Talk:Sidney Powell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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Here's the source for info on her marriage, though it looks unreliable and is out of date:https://edailybuzz.com/2019/09/21/sidney-powell-attorney-wiki-bio-age-birthday-husband-married-children-net-worth-education/ Uncertain whether this is the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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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 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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

Powell apparently was fired from the legal team ([1]). 2603:6010:D400:1C41:9CA0:E035:E2E7:4198 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The Trump campaign's distancing themselves from her is mentioned in the article already. If there's a more specific change you have in mind, feel free to suggest it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2020

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 68.48.240.134 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turninout (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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[2]. 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)

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

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)

Thank you Gorilla. I can see on your personal page that you spend a lot of time deciding what is "fringe"- and / or "conspiracy" theories. I don't generally care about the material of this page but it's become obvious that Wikipedia is not going to handle the ongoing political turmoil very well, and terms like "well-cited" is not going help about that, as they become increasingly meaningless. Best regards, non-alt-right and non-incel person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.143.203 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor clarification required

It is not fully clear to me exactly who the "she" is, in the sentence beginning "She also asserted that the CIA ignored warnings.." RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sidney Powell is the "she" being referred to. "Powell promoted the conspiracy theory.... She also asserted". I don't believe there is an alternative antecedent in the preceding sentence. NonReproBlue (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020 (2)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It would be nice if we could go to Wikipedia, like we used to, and expect non-politicized hack editing. The Qanon stuff on this page is ridiculous and an obvious hit job. Wikipedia is better than this. Can't we go back to the good 'ole days and stop with the politicization of an Encyclopedia? 76.240.101.20 (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Please read WP:NOTFORUM, thanks. You have provided no actual edit request here and demonstrated a failure to understand that wikipedia reflects the Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage, which in this case includes a large amount of her QAnon connections and other conspiracy theorist behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Did we agree on a verbose lead?

It’s too detailed, IMO soibangla (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem arose from edits by User:MelanieN, which also violated the talk page consensus of devoting the last paragraph to Powell's promotion of conspiracy theories. I have rewritten the lede to conform to the consensus version. CozyandDozy (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, the wordiness and excess detail did not "arise from edits by" me. I actually did not add ANY information or detail. Aside from a few minor tweaks, all I did was move two sentences, unchanged, into what seemed to me to be more logical positions. I see they have been rearranged now; I'm OK with that. I agree with Soibangla that there is too much detail in the lead now. The place where there is too much detail is the final paragraph, which goes into minute detail about her conspiracy theories. IMO that much detail belongs in the text but not the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Where to include her departure from the Trump legal team in the lead

CozyandDozy, did you see my edit summary? While I understand wanting to keep the paragraphs topically separate, I am concerned that a quick reader may leave with the impression that Powell is a member of the Trump legal team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Gorilla. I don't want to place excessive weight on her activity as a conspiracy theorist; that's why I don't want to mention the reason for her firing in the second paragraph (which, apparently, was embarrassment over increasingly out-there conspiracy theorizing). If you think it needs to be included, how about you simply note that the Trump team distanced themselves from her in the second paragraph, without providing the reason? CozyandDozy (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I just made an edit to try to resolve both of our concerns; go ahead and take a look. CozyandDozy (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That works just fine for me, thank you for the edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Youngest US Attorney

This is false. If anything she was the youngest Assistant US Attorney, but that is only sourced to her personal website. Big difference between US Attorney and Assistant US Attorney. Article won’t let me edit. Tpistell (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I think at one time it did say Assistant, but various people have edited and dropped out information. I notice it now says "federal prosecutor" which should be true enough. Pkeets (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Anything sourced to her personal website or her business needs better sourcing or removal. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This article seems biased and short on who Sidney Powell is.

I understand that we are a "divided" nation.

And Politics is a difficult subject.

But I came here to read about Sidney Powell -as a lawyer. And this article makes her seem more of a conspiracy theorist than a lawyer.

I read in the footnotes that she helps represent Women's Charities, and I don't think I read her side of the story on the General Flynn case at all.

Enron is mentioned but her success in exposing the governments cases in General Flynn's and Arthur Andersen is only given in passing. While any mention of conspiracy theories about the "DEEP STATE" seem to have prominence.

I know we are not perfect, and bias can be just as much perceived as it announced. But this article is biased and needs review in my opinion.

Compare this to other prominent women' WIKIPEDIA Pages--Hillary Clintons is more of a timeline. Any negative scandals--are well into the article. --a very long article.

Or Laura Bush's page, Elizabeth Warrens Wikipedia Page--Susan Sarandons, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's page.

