Talk:Judicial Watch

Old uncategorized discussions

They're supposed to have put the video on their web site, but the site's totally down. Anyone aware of mirrors that would be suitable to put in External Links? Mbac 17:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, before someone makes the edit to the factual statements on the page, has any one actually seen this video?, I know I certainly have not..... (66.65.153.248 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

BBC has the video on their website [1]. Edwin Stearns | Talk 19:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm changing the description in the article. I dhave no clue what that video shows. All it is is the Pentagon security camera footage from the morning of 9/11. It is leading to state what occurs in the video in the description. (ImagoDei 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

I've watched both videos. They are apparently the two cameras at a drive-through security gate. You can even see a security car pass through. One camera is closer, but is partially blinded by lens flare from the sun. The second camera presumably includes the "housing" for the closer camera in its wider view. Since these are both security cameras, they apparently only record a few frames (if not ONE frame) per second, which is unfortunate. The "object" appears in both videos for ONE frame. Frame (01:26 / 03:11) in Video 1 and frame (00:24 / 03:22) in Video 2. It appears to be white. It appears to be nearly touching the ground. That's about all I can say about the two videos. Not very convincing. Judicial Watch's goal was to dispel conspiracy theories about what hit the Pentagon, but these videos really do not help their cause. I have serious doubts this is the best video the Pentagon has. --LPsiPhi 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

On reviewing (12/26/2006) Judicial Watch submissions on YouTube.com regarding the Pentagon 9/11 Flight 77 impact, I was struck by the fact that this group which espouses "openness of information" would disable the ability of other users to submit comments, as per usual YouTube practice, either to support or to question Judicial Watch conclusions and inferences. In the larger context of alleged US government infiltration by New World Order factions, I strongly urge all USA and international viewers to closely scrutinize all so-called "think tanks" for the ways in which they distribute information and/or disinformation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Codevictim (talk • contribs)

This article is a train wreck. There is nothing neutral about the very first sentence, which fails to acknowledge the character of the group, which is in no way nonpartisan. In fact, as the article attempts to yoke together 'nonpartisan' and 'politically conservative,' we have a chimera, or if you prefer an oxymoron. The section titled Positions is also a joke. I guess this is another one of those articles that is unsalvageable because of permanent policing of the language by those supposed "nonpartisans." Disappointing. Actio (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wording

