the number 5 from them. However, when we characterize that number as "numerous", now we are interjecting our own opinion as to the weight of the number. Myself, I think 10 or more conspiracy theories, all unfounded, all in a couple of years, might count as "numerous"; someone else, might think it's 3 or so. The original research is committed when we decide the threshold, when we make ourselves the arbiter of what should be considered "numerous" or not. Unless we are trying to say that every number is "numerous", then the effect of using that term is to suggest that the amount of theory-advancing Powell has done should be taken note of - that it's notable. But this is not an editorial decision; rather, we are setting a marker which we have no right to set. We need to find a reliable source which suggests that the number of theories advanced by Powell is sufficient that it's notable. If we fail to do that, we are indeed committing the WP violations I've listed above. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no violations. You can move on from this now. ValarianB (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just saying "There are no violations" does not address the points I raised. Please address the specifics of the alleged WP violations I referred to above. I read the policy pages, I think there are violations. Which is why I'm interested in your anlaysis, not your mere dismissal. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The analysis already occurred above, and we're squarely in the "no" stage now, sorry. ValarianB (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To my reading, your retorts have been more conclusory than explanatory (unless I missed something). But if I haven't, then this means you've not posted the elements of your analysis, so no, it's not occured yet. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"According to a Justice Department official, the Justice Department was not consulted about the pardon"
I read the article linked as our citation. The article says it was an "anonymous" official who they quoted. Q: Is an article a reliable source if it quotes a anonymous "official"? And if yes, shouldn't we be including in our article the word "anonymous"? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is; your question represents a common misunderstanding about what an "anonymous sourcing" is. An anonymous source is simply one who, by agreement of source and journalist, does not wish to be publicly identified. The source is not anonymous to the journalist. ValarianB (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not not at all. I know what the article claims; it claims the author consulted with a source, one which they claim wants to be anonymous. Now presuming that there actually is a source and the information is not fabricated, it still matters that we should mention that the source was anonymous. The cited article says the source was anonymous; so we should make sure we include that fact, that the source was anonymous. We do our readers a disservice if we omit the word "anonymous". Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. We trust reliable sources and their ability to properly vet sources, and we support their right, and in many cases their journalistic duty, to allow those sources to remain anonymous. We don't cast doubt on reliable sources by saying that they "claim" to have consulted with a source, and that they "claim" that the source wants to be anonymous. Reliable sources are, as the name might suggest, reliable. We do not second guess them, or seek to add language that insinuates otherwise. As stated above, the source is not anonymous to the journalist. To suggest, in Wikipedia's voice, that they were anonymous might imply, for instance, that the information comes from a truly anonymous source of unknown provenance. That is not the case. NonReproBlue (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, just wrong. If the RS says the source is anonymous, and it's a good enough source for us to cite to and quote from, then we ought to be including the full quote. Repeating a quote verbatim injects the least amount of Wiki "voice" into our article. True neutrality requires exactly that: verbatim quotes. Anything else, are we are editorializing by skewing the included information. The source is anonymous; the RS says it's anonymous; we ought to say it's anonymous. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Policy does not support your assertion. In fact, the manual of style directly states "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words". Neutrality requires that we accurately summarise what reliable sources say, and the current statement does that. NonReproBlue (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The operative word in your point is "accurately" and on that I agree. In fact, it's why we need to add the word "anonymous". Adding the word does not make the article less accurate, it makes it more accurate. You are arguing for a result (less accuracy) than your stated aim, which is accuracy. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I already explained why that is not the case, and don't particularly feel like repeating myself. Given that, and the fact that multiple editors have disagreed with you, I think this discussion has reached its logical conclusion. NonReproBlue (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just commenting to say that NonReproBlue is correct here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"ultimately lost four federal lawsuits"?
