Talk:Sidney Powell

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2020

It is one thing to say, "Powell alleged . . ." and "X has alleged otherwise." It is quite another to say,"Powell falsely claimed . . . ." At this point, the truth of the claims is an open question; the truth of such claims will be adjudicated in court. To assert at this point that Powell is falsely claiming anything appears as evidence to reading audience that this platform is biased. It undermines the credibility of Wikipedia, which is not in its interest 216.128.226.111 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)herrperfessrdoktordenknmeister

Baseless claims is an opinionated statement not founded in fact until court cases are resolved, also the 2020 election is still disputed so marking it as a fact that Joe Biden won before hes been certified is not factual but merely based on media claims

Agreed. And with respect to the semi-protected status, the partisan narrative control on wikipedia is blatant. The cost of this unwarranted self-righteousness is credibility. It's a shame to see such an institution be taken over by increasingly brazen authoritarian propagandists.

Took it out based on NPOV. We'll see if it sticks. Pkeets (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not a NPOV violation to say that Biden won the election, and that Powell's rhetoric that largescale fraud occurred is baseless (that's what RS say). Anyway, I've thrown this to the NPOV noticeboard since this is an issue that has cropped up several times now[1]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Just marking this as answered while discussion continues elsewhere—edit requests are meant for edits that are either uncontroversial or already have consensus, and this is neither. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of the states have certified the results yet. Deadline is December 8. Until then, claims should not be made about who won and assertions one way or the other are opinion and represent POV. Pkeets (talk)

Not super key to this discussion, but FYI several states have certified their results already. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Pkeets, should be semi protected. Also there are ongoing investigations on the status of the election. Thats a fact. Eruditess (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You do not need a court to certify every single fact, otherwise Wiki would be a very empty website. Further, the "alleged" need not be weighted evenly if the sources do not support that. "It has been alleged that Powell falsely claimed ... " with an appropriate source is fine. So there is a middle ground here. 2A01:388:390:151:0:0:1:102 (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has become embarassing over the past years, and that the bias is too obvious. I urge you to stop taking political sides. For example, phrases like "...Powell has alleged that a secret cabal of international Communists, Venezuelans, Cubans, Chinese, George Soros, the Clinton Foundation, "globalists", thousands of Democratic officials, as well as thousands of Republican officials..." is an obvious attempt to make illegimate the claims she put forth during the Trump campaign press coference. It is also not true she has claimed this, but it is a negative-skeptical interpretation of what she has said. She merely mention there may be or seems to be ties between several of those groups in the alleged election fraud. In addition, she has never "baselessly alleged" Bernie Sanders being defrauded in the Democratic primaries, but that they have recieved and is working with information claiming this. Baseless or not is not up to the Wikipedia editor to decide. This is just one of perhaps several hundred pages where Wikipedia has been rotting lately and it's truly a sad sight. I know many people agree with me on this. Get your act together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.143.203 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the recent addition about her claims about Sanders, which was unsourced. However the description of her embracing conspiracy theories is accurate and well-cited, and reflects what has been said in reliable sources. Wikipedia has a policy to not treat fringe theories, such as those conspiracy theories, as though they were equally plausible as mainstream views. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Servers seized by the US military?

Um, I watched the press briefing. That's not what Powell said about the servers. In response to a question about it, she said it was true the servers had been seized, but she didn't "know if it was by the Good Guys or the Bad Guys." There was no mention of the military. I see this statement is sourced, but I'd recommend another source. Plus, somebody is wearing out that word "false." POV is showing. Pkeets (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

By confirming the claim the server was seized, by whomever for whatever reason, she is confirming the underlying story beneath that. Why else would a server had been seized? Only because of the rest of the story. As far as POV, do you dispute that Trump and Team Rudy have made a relentless barrage of false claims in recent days? soibangla (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm reading the sources. A couple seem to be making light of the accusations, but I don't see that word "false" or any synonym of it used in most of in them. Please check your sources against your language. Also, what's posted in the article about the servers is apparently what OANN said, and not what Powell said about them. If you need it explained: when she says "good guys or bad guys," she's suggesting that Dominion or their backers have seized the servers and not representatives of the US government. Pkeets (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

They seized their own servers? Is that logically possible? You can't just say what she means. It has to be an objective interpretation exercise. 2A01:388:390:151:0:0:1:102 (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I went with a reliable source. She would not have been asked that question and answered it if not for the underlying Scytl claim. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/19/fact-checking-craziest-news-conference-trump-presidency/ soibangla (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