My editorial change was to conform introductory description to Judicial Watch's own mission statement. Undoing it as an act in retaliation to my edit work on the ACLU is a violation of WP:POINT. You can make your case here without doing so. If the ACLU's self-described purpose is good enough for the ACLU article, so too the Judicial Watch self-described purpose is sufficient for this article on Judicial Watch. C08040804 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusing me of the same thing you did on the ACLU article won't get you anywhere. What you did was rip out an entire section. What I did was restore a citation you deleted and incorporate your changes in the intro while fixing them to insure proper reference formatting and copyright compliance. That's proper Wikipedia editing, and accusing me of malfeasances for fixing your mistakes is a non-starter. Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you restored a citation, but it is a citation to the Nation, a publication that does not have a neutral point of view and is hostile to Judicial Watch. What you did was restore the introductory sentence of this article offering the Nation's description of Judicial Watch. If I changed the introductory sentence of the ACLU article to offer the National Review's description of the ACLU and then cited to a National Review article, you'd be all over me for non-neutral point of view. Your claim of a copyright problem is also a non-starter. Rather than have a continual battle, why don't we agree to put the introductory paragraph of Judicial Watch on the same playing field as the ACLU--that is, just as the intro paragraph of the ACLU describes the ACLU in accordance with the ACLU's web page, so to the Judicial Watch's introductory paragraph should describe Judicial Watch in accordane with the Judicial Watch's webpage. Why is this not reasonable? C08040804 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You may find it amusing to parrot phrases I use back at me, but you might want to first make sure what you are saying actually makes sense. I clearly identified the copyright problem to you. When you take words from other sources, you must put them in quotation marks, otherwise you are passing it off as your own writing and thus it is plagiarism and a copyright violation. I took the time to fix the mess you made and there was no need for you to remove the work I did (as well as the references I corrected) other than blind, thoughtless reverting. We take such policy violations very seriously on Wikipedia, and if you continue to make these sorts of edits, you will be reverted, and if you persist, you will be blocked. While I think I've pretty clearly pointed out to you what the problem was, if you really don't understand, ask instead of insisting there is no problem, and I will assist you. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the content of the article, I've made a minor change which I think will satisfy your concerns. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The changes that you made still leave the very opening phrase of the article describing Judicial Watch according to an editorial in the Nation, a publication that does not have a neutral point of view and is hostile to Judicial Watch. Accordingly, I have removed the reference. C08040804 (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You initially complained about the placement in the initial sentence and the initial paragraph. I moved the reference from both of those locations. Now you want to delete it entirely. This is not acceptable. The Nation qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia policies and what is taken from the source is a simple statement of fact, cooberated by other statements and sources in the article, and not an ideological judgment. Also, note that you've by removing the reference and making no effort to fix the <ref> tags dependent on that reference, you've broken reference links later in the article. See Wikipedia:Footnotes before you remove references in this or other articles again. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is neutral point of view, not reliable source. A critical liberal editorial in The Nation does not qualify as a Neutral Point of View in describing Judicial Watch any more than National Review would qualify as a Neutral Point of View in describing the ACLU. It is not a simple statement of fact just because the Nation said it. The phrase "American government watchdog organization" ideologically implies that the organization is somehow connected to the government. Using the Wikipedia:Footnotes policy to justify inclusion of information in the very first paragraph that comes from a non neutral point of view goes against the very heart of what Wikipedia is all about. If you continue to make these sorts of edits, I will definitely report you and take you to arbitration if necessary. C08040804 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if your problem has been with the phrase "American government watchdog organization", then why didn't you say so earlier. I have no problem altering that phrase, and I think it's kind of awkwardly phrased anyway. I am not using the footnotes policy to "justify" anything, I'm telling you that you are breaking the footnotes and you need to fix them or you need to stop breaking them. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem is not simply the phrase "American government watchdog organization", but all references to the Nation's non-neutral point of view in the basic portions of the article describing the organization and its personnel. I am working on some changes and will endeavor to fix the footnotes in doing so. This will also involve editing the personnel and/or creating a policy section so it is described according to Judicial Watch's website--similar to how the introduction and policy sections of the ACLU is described in the ACLU's own words, not the words of its critics. Of course, I do not have a problem with putting separate criticism sections in the Judicial Watch article citing to the Nation editorial, provided they are labeled as such and cite reliable sources, just as I think a criticism section in the ACLU article would also be appropriate. C08040804 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the statement sourced to The Nation is not "criticism", but a simple statement of fact. Gamaliel (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the statements attributed to the Nation are not simple statements of fact just because you and the Nation say so. C08040804 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Klayman founded Judicial Watch in 1994.", which you removed from the article, is not a simple statement of fact? The Nation is a reliable source according to Wikipedia policies. You must come up with a similarly reliable source to dispute this information, you simply can't declare I don't like it. I agree with some of the changes (we don't need the key personnel bios, for example), but you have removed too much and I'm going to restore some of it in a different fashion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to deploy inapplicable warning templates or revert my edits. My edits contained factual information from a reliable source. There is no justification for removing them. I have made every effort to accommodate your wishes and suggestions, many of which were reasonable, but you simply can't delete information because you don't like it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the circumstance, I'm inclined to agree with Gamaliel. It appears that C08040804 is more bothered by The Nation, not the content of the article itself. Every time his concern is addressed, it morphs into something else. I don't see the discussion moving forward from here... just seems more disruptive than productive. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

funding

Its mentioned in both the lead in a subsection and is all attributed to one less than neutral source. Could this be combined, or could the entire funding section be eliminated or at least rewritten? CENSEI (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the first funding mention is directly tied to the specific project the group remains best known for, it makes sense to leave it there, as well as have a funding section. However, funding probably should come after activities, and those should be chronological. Carol Moore 11:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Removing

Obviously not NPOV statement "It should be noted that the Judicial Watch does not present facts, but uses inductive reasoning. The website does not always give sources for quotes, and is obviously not bipartisan."

Gtbob12 (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonpartisan?