Is it accurate to say she "lost" a lawsuit for which there was no ruling on the merits? Seems to me, one only "loses" a lawsuit if there is an adverse ruling on the merits. A dismissal due to lack of standing or foreclosure for some other reason (laches, estoppel, etc), is not the same thing as losing on the merits. Do we have citations establishing that she "lost" cases? And for the number we claim? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The citations are in Sidney Powell. The lead summarizes the body of the article. Please see MOS:LEADCITE for questions about citations in the lead. Levivich harass/hound 06:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that's al well and good, but we are holding forth as true, a factual error; "lost four federal lawsuits". This is a factual error because she has not "lost" those suits, for the same reasons I stated above. Those cases were not heard on the merits; thus it's bad editing to say she "lost". It would be better to say "has so far, failed to prevail in four federal lawsuits". Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, your word salad is inappropriate (self-redacted -VB) . A loss is a loss, whether it comes after a lengthy trial or a dismissal on grounds. ValarianB (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, wrong. A lawsuit dismissed for lack of standing is not "lost"; the exact same fact set, alleged by a plaintiff with standing, might be heard. On one of the cases we list, our article admits that that laches barred bringing the suit. Now whither that's a correct ruling or not, it certainly says that the case was not heard. And a case which was not heard, is not "lost"; the suit might have failed, but the case was not "lost". By saying "lost" you imply that the meat of the allegations were defeated. Also, please retract your personal attack. Likening my comment to "word salad is demeaning - and it makes me feel bad. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not wrong. A case was filed, a case was not successful. This is why the media frequently makes mention of Donald Trump (as well as associates and those who have filed like-minded lawsuits) being 1-65. Whether a case was dismissed for lack of standing or they actually ruled on the merits, it is chalked up as a loss by reliable sources. We place a greater weight on reliable sources tan your own opinion on the matter. ValarianB (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Noting that now "Tondelleo" has gone to dishonestly edit warring on this talk page. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "HateAccounts"... what you just said about me is not true. I deleted your personal attack against me ("word salad"), and you then explained that I should not delete, but I should instead revert - which is also what you did. You reverted once and I reverted once. That's not an "edit war" Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A loss is a loss. There is no difference between "failed to prevail" and "lost". That is what the word "lost" means. There are many ways to lose a lawsuit, and having it tossed for lack of standing or laches or any other reason has the same result. Furthermore, and most importantly, "lost" is in line with the way it is described in reliable sources, which say things such as "Sidney Powell saw swift defeat in two cases Monday". The only sources claiming that there is a meaningful difference between losing on the merits and losing because or standing or laches are, as far as I can tell, partisan sources that do not meet our standards of reliability. If you have reliable sources indicating otherwise I would be interested to see them. Also note that, as explained here, laches qualify as a judgement on the merits with regards to the requirements of res judicata. NonReproBlue (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, if you enter a horse into the Kentucky Deby and he's scracthed before the race due to a failed drug test, he did not "lose" the race. If you are stopped from boarding onto a flight, because you are on the do no fly list, you did not "lose" your seat; rather, you never took your seat. If you file at a court to sue another party, and you do not get past laches, you are foreclosed from suing due to a preceding time limit which does not speak to the factual allegations in your suit. You did not "lose" yopur case; rather, you were procedurally barred from presenting your case. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you present reliable sources supporting that argument? Any challenge to what reliable sources say must come from other reliable sources, not editors' opinions or analogies. NonReproBlue (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Read this: "https://www.adamsdrafting.com/what-does-prevailing-party-mean-2/". The writer is an expert on law, and he says this "For purposes hereof, prevailing party means the party in whose favor final judgment, after appeal (if any), is rendered with respect to the claims asserted in any such action or proceeding.". The emphasis is mine, but the point is the same as what I've been saying; absent a ruling on the merits, there is no prevailing party. Claims which do not reach the evidence stage, are not ruled-on on the merits. The claims Powell has brought, those which were blocked by procedure, have never been heard on the merits. Thus, she has "failed to prevail" but she did not "lose" the disputes over the merits issues, which is what our article suggests. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are devolving into Whataboutism now. We are specifically discussing court cases, not horses or passenger flights. ValarianB (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not true. I am rebutting a false understanding of what the word "lost" means. For a contest to be "lost" there actually has to be a contest. In the airplane example, what was lost is the reservation, not the seat; they never took the seat, so the seat was not lost. In the horse race, the scratched horse was DQ'd; he never raced, so self-evidently, he did not lose the race. In court cases (litigation), if evidence is never presented, the dispute never reaches the contest phase. And if that's true, then res judicata does not apply. Only if res judicata applies, has a dispute been resolved with a loser and a winner. If a matter is not decided on the merits, it cannot be said that the case was "lost". Being barred from proceeding by laches, as some of the election cases have been, is not a decision on the merits. The same facts, argued by a party who can establish that the time constraints do not apply to them, might very well prevail. For example, in one of the major PA 2020 election lawsuits, the plaintiffs were barred from proceeding due to statutory proscribed time-limited litigation window. Thus the allegation that the statute in question is a PA state constitutional violation is not extinguished, even though original plaintiff was barred. In other words, the GOP actors in that litigation being deemed to have failed to meet the window, could not proceed. But another person, newly arrived in PA and discovering the alleged violation, likely could get a hearing. Why? Because they did not have prior notice of the window and you can't use statute to forever bar constitutional challenges. Eventually, always, for a constitutional challenge, someone must have standing; else the constitution in question is dead letter law, which it never can be. The point of this being, it's not so simple as you think it is and the word "lost" in regards to litigation, has a much more precise meaning than we are allowing for in our article. