IHateAccounts (talk | contribs) |
AleatoryPonderings (talk | contribs) →Objection to closure: Replying to IHateAccounts (using reply-link) |
||
Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
:{{re|IHateAccounts}} They also struck their comment shortly after (and before I saw the ping–I was largely [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=GorillaWarfare&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2020-12-19&end=2020-12-23&limit=100&title=Special%3AContributions 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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 18:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
:{{re|IHateAccounts}} They also struck their comment shortly after (and before I saw the ping–I was largely [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=GorillaWarfare&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2020-12-19&end=2020-12-23&limit=100&title=Special%3AContributions 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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 18:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
::{{reply|GorillaWarfare}} Given that the closer suggested on their talk page that I ask you to reconsider, consider this the formal request. Also, same request to {{reply|AleatoryPonderings}}, {{reply|MelanieN}}, {{reply|Qexigator}} (since Powell's lawsuits have now been thrown out of every possible court and thoroughly debunked), and {{reply|Chetsford}} as I believe those were the other individuals that {{reply|ProcrastinatingReader}} referred to in their talkpage suggestion. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 19:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
::{{reply|GorillaWarfare}} Given that the closer suggested on their talk page that I ask you to reconsider, consider this the formal request. Also, same request to {{reply|AleatoryPonderings}}, {{reply|MelanieN}}, {{reply|Qexigator}} (since Powell's lawsuits have now been thrown out of every possible court and thoroughly debunked), and {{reply|Chetsford}} as I believe those were the other individuals that {{reply|ProcrastinatingReader}} referred to in their talkpage suggestion. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 19:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::{{u|IHateAccounts}}, 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 [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/21/sidney-powell-conspiracy-theorist-white-house], [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-voter-fraud.html], and [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-sidney-powell-special-counsel-election-b1776748.html], among others. [[User:AleatoryPonderings|AleatoryPonderings]] ([[User talk:AleatoryPonderings|'''???''']]) ([[Special:Contributions/AleatoryPonderings|'''!!!''']]) 19:48, 29 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. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:39, 29 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. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:48, 29 December 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RfC: Describing Powell as conspiracy theorist?
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
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)
- 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)
- Support, I think CozyandDozy makes a strong case, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources describe her as such. Sources:
- Marketwatch [1] "Trump campaign attempts to distance from conspiracy-theorist lawyer Sidney Powell"
- Forbes [2] "Trump Campaign Cuts Ties With Lawyer Sidney Powell Who Promoted Wild Election Fraud Conspiracy Theories"
- Forbes again [3] "Who Is Sidney Powell? Meet Trump’s New Top Conspiracy Theorist."
- Daily Beast [4] "Trump Campaign Disavows Its Own Election-Conspiracy Lawyer"
- The Independent [5] "Donald Trump’s legal team has distnaced itself from attorney Sidney Powell after she spread wild conspiracy theories about election fraud."
- New York Times [6] "The president’s allies quickly closed ranks behind Sidney Powell and her pro-Trump conspiracy theory, accusing the Fox host of betrayal."
- Washington Post [7] "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
* Oppose: per GorillaWarfare. 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”[8] 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]"[9] --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)
- 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)
- 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 , [10], as well as something that looks like WP:CANVASSING... [11]) 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)
- 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)
- 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 IHateAccounts 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)
- @Qexigator:
- 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" [12]. Why are you claiming that Wikipedia is somehow obligated to ignore this and treat her error-riddled [13] [14] [15] 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)
- @Qexigator:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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'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'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. Associated Press (November 23, 2020). "Trump campaign cuts ties with attorney Sidney Powell after bizarre election fraud claims". The Guardian.
Powell made multiple incorrect statements about the election voting process, unspooled complex conspiracy theories and vowed to "blow up" Georgia with a "biblical" lawsuit
.