What's wrong with saying that Judicial Watch is nonpartisan? It's supported by the CNN source and not contradicted by any other sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably because its sole focus is on "watching" what the Democratic Party does while virtually ignoring the Republicans. Can't get more partisan than that --108.0.215.194 (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Judicial Watch is nonpartisan both technically (registered with IRS as 501c3) and in practice by suing both Republicans & Democrats - as well as corporations. ResearchAmerica (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Judicial Watch is highly partisan in every sense except its tax status. http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2016/8/30/meet-the-tax-exempt-nonprofit-behind-the-corrupt-hillary-nar.html http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/02/meet-judicial-watch-a-driving-force-behind-the/205941 I am therefore deleting the word "nonpartisan" from the opening paragraph. I'm leaving the rest of the article alone, even though it is a one-sided promotion that was probably edited by surrogates. Cerberus (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those sources is RS. See: Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is equivocation. In ordinary speech "partisan" means "in favor of one party rather than the other". Which JW is. But in the specific context of non-profits "non-partisan" means "not directly affiliated with with either political party". The ACLU is non-partisan in that sense. The problem is that the two meanings can be easily confused.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Exactly right. There is no ordinary meaning in which JW can be considered nonpartisan. Using the term nonpartisan misleads the ordinary reader. To quote the Wikipedian entry on [nonpartisanism]: "Some organizations claiming to be nonpartisan are truly such; others are nominally nonpartisan (for reasons of law or public perception) but closely follow the policies of a political party." Instead of removing the incorrect adjective "nonpartisan" from the introduction, as I believe should be done since it is very misleading, I will follow the usage in the Wikipedia entry and change it to "nominally nonpartisan". However, I believe it would be bettter to simply remove the adjective "nonpartisan" as misleading. Perhaps a discussion of the controversy over its nonpartisan status would be appropriate later in the article. Cerberus (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Cerberus, an organization can be both nonparisan (not aligning itself with any political party) and ideologically conservative at the same time. Citing sources that say JW is conservative doesn't show any conflict among the sources about the group's partisan/nonpartisan alignment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman Please read the Wikipedia entry on [nonpartisanism]. To quote: "Some organizations claiming to be nonpartisan are truly such; others are nominally nonpartisan (for reasons of law or public perception) but closely follow the policies of a political party." The sources do not simply say that JW is "conservative". To quote Inside Philanthropy: 'If there ever was a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” Judicial Watch is a card-carrying member.' Cerberus (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but CNN says JW is nonpartisan, and no reliable source says otherwise, including Inside Philanthropy. No source says JW is "nominally" nonpartisan (which is why I've reverted that addition). That's how our policies on verifiability and neutrality work. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There are sources which called them "conservative" [2] [3] though, which as far as providing a service to our readers goes, is more accurate because it avoids the equivocation explained above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, that's why our article says JW is a conservative, nonpartisan organization. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

True. I'm just thinking if there's a better way of doing it without having to explain what "nonpartisan" really means in this context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It does seem to come up over and over again in various articles about non-profits and think tanks. But I don't think there's much that can be done, what with the available sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman and Volunteer Marek I am finding this discussion to approach the absurd. JW cannot considered nonpartisan by any ordinary understanding of the word. Many sources attest to that. Calling it nonpartisan is therefore simply a misleading promotion of its inaccurate self description. That this self-description is controversial is common knowledge, attested to e.g by http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton.html . A single CNN quote (which relied on JW's inaccurate self-description) is being used to revert edits that acknowledge the obvious. This feels like bullying. The use of the term "nominally" was a concession and in accord with the article on partisanship; better is simply to remove the term nonpartisan altogether. So I will do that. The attempt to hide the ties to the birther founder Klayman by calling that description "not neutral" is similarly bizarre. What is "not neutral" about it? It is a documented fact, with citation included. If you don't like the fact, that does not make it not neutral. Not only is it accurate, it is particularly relevant in a paragraph that addresses issues of partisanship. I plan to revert that deletion as well, but I will await further discussion. For now, I am removing the inaccurate and misleading claim of nonpartisanship.