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A whole lot of WP:OR that does not match what the WP:RS coverage says, and is thus completely meaningless. Please stop sealioning and filibustering at this discussion. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To which I reply; this is the 2nd time now you have heaped ad hominem complaints against me, rather than evince that you seek to understand the distinction I am offering. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to propose a change to the article, please suggest it in the format of Change X to Y based on source(s) Z. I.e., "change 'lost' to [whatever] based on source(s) Z". I recommend linking to more than one source Z, and make sure they're reliable sources, not listed as yellow or red at WP:RSP. Levivich harass/hound 17:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've offered one already, near the top of this thread. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The suggested format is "Change X to Y based on source(s) Z". Levivich harass/hound 17:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do to find one which will satisfy the critics here, but I did post one above which clarifies this discussion. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your misunderstanding, but at no point in this discussion have you written anything along the lines of "Change X to Y per source Z". I know "X" is "lost", I have no idea what "Y" is, and if your source "Z" is the Adams on Contracts blog entry, that source (even assuming it qualifies as an expert-published WP:SPS, which it doesn't, because Adams is not a trial attorney and doesn't purport to be an expert on litigation) doesn't even address "lost" or dismissals, it addresses "prevailing party" as that term is used in certain boilerplate contract clauses, so it's not relevant to changing "lost". If you want to gain consensus for removing "lost" based on the argument that a plaintiff who has her case dismissed has not "lost" the case, then you'll want to find a source that actually says that, a source that actually uses the words "lost" and "dismissal". (By the way, you may want to learn about dismissals with prejudice and dismissals without prejudice, if you're going to argue about whether a dismissal is a loss.) Levivich harass/hound 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Levivich I understand just fine, so it's perhaps you who might want to shift your thinking. As for with/without prejudice, that's still not a matter of merits; that only means if something can be filed again (or not); it may have been withdrawn, it may have been procedurally blocked for a non-fatal reason, etc. And I disagree with your assessment of the source I cited; it's a terminology guide and it's very much sufficient for the purposes I've posted it. As for your false statement "but at no point in this discussion have you...", perhaps if you re-read this thread, you would see my suggestion, which is plain as day above. Instead of saying "ultimately lost four federal lawsuits", I suggested (and am trying to discuss) that we instead write ""has so far, failed to prevail in four federal lawsuits". Also, you do know that she's got several under appeal, yes? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, we're making progress! The suggested format is "Change X to Y based on sources Z". I'm glad we now have an "X" ("lost") and a "Y" ("so far, failed to prevail"), now all we need is that pesky "Z": reliable sources that say she "so far, failed to prevail". Levivich harass/hound 21:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If she prevails, we will write that she has. But we do not speculate on what might happen with terms like "so far"—we just write what has happened, which is that she has lost her lawsuits (or "failed to prevail", which is a much more awkward and wordy way to say "lost"). I'm a little surprised to see people pushing for "failed to prevail" as somehow a softer version of "lost"—I don't think writing that she has "failed" is kinder at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you unaware of the fact that at least (2) of the casdes she is involved in have not reached the end of the line, they are not over? See |this and |this. And if they are still active cases, she has not "lost" them. Would you at least agree that this is true, that a case which is not over, has not been "lost"? If there are extant cases of hers which do not yet have a final disposition (and there are), then it's far more truthful to say "has so far, failed to prevail". Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is change "lost" to "has so far, failed to prevail" based on? Levivich harass/hound 04:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly; yes, that's what I am suggesting. Or, we could also get some better citations, if mine are not sufficient Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't so much the sources, it's that they don't say "failed to prevail". A bigger problem is that you're engaged in "backwards editing": you have something you want the article to say (failed to prevail, or didn't lose yet, or whatever), and you're looking for sources that say it. That's the wrong way to go about it. "Forwards editing", aka the right way, is to first look at what the sources say, and then summarize them, with no preconceived notion about what the article should say, and not looking for sources that say what we think the article should say. The sources say the cases were dismissed, and two are on appeal, e.g. . FWIW I'd be fine with changing the lead to say "dismissed" instead of "lost" (dismissed is more specific) and to say that two of the cases are pending appeal (which is already in the body). Levivich harass/hound 16:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Forwards editing: "I was reading source Z, and it doesn't say X, it says Y, so we should change X to Y."