- 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. "South Ayrshire Golf club owner loses 2020 presidential election". Ayrshire Daily News. November 7, 2020. 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 trueGiant-DwarfsTalk 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
notorietynotability. 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[16] less than a day ago. And according to NYT[17], 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 "her legal and public career outside of the election disputes doesn't support a conspiracy theory claim" 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)
- @Liz: She was a member of the Trump team... until she wasn't. [18] "“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) [19]. 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)
- 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)
- 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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources explains a lot. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:42, 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'm not sure what you mean by this comment, or by the comment
- 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)
- But Trump says she doesn't represent him or his campaign. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 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)
- 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 GorillaWarfare, MelanieN and others if subsequent reporting such as above and this[20] 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 [21] 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)[1] is an American attorney and former federal prosecutor who is known for peddling conspiracy theories related to the 2020 United States presidential election.[2]"
It does not directly reference as "conspiracy theorist", which can still be discussed since many Wikipedia: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)
- @Kiteinthewind: 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 oppose "peddling". "Promoting" sounds more neutral to me. Also, since the RfC does not seem near consensus, this wording could not constitute a
- @IHateAccounts:@AleatoryPonderings: 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)[3] is an American attorney and former federal prosecutor who is known primarily for promoting conspiracy theories related to the 2020 United States presidential election.[4]"
- 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, SupportGiant-DwarfsTalk 15:03, 6 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)
- That is good. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Kiteinthewind: would you be ok with Soibangla's suggestion? IHateAccounts (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Powell, Sidney K." Archived from the original on November 20, 2020. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
- ^ Choi, Inyoung (November 28, 2020). "Meet Sidney Powell, the former federal prosecutor turned conspiracy theorist who's fueling baseless claims about election fraud". Business Insider. Retrieved November 30, 2020.
- ^ "Powell, Sidney K." Archived from the original on November 20, 2020. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
- ^ Choi, Inyoung (November 28, 2020). "Meet Sidney Powell, the former federal prosecutor turned conspiracy theorist who's fueling baseless claims about election fraud". Business Insider. Retrieved November 30, 2020.
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)
- (edit conflict)Noting as well a few things that came up when I questioned 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 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)
- 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.
- 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 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)
- 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 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)
@GorillaWarfare: 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)
- @IHateAccounts: 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)
- @GorillaWarfare: Given that the closer suggested on their talk page that I ask you to reconsider, consider this the formal request. Also, same request to @AleatoryPonderings:, @MelanieN:, @Qexigator: (since Powell's lawsuits have now been thrown out of every possible court and thoroughly debunked), and @Chetsford: as I believe those were the other individuals that @ProcrastinatingReader: referred to in their talkpage suggestion. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- IHateAccounts, 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 [22], [23], and [24], among others. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: Given that the closer suggested on their talk page that I ask you to reconsider, consider this the formal request. Also, same request to @AleatoryPonderings:, @MelanieN:, @Qexigator: (since Powell's lawsuits have now been thrown out of every possible court and thoroughly debunked), and @Chetsford: as I believe those were the other individuals that @ProcrastinatingReader: referred to in their talkpage suggestion. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:43, 29 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)
Smartlazy's edits
@Smartlazy:, please engage here and propose your edits for discussion, rather than trying to insert WP:FRINGE content against consensus. Three different editors have reverted you and it is obvious you do not currently have consensus for your insertion. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
MSN article is actually WashExam
a dubious source for such topics, which says "She appeared on Fox Business host Lou Dobbs's show on Monday to reveal how a Venezuelan "whistleblower," who she says was a high-ranking military official"
but she has not identified the individual. Smartlazy, have you seen recent developments about retractions on Dobb's, Pirro's and Bartiromo's shows, largely due to claims Powell has made?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sidney_Powell&diff=996004660&oldid=996004474
soibangla (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also, "Geller Report" as a source? Literally "a website known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories." IHateAccounts (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The Argument against calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" is now obsolete
The original debate in the RfC, over whether Powell should be labeled a "conspiracy theorist," was based on a semantical argument about whether one who is known for promoting conspiracy theories can be described as a "conspiracy theorist." Specifically, proponents of excluding "conspiracy theorist" from Sidney Powell's description (such as User:GorillaWarfare)) argued that sources didn't explicitly call her a "conspiracy theorist," but merely a promoter of conspiracy theories. They grounded their objection in this regard in MOS:LABEL, and this was also the policy User:ProcrastinatingReader invoked when he closed the RfC.