My position on "nonpartisan," which I've taken on many different organizations' articles, both on the left and the right, only sounds absurd if you ignore our policies and guidelines as well as the critical difference between ideology and party affiliation. In this case, no one denies that JW is a politically conservative organization, which is why the article says as much. However we have a reliable, fact-checked and reputable source saying that JW is nonpartisan, and no reliable source that says otherwise. I agree that this was a questionable call to make, as essentially pointed out by the NY Times article, but it's still a decision that CNN's newsroom made and so we must abide by it, as we're not here to second-guess reliable sources. If you wish to pursue this further you're welcome to seek dispute resolution, but in the meantime I'm going to revert with an appropriate tag to reflect this dispute. Please do not edit war. (I'll address the birther stuff in a separate thread.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman Please describe the Wikipedia policy that requires that a controversial claim (as demonstrated by the NYT article) need be asserted as fact because a single source (no more credible) makes the claim *not* as part of its research but simply in citing the self-description of the organization. I do not believe such a policy exists. As the NYT article demonstrates, this is a *controversial* claim, not a simple statement of fact. Also, please explain why your repeated reversion of my edit does not constitute an "edit war", which you accuse me of. My edit is correct. Your reversion asserts as fact a controversial (and incorrect) claim in the lead paragraph. (Although this is softened by the tag you added. Thank you for that.) Cerberus (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The relevant content policy is WP:V, which requires only a single, un-contradicted reliable source. My most recent re-addition of "non-partisan" wasn't edit warring because it wasn't a revert. I included the {{dubious}} tag to reflect that we have a good faith dispute. I think my choice of tag was rather charitable, in fact. I could have chosen {{disputed-inline}}, which actually would have been slightly more neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman Your response does not satisfy me. A lot turns on the meaning you give to "uncontradicted". The entire NYT piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton.html) can be viewed as laying out the case that calling JW "nonpartisan" is *at best* controversial. Your position seems to be that there is no "contradiction" unless a news source explicitly calls JW partisan. It does not take a lawyer to understand why a news organization is not going to do that with JW. As the NYT article demonstrates, JW is not perceived as nonpartisan. And as common sense indicates -- common sense that can be backed by any minimal knowledge of Klayman and Fitton -- calling JW "nonpartisan" is not an ordinary use of the word. I remain puzzled: how in your view is the article improved by including the disputed (and in fact inaccurate) descriptor "nonpartisan"?? Cerberus (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's improved by including valuable and verifiable information about the subject. Removal might be seen as whitewashing in violation of our policies and guidelines. You have to look at things from the other side of the political fence as well. A credible argument could be made that JW is non-partisan, since it investigated the Bush administration as well. The New York Times absolutely could have come out and said explicitly that JW is partisan, but it clearly didn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly remove the weasel words because, to me, it looks like plagiarism direct from their site's about page. I'll re-read this discussion in the morning. :-) Bookbrad (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually the content you removed came from a CNN story, as the citation indicated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, good point! But since the content was directly quoted from a CNN blog, shouldn't it be attributed as a quoted opinion instead of being listed as a fact? I'm still pretty new to bolder editing, as I've usually stuck to simple grammatical corrections and punctuation usually - but it's not a government agency as the quote implies - and I don't believe a CNN blog counts as a reputable source. I'll just do a quick grammatical correction to avoid misinterpretation and direct plagiarism from the blog, and go back to reading the pillars of wiki. This article should shape up nicely after a little more input :-) Bookbrad (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable source - see WP:NEWSBLOG. No need for in-text attribution since it's a factual statement. I don't think a few works like that is plagiarism. I don't think folks would misunderstand "government watchdog group" as some sort of governmental organization, but that's fine with me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The CNN source for "non-partisan" is a blog, not an article, and the writer seems to have taken the description, including the uncommon hyphenation, straight off JW's website. Here is an actual article refuting their self-professed non-bias: half-hearted attempts at bipartisan "watchdog" activity.

... During the Bush administration they made a couple of half-hearted attempts at bipartisan “watchdog” activity by submitting Freedom of Information Act requests for Dick Cheney’s energy task force members and the White House guest logs for lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The Obama presidency proved to be more fertile ground. Judicial Watch has accused the administration of creating dozens of “czars” that don’t exist, and has made a fetish out of lying about the Obamas’ travel expenses. This so-called watchdog group has engaged in some truly weird conspiracy-mongering. ...

That should be sufficient reason to remove the contentious adjective as well as "watchdog", which is another adjective JW is applying to itself (it's right there in the article underneath their logo). Neutral wording is "conservative group". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

If you read WP:NEWSBLOG, the point is that regardless of whether it's called a "blog," it's fact-checked and published by an established, reputable news outlet. And no reliable source has directly contradicted it. The Salon article you quote is an opinion source and isn't factually reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The writer of the Salon article is Heather Digby Parton, winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism; she links to the sources she bases her article on. I disagree with your opinion that the article is an opinion source and not factually reliable. Here's a (hopefully more acceptable) source. Last paragraph:

Judicial Watch describes itself as “a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation” which has as its mission the promotion of “transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.”

And quoting current ref #2 (Jonathan Mahler's NY Times article):

Judicial Watch’s claims of nonpartisanship will be tested if Republicans win the White House next month. For now, anyway, Trump seems safe from the group’s scrutiny.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

An opinion source such as the one in Salon is generally unreliable because it typically hasn't been fact-checked by someone other than the author, such as an editor. It doesn't matter how established or reputable the author is as a journalist. As for the Forbes article you link to, it doesn't contradict CNN's assessment that JW is nonpartisan. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in quotes?