All seem to have negative remarks either lightly touched on or mentioned in passing.

I read Laura Bush's page and I get the feeling she is more friendly with the Obama's than she believes in any republican values.

14:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

November 23rd 2020

Thanks,

kejjer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejjer (talk • contribs) 14:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You might be interested in contributing to the RfC above, on a somewhat related topic. Awoma (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Laura Bush, nor anyone you mentioned in fact, are retweeting Qanon accounts and currently making the headlines of nearly every news organization because they are spewing wild, unfounded, utterly false conspiracy theories. Women can be different from one another. NonReproBlue (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"And this article makes her seem more of a conspiracy theorist than a lawyer." - That's because she is more a conspiracy theorist than a lawyer, in Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:41, 23 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) 17:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pkeets: Just for the sake of clarity, are you saying the accumulation of sources is an attempt to make her look less accomplished? Or the challenges are? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Both, actually. The sections on her accomplishments keep shrinking and accumulating challenges, while it's clear the bulk of the research is going into connecting her to various conspiracy theories to discredit her as as a non-entity. You can tell from the complaints in Talk that readers are noticing this. I hate to bring up the issue of sexism, but compare to the treatment of L. Lin Wood who is taking a similar role in the challenges to the election. Pkeets (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Well is Lin Wood being described as a conspiracy theorist in reliable sources? If so, then the correct course of action is to change his page to accurately reflect that, not to whitewash other people's articles simply because he has somehow avoided scrutiny. My guess is that it has to do with the fact that he has not received nearly the same amount of press as she has, due to him not appearing alongside Giuliani and Ellis at their little conspiracy presentation. I will take a look at Wood's page and reliable sources to see if there is indeed a correctable discrepancy, in which case I thank you for bringing this to my attention. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I read her side of the story on the General Flynn case at all Did you see her letter to Barr? Or her characterization of Sullivan’s role? soibangla (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct. When I recently mentioned balance in Wikipedia articles, I was told that's not the point. Instead, the aim is to represent what popular media sources are saying about a particular person or topic at a given time. Plus, I'm told at Dominion a that scientific sources are too primary. Do I have that right? Look what that does to Wikipedia's credibility. Plus, what happens to the articles when, as in the case of Nicholas Sandmann, there is a sudden reversal of the story? These issues are why Wikipedia is described as an unreliable source by academics. 20:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. The Flynn contest apparently goes back to Enron. This is not the first encounter between Powell and Sullivan and these particular prosecutors. Analysis of these issues would be a more interesting read than all the effort going into what degree of conspiracy theorist she is. Pkeets (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This rhetoric is becoming a bit much, not to mention the complete misrepresentation of the discussions at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems, where I have also expressed concerns about your POV-pushing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Cleary we have very different perceptions of bias and POV, as well as edit warring, which is repeatedly deleting large chunks of text without appropriate discussion. Pkeets (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am familiar with the concept. You may wish to read WP:BRD, as well as read about the concept of casting aspersions, which applies to your recent habit of making handwavy accusations against me but not actually making a complaint anywhere when I suggest you follow through. Either start a noticeboard discussion, or drop it, but stop casting aspersions when you think it suits your argument when you have no intention of following through. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Powell has filed cases in Michigan and Georgia already - should notice of this be included somewhere in the article?

The pdfs of her filings are available on https://defendingtherepublic.org/ (the links about "Krakens" being released). I can't find the Georgia one anywhere other than the website but the Michigan one has some sort of serial number associated with it which leads to https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18693929/king-v-whitmer/. Should this be included in the article, or only coverage of the court case by the media?--GenericName784 (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The latter. We will cover it if reliable sources do, and if specifically mentioning each of them is due. Personally I'm not sure it is necessary to mention each and every lawsuit she files, especially if the end results are the same. Let's see how reliable sources handle it. NonReproBlue (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Seconding this. Any two-bit crank is allowed to file pretty much whatever lawsuits they want, up until the point where a court actually sanctions them for filing too many frivolous lawsuits. It's not notable until there's some modicum of WP:RS coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2020