However, while this argument may have been valid when the RfC began (on November 23rd), it is now clearly erroneous. Simply put: MOS:LABEL, and the semantical debate about the difference between a habitual promoter of conspiracy theories and a conspiracy theorist, is now irrelevant. Because, now, a copious number of RS refer to Powell explicitly as a "conspiracy theorist."
Here are some very recent examples, all of which were written within the last 10 days, in which RS explicitly call Powell a "conspiracy theorist" (emphasis mine in all examples):
- "The lawyer and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell was back at the White House on Sunday night" (The Guardian, 21, Dec 2020)
- "In a statement to Fox News on Tuesday, Pro-Trump attorney and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell said she has been barred from interacting with President Trump" (Forbes, Dec 22, 2020).
- "The meeting . . . included lawyer and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell" (New York Magazine, Dec 19, 2020).
- "President Donald Trump told advisors that he is considering appointing the far right attorney and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate allegations of fraud in the 2020 election." (CNBC, Dec 20, 2020).
- "Trump considered appointing conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as DOJ ‘special counsel’ on voter fraud." (The Independent, Dec 20, 2020).
- "Trump Sought to Tap Conspiracy Theorist Sidney Powell as Special Counsel on Voter Fraud." (Slate, Dec 19, 2020)
- "Trump mulls new election gambits as conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell returns to White House." (NY Daily News, Dec 21, 2020).
- "The president considered appointing conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel before aides talked him out of it." (ABC News, Dec 19, 2020).
- "President Trump met Friday with lawyer and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell and discussed placing her in charge of a federal investigation of the election he recently lost, news outlets reported Saturday." (Washington Times, Dec 19, 2020).
This is just a sampling.
The argument that Gorilla and others made against the "conspiracy theorist" addition was presented in good faith and with reference to policy; but it is now completely obsolete, since copious RS now call her a "conspiracy theorist" explicitly. CozyandDozy (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Cozy. I'm sorry, I didn't get your ping here (Special:Diff/996936297 didn't include your signature, so Echo doesn't send out ping notifications), but I've noticed your comment whilst I was amending my close above. The new close should give you a route forward on wording which did have consensus. Does this help?
- I think it's outside of my remit as closer to analyse the sourcing myself. Rather, I believe my role to be to analyse what other editors thought with what was on the page. I've more fully expanded on this at a concern raised on my talk. I also mention a route forward (other than starting a new RfC) if you believe this wording is better than the one there was a consensus on, but I cannot guarantee what result it will produce. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- @CozyandDozy: I've reverted your change to the article because the closing rationale is quite clear: "Ultimately there is no consensus in this discussion to label the subject as a "conspiracy theorist", which means that the label should be removed." What was the point of starting a whole RfC about this if you were just going to come back and make the change anyway, against the closer's judgment and with no new consensus? Start a new discussion to reach explicit consensus to introduce the label in the first sentence if you like, but in the meantime it should not be there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:GorillaWarfare, the point was that the rationale on which the closer relied is no longer valid. I'm not going to edit war, but circumstances/the RS basis for calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" have changed since I opened the RfC. I pinged both of you here in hopes of getting you to see things my way; if you still don't, I'm disappointed, but am not going to edit war. CozyandDozy (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I said in my edit summary: if you disagree with their close, take it up with them or at dispute resolution. If anyone who disagreed with an RfC closure could just ignore the close to implement their preferred revision, what would be the point of RfCs at all? I can see that some sources are indeed being stronger in their descriptors, so you might have a basis for a new discussion, but that doesn't change that the previous RfC did not establish consensus to include the descriptor in the lead sentence. It's also worth noting that the full paragraph starting "Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories" is still in the lead, as it ought to be–it's not as if the RfC removed any mention of her conspiracy theories from the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I just don't attach the same weight to formalistic concerns (like the 'closing' of an RfC) as you do, Gorilla. Perhaps this stems from my youth and inexperience, although you also appear young in your profile pic. Anyway, as I said, the stated basis for closing the RfC (WP:MOS) is now erroneous in light of new RS mentions of Powell; as I say, this substantive concern about a blatantly erroneous (though good faith) basis for closure should matter more than a basically technical one. But I will not edit war to enact this change. CozyandDozy (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know why my age, or yours, is relevant here. It's not the job of closers of RfCs to review all available sourcing themselves–that would effectively be a supervote. Closers simply evaluate the opinions expressed at the RfC and articulate the overall consensus. If sources shift during the RfC and that needs to be taken into account, that should be brought to the attention of those who have participated in the discussion so they can re-review their !vote. From what I can see, these new sources were not mentioned at all during the RfC, but now the closer is getting flak for somehow not considering them, which is unfair to them.