These documents show the talking points used by the White House were misleading and were an attempt to blame the attack a video rather than administration policy. Specifically, an email from White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes which was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09PM shows an orchestrated a campaign to mislead. The email “prep” was for Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.[30]

Your link is to an article BY JW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.79.148 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Many violations of NPOV

This article contains many instances which violate the neutral point of view Wikipedia guideline. On example, the subsection "Commerce department trade mission scandal" begins "The scandal involved a scheme by Clinton administration officials ...". Titling the subsection as a scandal and then stating that it was a scandal that involved a scheme implies wrongdoing was found as a result of legal action(s). No wrongdoing was found. Many other examples of blatant bias can be found in almost every section. How could this article have gotten to be in such a horrid state ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition, I think the extensive citing of material from the Judicial Watch website is problematic. This reads like a piece of marketing material for Judicial Watch. Tagging NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.9.64 (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The Benghazi section is especially bad. And too much detail as well. 2600:1002:B112:D094:48A2:7422:3595:68FF (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've cut down much of this crud. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not cut out the entire first paragraph of the Benghazi section. Or, better yet, cut it out entirely. JW has made hundreds of FOIA requests in its history. Adding a section specific to Benghazi highlights its conservative agenda, even though many editors try to hide the fact that it's a partisan organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.127.133.254 (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible to cut the first paragraph and still give sufficient background to make the second paragraph intelligible. The second paragraph is noteworthy, as evidenced by articles such as this one from the Tampa Bay Times. If we're giving undue emphasis to this part of JW's agenda--a concern I share--then the solution is to tighten it up/and or add additional content about other parts of JW's agenda. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not "impossible" to cut out the first paragraph. In fact, the first two words of the second paragraph ("In response") is speculation, since it's not even clear that the video referenced in the first paragraph is at all the reason that JW made the FOIA request. Even the citation of the findings from JW on Benghazi in the second paragraph is to a "Press Release" that isn't even linked.

The events of Benghazi that occurred on 9/11/12 has it's own page, and it's unnecessary to have another version of the events in this page, especially when they're not even properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.127.133.254 (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of Judicial Watch press releases as citations

Several of the citations used in this article are press releases put out by Judicial Watch. I do not believe those are legitimate citations. They should be removed and the statements they provide citation for either revised or removed. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed most of these references, though there are probably more to go. Some of these press releases may be appropriate per WP:ABOUTSELF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

NYT article

There was a NYT article on this outfit a few days ago, in case it might help with sourcing: [4]. -Darouet (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Klayman birtherism

Cerberus0 contends:

"The attempt to hide the ties to the birther founder Klayman by calling that description "not neutral" is similarly bizarre. What is "not neutral" about it? It is a documented fact, with citation included. If you don't like the fact, that does not make it not neutral. Not only is it accurate, it is particularly relevant in a paragraph that addresses issues of partisanship. I plan to revert that deletion as well, but I will await further discussion. For now, I am removing the inaccurate and misleading claim of nonpartisanship."

I have no problem with the established fact that Klayman is an established birther. What I do have a problem with is describing him simply as "conservative attorney and birther Larry Klayman," which puts far too much emphasis on only one controversial aspect of his career of many, and doesn't reflect the lead section of his article, which makes no mention of his birtherism. From a neutrality perspective I'd be much more comfortable describing him as "conservative attorney and conspiracy theorist Larry Klayman," or "conservative attorney and wingnut Larry Klayman," provided we have reliable sources that support these descriptors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

IRS controversity.

You have said here [[5]] that the IRS targeted conservative groups. You restate that several times. However, it was eventually revealed that right-wing groups were not alone. In the Wikipedia article IRS targeting controversy, other organizations are mentioned, too - ones that also include such terms as "progressive", "occupy", "open source software", "medical marijuana", and "occupied territory advocacy" in their names. The IRS section here needs to be amended to state that political groups of both sides were targeted.

Here are the sources for that inclusion as used by the main article:

• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-24/irs-screened-applications-using-progressive-israel-
• http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_irs_scandal_narrative_unwi.php

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. By the way, no single person writes articles here (there is no "you") and you are free to make changes, provided of course that you try to follow our policies and guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Rated as a Fake news website

See rating of the group as a fake news website: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/judicial-watch/