But she didn't say that, and the source doesn't say she said that, so its reliability doesn't even enter into the question. You should quote what she said for the article, and then you're free to add a comment on it from the source you've listed. Otherwise you're putting false words into her mouth. As mentioned above, a lot of people read Wikipedia, and it would be helpful to its reputation for you to be accurate. Pkeets (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I tidied up, replacing "false claims" with "allegations." I just can't see where most of these sources are using the word "false." The factcheck source is referencing CISA's comments to claim that the allegations are false. Pkeets (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: Apparently Powell appeared on Glenn Beck today and said she has been told it was the US government that seized the servers. Pkeets (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

If you type sidney powell conspiracy theories into a search engine you'll see what looks like ample RS that supports adding Powell to the CT category and calling her a CT in the lead. This woman has been making very bold statements (can't tell if she is delusional and actually believes what she is saying or simply trying to gaslight people) the past week that voting systems stole the election away from Trump. On the other hand someone like Ron Johnson (Wisconsin politician) somehow gets placed into the same category even though only one RS (NY magazine) supports Johnson being a conspiracy theorist. Johnson should be removed from that category, Powell should be added to it. Yodabyte (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this feels like the realm of conspiracy theory. However, the Trump team has stepped out into the light with it and made serious allegations of criminal conspiracy to commit election fraud, pointing at some possible culprits. They stated at the press conference that they wanted to say this up front because of the short time frame before the vote certifications and that they expect to present their evidence in court as their suits proceed. I expect the evidence will shed some light on the veracity of the claims. Pkeets (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. If it's in the lede, then the details should be covered further down in the article. I don't see that you've done this. Pkeets (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so now we've got an objection to the addition (see below). Any input from other editors on the claim? The sources do talk about conspiracy theory, but I think "frequently" might be going a bit too far. It's clear from the bio materials that Powell is highly effective as an appellate lawyer and not averse to controversial cases. And again, this addition needs to be addressed further into the article if it's in the lede. Pkeets (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitic dogwhistling

This article makes mention of Powell being a subscriber to the anti-Soros and anti-globalist movement. These terms are almost always antisemitic (and originally also antimasonic) dogwhistles connected to the New World Order and rootless cosmopolitan conspiracy ideas. Maybe this should be stated more explicitly in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.58.162 (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

While that is generally true, we should not imply that her mentions were antisemitic without a reliable source to specifically confirm this assertion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

It was added today that "She has frequently been described as a conspiracy theorist, having made claims invoking a “Deep State” plot to frame Flynn[2][3][4]" which is a lie and slander. Her record is impeccable in fighting crime, especially in the government, with a best-selling book, "Licensed to Lie". The editor added "frequently" to discredit her assertions with evidence of a blockbuster scandal involving the election. Wikipedia is not the place for bias and this is an obvious attempt to discredit Sidney Powell. To make the claim that she has "frequently" been described this way when he footnotes it with three articles from today that are trying to slander her for the FIRST time is outrageous. Nobody has ever called her a conspiracy theorist until today, certainly not "frequently". This is an outrageous edit.

This line should be removed, it is inherently biased and based on biased articles so delete: "She has frequently been described as a conspiracy theorist, having made claims invoking a “Deep State” plot to frame Flynn[2][3][4], as well as a scheme involving secret “Communist money” and “globalists” to change ballot totals in the 2020 election, which she claims Trump won “by a landslide.”[5][6]" Squirrel1515 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Even crazier the FBI documents have been declassified. She's absolutely correct in that it was a plot to frame Flynn and as many people as possible from the Trump campaign. https://www.scribd.com/document/477364140/Explosive-FBI-Texts-Show-Internal-Furor-At-Crossfire-Hurricane-Handling has the FBI docs. And here's the Obama/Biden admin attorney pleading guilty to falsifying documents to get the wiretap after they failed twice to get wiretaps: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-crossfire-hurricane. Labeling her as a conspiracy theorist is absolutely a lie and slander, when court documents very clearly show that what she said was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.149.241 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Partially implemented I have removed "frequently" as a weasel word. However, the remaining sentence is supported by reliable sources. The Washington Post and The New York Times are high-quality sources both considered to be generally reliable by the Wikipedia editing community (see WP:RSP#WaPo and WP:RSP#NYT); any new discussion of their overall reliability would need to happen at the reliable sources noticeboard, not here.