- Since that didn't happen, a new discussion is necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- The allusion to my youth and callow temperament was, of course, an attempt to candidly acknowledge my own vulnerabilities and shortcomings, in hopes of making my criticism of the closer's conduct less personal and judgmental. But I concede I should have never brought you into it, and will stick to my scrupulously respectful prior tone with you (referring to you only as "Gorilla" or "Miss/Missus/Ms. Gorilla"). CozyandDozy (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Gorilla", "GorillaWarfare", "GW", etc. are fine, no honorifics are needed... GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- The allusion to my youth and callow temperament was, of course, an attempt to candidly acknowledge my own vulnerabilities and shortcomings, in hopes of making my criticism of the closer's conduct less personal and judgmental. But I concede I should have never brought you into it, and will stick to my scrupulously respectful prior tone with you (referring to you only as "Gorilla" or "Miss/Missus/Ms. Gorilla"). CozyandDozy (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I just don't attach the same weight to formalistic concerns (like the 'closing' of an RfC) as you do, Gorilla. Perhaps this stems from my youth and inexperience, although you also appear young in your profile pic. Anyway, as I said, the stated basis for closing the RfC (WP:MOS) is now erroneous in light of new RS mentions of Powell; as I say, this substantive concern about a blatantly erroneous (though good faith) basis for closure should matter more than a basically technical one. But I will not edit war to enact this change. CozyandDozy (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I said in my edit summary: if you disagree with their close, take it up with them or at dispute resolution. If anyone who disagreed with an RfC closure could just ignore the close to implement their preferred revision, what would be the point of RfCs at all? I can see that some sources are indeed being stronger in their descriptors, so you might have a basis for a new discussion, but that doesn't change that the previous RfC did not establish consensus to include the descriptor in the lead sentence. It's also worth noting that the full paragraph starting "Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories" is still in the lead, as it ought to be–it's not as if the RfC removed any mention of her conspiracy theories from the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:GorillaWarfare, the point was that the rationale on which the closer relied is no longer valid. I'm not going to edit war, but circumstances/the RS basis for calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" have changed since I opened the RfC. I pinged both of you here in hopes of getting you to see things my way; if you still don't, I'm disappointed, but am not going to edit war. CozyandDozy (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- @CozyandDozy: I've reverted your change to the article because the closing rationale is quite clear: "Ultimately there is no consensus in this discussion to label the subject as a "conspiracy theorist", which means that the label should be removed." What was the point of starting a whole RfC about this if you were just going to come back and make the change anyway, against the closer's judgment and with no new consensus? Start a new discussion to reach explicit consensus to introduce the label in the first sentence if you like, but in the meantime it should not be there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Also consider a location below the first sentence where it might fit. The bottom of the lead makes it sound a bit like an afterthought. Also, without the label "theorist", the language from the end of the lead might easily go in the first paragraph after the current opening. The RfC was only about the label. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps a better discussion for a separate section, but I also think the third and fourth lead paragraphs ought to be combined somehow into a more cohesive, single paragraph about both the Trump lawsuit involvement and the conspiracies. Right now the fourth paragraph reads as somewhat redundant. I wonder if ordering the lead in reverse chrono order might help as far as properly weighting the information is concerned? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's a good start. Her notability is related to the recent past, not to her legal career. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)