User talk:Martha SL

To whom it may concern:

Please be advised that Wikipedia has serious credibility issues with the bio of Sidney Powell. While I'm no fan of Pres. Trump and have never voted for him, I am a fan of objective, impartial, verifiable truth. This bio contains statements about this individual which cites articles as proof of the truth of the matter asserted therein. Those are not reliable sources of the truth. And in some instances, biased, unproven statements like "baselessly accused" don't even have a source. All it should say, as an example, is "Powell has also asserted that . . . candidates have paid bribes to . . ." To be thorough, the reasons for the various dismissals should be quoted from the respective judges' decisions.

In America's current culture, every single industry. . . entertainment, financial, technology, about 90% of the press, etc. .. . is controlled and populated by Trump-haters. I've discovered that the only goal of these industries and individuals is to punish, humiliate, blame, and destroy President Trump and deny him the right to exist and any semblance of dignity as a human being.

As part of this goal, I've also discovered that 90% of the press has engaged in blatant censorship (see study by Harvard Kennedy School regarding extent of negative news coverage of Trump and similar studies via Google) and propaganda (editorializing that tells people what to think). Heck, Facebook and Twitter now admit to it. Therefore, it is irresponsible to use articles that are mostly written in pursuit of that goal. They can be listed for reference if anyone wants to research this individual further, but they cannot be used as proof of the matters asserted.

Writers of these articles can write anything they want. Nobody is verifying or confirming their truth. And it's not as though this bio is using more solid sources relied on in these article. Only the articles are cited, not any source that writer used for confirmation of the truth.

I know this is hard for people to understand. Trump has a boatload of flaws and lies as a matter of course, so everyone thinks they're justified in saying and writing all the negative about him they desire. But, that is not the purpose of the press, who has betrayed every one of us in failing to provide us with objective, impartial investigating and reporting, and it's not the purpose of an encyclopedia.

Everything Trump haters do and say is controlled by their hate and disdain for this man. Under those circumstances, nothing that comes out of that can be trusted as valid. That's what they've done to our ability to trust a most sacred institution, the press, and now it appears that it's possible this may even include our other sacred institution, the judiciary. This is because a complaint doesn't need a lot of evidence; that's what discovery is for, so a complaint needs to be treated as true and viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, with conflicts or questions being resolved in favor of the plaintiff (FRCP (12)(6)(b)).

Unless the complaint is as ridiculous and frivolous as one based on a paper cut injury, these courts should be granting "expedited" discovery (Ibid), which opens the door to dismissal if it doesn't produce enough substantive evidence to go forward. In the case of the 2020 election that includes access to the machines. That so many are not is particularly suspicious.

COMPARISON: Wikipedia refuses to accept that my grandfather is a co-founder of NAPA because documentation is his obituary written back when the newspaper kept files on prominent citizens; their claim is that it could have been written by the family (who are obviously biased and can't be trusted? --- a little unfair don't ya think when there's other documentation showing he owned an auto after-market business from 1920 until he sold it to Genuine Parts in the early 1960s).

So, to compare: Even though the family and local newspaper back in 1971 both know for certain what role he played in the creation of what began as a professional organization in 1925, Wikipedia refuses to permit its inclusion NAPA's bio, it's okay to assert matters that no one has proven and, in fact, haven't even reached a conclusion? If you're going to do that, then you must at least post under NAPA that "Alten Frank Baxter allegedly co-founded the organization with two other auto after-market businessmen" or that "there's some evidence indicating . . . but it's not certain." Without it, NAPA's history is incomplete.

If Wikipedia is to be respected, its contributors must also improve the quality of their writing (sorry, but what I've read on this site is riddled with errors) and the veracity of what they write. Some of the writing is so poor that readers can't determine what the writer is trying to say.

Lastly, it says the bio was last edited in July, 2020, yet it lists articles posted in November, 2020. I would think that date would automatically change when someone adds data.

Please advise when possible. Thank you.

Martha S. Lyon Martha SL (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)