As for the second comment, we do not do original interpretation of source documents. Articles must be written based on reliable, secondary sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You do realize how absurd this is, right? NYT and WaPo are tabloids. The justice department release on his guilty plea proves them entirely wrong. The text messages prove them entirely wrong. NYT claimed that "Trump claims Obama wiretapped him without evidence" when even NYT's reporting just a few months prior admitted Obama wiretapped Trump. There is no amount of secondary source slander that changes these facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.149.241 (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• WP:RSP#The New York Times: "Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable."
• WP:RSP#The Washington Post: "Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable."

Again, if you would like to begin a discussion on the general reliability of either of these sources, which are widely used across Wikipedia and not just in this one article, the reliable sources noticeboard is the place to do so. Until then, the publications are both perfectly usable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

That's asinine and illogical. Whether they're deemed reliable sources or not, on this occasion a more authoritative source exists that contradicts them both. They're wrong. They're demonstrably wrong. "Oh but we trust them" is not evidence, it's bias. This article is a biased hit piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.254.162 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

What is that more authoritative source you're referring to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Per That's asinine and illogical, see also WP:NPA. Do not level personal attacks at other editors. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Some sources have described Powell as a 'model of a high achieving lawyer' while other sources have called her a conspiracy theorist"

@Pkeets: Did you see my edit summary? To repeat: this is a weird sentence—first, the two are not mutually exclusive; secondly, I'm not sure I've ever seen a sentence like "some sources have described x as a model of a high-achieving lawyer" in Wikipedia articles anywhere–we just call people prominent lawyers etc if that is what the sources say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I put it back in. It's a direct quote from the article. It's fairly clear from Powell's bio that she's a brilliant, respected, hard-hitting lawyer, and I think that needs to be indicated in the article, especially to counter the negative connotations recently added to the lede. There's no reason to belittle her accomplishments because she's taken on Trump's legal fight.Pkeets (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Once the election scandal blows over, we can likely delete that whole paragraph.Pkeets (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would you delete relevant information just because the election scandal is over? Is that how Wiki works? 2A01:388:390:151:0:0:1:102 (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pkeets: My concern is not with the sourcing, it's with the bizarre wording of the sentence. (Noting I've just clarified some of my wording above because I realized it might have been misinterpreted to mean I hadn't read a sentence like that in the sourcing.) It also appears that it's inaccurate to say that "Some sources have described Powell as a 'model of a high achieving lawyer'" when it's just one source. It also cherrypicks the sentence from Politico somewhat: "Sidney Powell’s story, up to a point, is the very model of a high-achieving lawyer." (emphasis mine) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I read your comment above. The quote is not the same as just saying she's "prominent." I purposefully picked something positive to balance the negative tone of the most recent addition to the lede (see objection above). You think it's too promotional? Pkeets (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's inaccurate given the context of the Politico piece. The lead already describes her successful career (sentence beginning "Her work has included..."), so I'm not sure an additional statement is needed. If it is, we should find a better source than one that basically adds a huge caveat to the claim that she's a high-achieving lawyer, and we also should word it so it's not claiming one cannot be both a high achieving lawyer and a conspiracy theorist (as she appears to be both). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

So now it's an edit war, right? It looks better, but there's still a POV issue in the lede. "Conspiracy theorist" suggests a kook who is off the deep end. Referencing the complaint above, why is it even it the lede, anyhow? It's a attempt to notify readers within the summary that she's a wacko, when it's not even mentioned in the rest of the article. This is fairly standard treatment for Trump supporters, but it's inappropriate for Wikipedia, and leads to the kind of comments above about blatant POV. I'd vote to remove that whole paragraph. Pkeets (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It isn't an edit war. Per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit, I reverted it, now we discuss until we find a suitable solution. You're right that the Flynn conspiracy theories ought to be explicitly mentioned in the article body; the Trump ones largely already are though it can be made clearer. However I do think the weight of the sourcing supports inclusion of the sentence in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Concur with GorillaWarfare here. The point is not to seek an artificial balance between positive and negative coverage. The point is to correctly reflect what reliable sources have said. The Politico article is, as far as is demonstrated thus far, the only reliable source to say she is "high-achieving"—and even that is qualified. Moreover, her long, successful career is described in the first paragraph. I think the graf on conspiracy theories is a bit too detailed for the lede in any event, but it should not be qualified by a statement whose only purpose is to establish a sort of "balance" that does not exist in the sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The solution is not to add highly contentious, volatile claims to Wikipedia articles, whether based on reliable sources or not. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not try to be a reflection of short-term battles going on in the media. We've also not addressed the matter of drive-by editing where someone has added this to the lede without further explanation and discussion below. That needs to be fixed. Pkeets (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should well sourced points be omitted because they are contentious or relate to short-term battles? 2A01:388:390:151:0:0:1:102 (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Politico confirms that "conspiracy theorist" is a "widespread" descriptor for Powell. I think it is balanced to mention it, given its prominence in quite reliable sources (which I will add momentarily). I've already added the point about Flynn to the article body, so that's handled. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding last edit, I think you should take out the word "unsubstantiated" as Powell says she had the evidence and will present it in court. Pkeets (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The claims are described in sourcing as unsubstantiated, and given she has so far refused to provide evidence, I think it's an appropriate descriptor until such a point as she substantiates them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It is becoming increasingly clear User:Pkeets is unable to remain objective on this subject. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:488F:36E8:4EE0:1D1B (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