 * Backwards editing: "I think X is wrong, it should be Y, let me go find a source Z that backs me up..." Levivich harass/hound 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of those sources seem to be discussing appeals. Appeals are attempts to overturn a loss, and are filed by the losing party. Nothing about her filing an appeal would mean that she had not previous lost. In fact, by definition, she must have lost in order to appeal. Unlike the unrelated analogies to horse racing and plane seating, this one is part of the actual definition of the legal term. "Appeal – A request made after a trial by a party that has lost". The fact that she is appealing is itself proof that "lost" is the correct phrasing. NonReproBlue (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's only the correct phrasing if we want to confuse our readers, which evidently some here are ok with. How so? Because the case is not over until the appeals are over. Thus the case is itself is not lost. A loss while the case is still alive is not final, until appeals are exhausted. Thus, a case is not "lost" until all possible losses take place. What you are evidently confused about is the plain fact that it can easily take multiple losses before a case is lost, depending on appeals. So, per your own admission, two of those cases are not yet "lost". My suggested phrasing is both legally and semantically correct; yours is not. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * TBH, there's only one confused reader here. The arguments have been exhausted on this particular topic, as there does not appear to be consensus for this proposal. ValarianB (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tondelleo Schwarzkopf, I count 4 editors who have disagreed with you, and none who seem to think your suggestions have any merit. I suppose, counting myself, it's 5.  Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Addition to the opening sentence.
Clearly there has been a lot of back and forth with this article and the lead so I wanted to get feedback before making any edits. I think her work on the Enron defense and defense of Michall Flynn should be added to the opening sentence.
 * ''Sidney Katherine Powell (born 1955)[1] is an American attorney and former federal prosecutor, best known for her defense of Enron executives, defense of Gen Michael Flynn and promotion of conspiracy theories in attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.

While she certainly is best know for the election related things, she was known prior to that. Springee (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would say that while she's well known for the Enron and Flynn cases, those aren't what she's best known for—which are her 2020 election-related activities, like you mention. So I think having Enron and Flynn in the very next paragraph, and keeping the first sentence about the 2020 election, is the right amount of prominence in the lead for each. DanCherek (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What about removing "best". This one sentence shows up in Google searches so it's private best to be a bit more including on its content. Springee (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest "well known for her defense of... and more recently her defense of..." Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support just using "known for" rather than "best" or "well known", regardless of whether Enron/Flynn is added. It is hard to firmly establish precisely what someone is best known for, whereas determining what someone is known for is fairly straightforward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. The relative importance of her prior work is appropriately covered in the 2nd graf. soibangla (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Should this be included?
I was about to add this bold part, but I thought I'd run it by others first. This is her BLP, but this broader context is important.

Incidentally, note the Q on her vest: https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1399786885472571392

soibangla (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2021
remove "in order to undermine public confidence in the democratic process". There is no evidence that was her motive, intention, or objective. 156.68.202.199 (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Judge Parker: the case "was about undermining the people’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so." soibangla (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Proof reading
It looks as if some clumsy editing left a superfluous "filed" lying around... "... namely filing filed baseless, frivolous lawsuits"
 * ✅ soibangla (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Image Quality
Are there any higher quality photos of Powell in the public domain? This has a screenshot of a YouTube video and probably doesn't fit MOS:IMAGEQUALITY... 71.172.39.63 (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Smartmatic allegations against Powell
The article correctly states that "In March 2022 a New York State Supreme Court judge dismissed the Smartmatic allegations against Powell." But the linked articled states that ..."judge said an alleged misstatement by Pirro was not defamatory, and he lacked jurisdiction over claims against Powell." so it seems to me that adding ("citing lack of jurisdiction over claims against Powell") would be more appropriate. I can't edit the page, but someone else might be. Jabaxu (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please make an "edit request" for the text you propose. The documentation is at this link  SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s still 2023!
October 19 2023 - not 2024. Please make a correction. Dezz777 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * by  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023
She “allegedly” attempted to overturn the 2020 election. She’s presumed innocent until proven guilty 212.123.202.115 (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Her actions are undeniable. Whether or not those actions will result in criminal culpability is a separate matter. Zaathras (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So she's still not guilty. Take off "conspiracy theorist" unless you intend to give proof every 2020 election had no errors. 2600:387:15:1D13:0:0:0:B (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)