So then you get into questions about whether you should add "as yet." Meanwhile, you're contributing to the implication is that the claims are baseless, when actually they're just going to court over it. Pkeets (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the reliable sources are describing the claims as baseless, and we are reflecting them. If the RS suddenly all shift to describing the claims as potentially true pending some evidence presented in court, then so too can we, but only then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Early life vs. Personal life

Early life is generally early, including origins and education/career preparation. Personal life normally includes later non-career info, beliefs, etc. It's normally placed near the end of the article. Pkeets (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's the source for info on her marriage, though it looks unreliable and is out of date:https://edailybuzz.com/2019/09/21/sidney-powell-attorney-wiki-bio-age-birthday-husband-married-children-net-worth-education/ Uncertain whether this is the coach Ike Powell. Will need more research. Pkeets (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I have sometimes seen articles that are laid out with sections in the order "Early life", "Career", "Later life" (where "later life" describes post-retirement). But I have not seen "Early life" at the beginning and "Personal life" at the end -- normally I see the two combined under a single "Life" or "Personal life" heading which is usually the first section in the article. Regarding the edailybuzz.com source, that's no good. The statement probably ought to be removed pending a RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Pinging you since I see you just made an edit related to this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, in my travels “personal life” seems to come last, though I could be wrong. soibangla (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You'd really think there'd be a guideline somewhere on this, but I'm not seeing anything at MOS:BIO or WP:WPBIO so far... GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Whups. Just found her son. He's an analyst and has done some of the research on the election dataset. System won't allow me to add the link here. Pkeets (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPAMBLACKLIST? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This may be him: https://www.wilsonbowdenpowell.com/about-us Pkeets (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're having to do this much work to track him down, this seems to me a good sign we should omit the names per WP:BLPNAME/WP:BLPPRIVACY. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not that hard, just that the sources are unreliable. This is him with an analysis on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE0dwbd3nWM&feature&ab_channel=PredicttheStockMarket%26Politicsw%2FMarketRaven/ A clue about why she's willing to bet her reputation on this contest. On privacy, it looks like she's always been willing to take on high stakes cases, so probably keeps her personal life quiet. The lessons in the Chagra case probably stuck. As you say, best not to include this in the article, especially since the sources are poor quality. Pkeets (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sidney_Powell#Enron_scandal

This section says next to nothing about how Powell was personally involved. What did she do, exactly? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Represented executives on appeal, apparently, and overturned at least two convictions. Not much about it in this particular source. Added more info from another source. Pkeets (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Redundancies in the lede

@CozyandDozy, I didn't remove your paragraph, but combined it with the one above. If you don't like the way I revised to remove redundancies, then please do it yourself. There is no need to say things twice in three paragraphs. Pkeets (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Latest revisions of the lede

Shouldn't the last sentence "Powell has also falsely asserted that more votes were cast in Michigan during the election than the state's population, a conclusion she drew from a mistaken comparison of the Michigan vote total with Minnesota population data." be further down in the article? It's another example of a drive-by edit that has no basis in the text of the article. Pkeets (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The mix-up is mentioned in the article body, see Sidney Powell#2020 presidential election or ctrl-f for the state names. I do, however, share your concerns that it does not appear properly weighted for the lead—the sentence is entirely based on one source, and smacks of WP:RECENTISM. In the context of her career, the conspiracy theories are noteworthy enough for the lead; the specific error around Michigan and Minnesota is not. I will remove the sentence pending consensus here to re-add it, since there are now two of us that share this concern. Courtesy ping CozyandDozy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sidney Powell.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

Sydney Powell is described as a right wing conspiracy theorist which is not true and has never been true! It will be in everyone's best interest to remove this bias unsubstantiated description! 96.28.142.226 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

See the section below. Please also note that the edit request template is meant for minor, uncontroversial changes to an article (typos, etc.) or to ask for the implementation of changes which have already gained consensus, and should not be used when starting a new discussion about a potentially controversial change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Right wing conspiracy theorist" in lead sentence

While I think it's appropriate to describe Powell's promulgation of conspiracy theories in the lead as we currently do in the last paragraph, I don't think the sourcing is so consistent on the matter that we should describe her as a "right-wing conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. This is reminiscent of the discussions happening on the talk page of another Trump lawyer: Talk:Rudy Giuliani#"Conspiracy theorist". GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I just added refs for it under the presumption this had already passed scrutiny, but I’m inclined to agree with you...for now. soibangla (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Gorilla, can we do an RfC devoted to this question? I think the case for calling Powell a "conspiracy theorist" is much better than Giuliani, because, while she has been a prominent attorney, she is actually much better known, in terms of mentions in RS, for her promotion of conspiracy theories. CozyandDozy (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to start one if you think it's worthwhile. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020 (2)

The fact is, the author has no idea if the accusations of election cheating are true or not. Just state what you do know. "Baseless and unfounded" have yet to be established. This way, one has the appearance of fairness versus looking like a hack. 174.28.175.211 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Partially implemented. I have added {{better source needed}} to the claim about baselessness. You have, however, not provided (1) any alternative text that you would like the article to reflect; nor have you (2) provided any reliable sources to indicate that your proposed version should be adopted. Please do so if you wish to change the text more substantially. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence since other RS largely don't seem to be reporting about Powell's appearances on Bartiromo's show. However the fact that Powell's claims about election cheating are completely unevidenced is well-supported by reliable sources, which are cited inline throughout. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Describing Powell as conspiracy theorist?

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

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

• Comment I hope you don't mind me reformatting this properly as an RfC. RfCs are meant to have a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" and then you can follow that with your vote. Feel free to adjust my edit to your comments as you like, just trying to be helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, funny thing: I just asked you for help in this regard on your talk page. Thanks! CozyandDozy (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice, glad my edits were welcome :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. It appears to be somewhat recent (on the order of years) that the conspiracy theory stuff has become a notable characteristic for Powell, who is primarily known for her career as an attorney and prosecutor. I think introducing it to the first sentence is more heavy weighting than the sources support—although there is a glut of sourcing about her promulgating conspiracy theories as it has been a very newsworthy topic in recent weeks, I think it may be WP:RECENTISM to add it so prominently to the lead sentence. There are some people out there, for example Alex Jones or Jacob Wohl, who are primarily known for their conspiracy theories, and who have largely built their entire careers (if a "career" is the right descriptor for what Wohl does...) around spreading them. I don't think Powell is such a person. However, I do support inclusion of what is currently the fourth paragraph of the lead ("Powell has promoted numerous conspiracy theories...") GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support, I think CozyandDozy makes a strong case, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources describe her as such. Sources:

1. Marketwatch [2] "Trump campaign attempts to distance from conspiracy-theorist lawyer Sidney Powell"
2. Forbes [3] "Trump Campaign Cuts Ties With Lawyer Sidney Powell Who Promoted Wild Election Fraud Conspiracy Theories"
3. Forbes again [4] "Who Is Sidney Powell? Meet Trump’s New Top Conspiracy Theorist."
4. Daily Beast [5] "Trump Campaign Disavows Its Own Election-Conspiracy Lawyer"
5. The Independent [6] "Donald Trump’s legal team has distnaced itself from attorney Sidney Powell after she spread wild conspiracy theories about election fraud."
6. New York Times [7] "The president’s allies quickly closed ranks behind Sidney Powell and her pro-Trump conspiracy theory, accusing the Fox host of betrayal."
7. Washington Post [8] "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). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Gorilla, I don't think this definitional distinction means much. One who is known for promoting conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theorist, in my view. Although I accept that reasonable people could disagree on the importance of the semantics here. CozyandDozy (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If the sources specifically said she was known for spreading conspiracy theories I might agree, but only saying that she has done so is a distinct matter in my book. I have played a game of baseball before, that does not make me a baseball player. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, my point is that she is known for "playing baseball"; or at any rate, that is a key aspect of her notability. CozyandDozy (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do see what you're saying. I just don't think those particular sources are worded strongly enough to support the addition of the descriptor, but I totally see your perspective. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: per GorillaWarfare. It's a close call, though. soibangla (talk) 02:06, 23 November 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)