The present Wiki states that Powell "baselessly" filed suit in Georgia. That statement is factually incorrect given the plethora of polling witness testimonies, expert witnesses, Military Intelligence testimony that they have hacked the software in those machines, and for many other reasons. I suggest wiki remove the word " baselessly " and instead offer a link to the lawsuit so readers can make the determination of the lawsuit's veracity on their own. One such link follows: https://aim4truth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Michigan-Complaint.pdf Tomorrow you will likely find it available on the applicable district court's website, as well. When available, the secretary of state websites should be used as reference for the respective lawsuits, as these are least likely to have been tampered with. RedneckSavant (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@RedneckSavant: Can you point to the sentence where it says Powell baselessly filed suit in Georgia? I'm not seeing it. As for the rest of your comment, I don't know what aim4truth.org is trying to be (cat stock photo repository? "news" source?) but it does not look like any reputable publication I've ever seen. We could possibly discuss linking to the suit if/when it appears on an official domain, but not there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Unlikely we will find this on a non-paywalled official domain, unfortunately. It's a PACER filing, which is (inexplicably, inexcusably) a subscription-only service. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, I've found the filing here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18694655/parties/pearson-v-kemp/. It can be freely accessed.GenericName784 (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. It would take some convincing for me to think it was worth linking at all, even on an official and non-paywalled domain. But we certainly shouldn't be linking to this location. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, this is a complaint, not a decision. It alleges things; it does not prove them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Vavra, Kassidy; Gesualdi-Gilmore, Laura (November 22, 2020). "'WE WILL FIND BALLOTS' Trump asks for SECOND recount in Georgia as campaign lawyer promises to file 'biblical' lawsuit in the state next week". The Sun. DONALD Trump is asking for a SECOND recount in Georgia, as he continues to baselessly claim voter fraud [...] Supporters of Trump are seen gathered in Atlanta, holding Trump and American flags and waving signs baselessly claiming that he won That is from a deprecated pro-Trump source. Your move, I think. Narky Blert (talk) 19:27, 29 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)

Wikipedia usually flags articles and entries for opinion or lack of sources. The CT section should be removed for this reason. ````JR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.164.43 (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If you do a "find on page" and "conspiracy theory" on the article, you get 19 hits. I believe this excessiveness alone shows that a dozen of the usages be removed simply for the sake of style re: repetitiveness. Besides that, when a lawyer such as Powell files a suit, it is the place of the court, not a Wikipedia editor, to decide whether the lawsuit is meritless, baseless, frivolous, or a conspiracy theory. Most of the usages of this term should be removed, as well as some usages of baseless, etc. It reads like an article in a college magazine written by angry pubescent activists. MorganDWright (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

And yet, if you actually read the article rather than just search for terms you feel triggered by, you would find that it only appears in the text of the article 8 times (one more than the 7 that you presumed would appear after removing "a dozen"). 10 are in the citation section, and 1 in the categories. Perhaps you might want to actually read articles before casting aspersions on the hard work done by other editors. Also, you are correct that it is not up to Wikipedia editors, such as yourself, to decide whether a lawsuit is "meritless, baseless, frivolous, or a conspiracy theory". That is the job of reliable sources, and they have helpfully weighed in on this matter already, hence the wording used in the article. NonReproBlue (talk) 03:51, 29 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)

Yes, I am learning that WP:BLP will call for significant WP:RS before letting somebody use those bold accusations in an article.PrecociousPeach (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: @PrecociousPeach: These may be relevant. I'm unsure what category the "Voices" area of The Independent falls into?

1. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-lawyers-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-desperate-b1724470.html
2. https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/sidney-powell-michael-flynns-new-attorney-anti-mueller-conspiracy-theorist-and-fox-regular

Also in general, regarding Powell as a source or catalyst for anti-Soros disinformation which might be WP:DUE mentioning:

1. https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vzqg/trumps-qanon-lawyer-inspired-even-more-george-soros-disinformation
2. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/trump-powell-dominion-biden-election-2020-1.9322928

Hope these help? IHateAccounts (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Having a bit of a tough time turning up much on The Independent's "Voices" section at RSN ([3]), either due to the common terms or lack of discussion. From a glance it does look like it's their opinion section, though. MMfA is also not a great source -- generally it's considered a biased/advocacy source. The last two sources look solid, though! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Dominion Voting Systems response

@AleatoryPonderings:, regarding your reversion, I agree with pulling it for the primary sourcing. Here are a couple secondary sources that might work if you feel they are valid to re-add?

1. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/dominion-voting-systems-response-to-sidney-powell/85-af899a76-7a47-4d9c-8d1b-1a891dee2104
2. https://www.fox61.com/article/news/politics/elections/dominion-voting-systems-response-to-sidney-powell/85-af899a76-7a47-4d9c-8d1b-1a891dee2104

I'll let you look them over, when you get the chance. I think it's WP:DUE with proper sourcing. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, I added this. These look like the same article to me? Not thrilled with citing a local TV station, but I suppose a sentence doesn't hurt. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Hartford based Fox affiliate is one of the best. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If its a local source, it's not necessarily unusable , just might need multiple non-sanctioned / non-perenial sources to validate the claims. If it isn't a certified reliable source I believe the correct policy is it requires another source with similar claims.PrecociousPeach (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr Navid Keshavarz-Nia

Would it be helpful to have, under "Independent Election Lawsuits", a reference to the cybersecurity expert Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia submitting an affidavit and thus becoming associated with the subject of this page? Dr. Keshavarz-Nia is notable due to The New York Times mentioning him and his status in their September 9 article "How One Man Conned the Beltway" (nytimes.com/2020/09/09/opinion/sunday/garrison-courtney-spies-contracts.html); he helped uncover the scammer in the article. According to that NYT article, "In doing cybersecurity and technical counterintelligence work for the C.I.A., N.S.A. and F.B.I., he had spent decades connecting top-secret dots." Courtlistener, owned by the Free Law Project (which seems reliable based on its own Wikipedia page), has a copy of Dr. Keshavarz-Nia's affidavit at the following URL, if it provides information that could add to the section. courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.19.pdf Biasbalancer1 (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Biasbalancer1

That is an opinion piece, so nothing written there is attributable to The New York Times. We would need reliable sources to prominently mention him in regards to these lawsuits for it to be worth mentioning. Given that his affidavit alleges that "The USIC has developed the Hammer and Scorecard tools", which is a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory, which he claims has been "independently confirmed" by discredited hucksters like Dennis L. Montgomery (who you may recognize from the fact check as the discredited "source" for this very claim) and debunked conspiracy pushers like Thomas McInerney, I doubt that any mention in reliable sources would present him in such an uncritical light. We will see if and how reliable sources handle it. But from the brief mention in that article? Totally undue for this page. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Newly created related article

Jenna Ellis was recently created, for anyone interested! starship.paint (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"Controversial"

The One I Left reverted my change of the heading in Sidney_Powell#Sidney_Powell#Controversial_views. I think it should say "views", not "controversial views". It is my longstanding view (see Talk:Parler#"Controversial") that "controversial" is vague, nearly meaningless, but nonetheless imports an unnecessary POV. It should be obvious to any reader that Powell's views are controversial, given the heavy qualifications we use throughout the "[Controversial] views" section. I see no reason to belabor the point with a tendentious section heading. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, alternatively "Political views" would be an appropriate title too. LM150 22:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree it should just be "Views". "Political views" would be fine too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, whether or not those views are controversial is either evident from the contents of the section or it isn’t. No need for us to editorialize. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agreeing with everyone above. MOS:HEADINGS refers back to WP:AT, which refers back to WP:NPOVTITLE, which refers back to WP:POVNAMING; and when you've unpacked all those matryushka dolls, you find: "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias". Saying someone's views are controversial in a section heading is - well, controversial.

If there are WP:RS which say that the subject is an outspoken proponent of motherhood and apple pie, we can say so in WP's voice. Should we place them in a separate "Uncontroversial views" section? Obviously not.

"Political views" would suit me just fine too, or be even better. Narky Blert (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Alternate point-of-view: what about renaming "Views" to "Trump Administration"? These subsections describe her actions far more than her personal opinions; and their biggest commonality is their connection to the Trump admin. In a biography, that would be a more accurate categorization. (Maybe only the QAnon section would be filed under "views".) Turtleey (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Personal Life confusing statement

In the Personal Life and Other Ventures section, there is an ambiguous statement regarding her political activity prior to 2018. The statement reads "Prior to 2018, Powell was not recalled as 'very political'". Does that mean that she was or wasn't "very political" prior to 2018. I would reword it myself, but this article is not in my wheelhouse.TeamBeaker (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it is saying that people don't remember her being political prior to 2018, but doesn't speak to whether their memory is accurate. The quote from the source appears to be "People who interacted with her said Friday they don’t recall her being a staunch conservative or even very political." NonReproBlue (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Another quote from the same source: "She returned to Asheville where she practiced law and got involved in the community. People there do not recall her being particularly interested in politics." Chillabit (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the wording to reflect better what the source says. I actually don't even see the year 2018 mentioned anywhere in the article now that I look. Does it look alright now? Chillabit (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like if you are trying to use the language from the citation source, you need to preface the quote with "according to <<citation source>> Sidney Powell was not recalled as 'very political'". Or else you might get slapped on the wrist for plagiarism, Wikipedia is pretty particular about that kind of stuff.PrecociousPeach (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

It is mentioned: "Powell has been described by some sources as a supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory." and you cite the source as: Gilbert, David (November 20, 2020). "Trump's Lawyer Sidney Powell Is Hardcore QAnon". Vice. Archived from the original on November 20, 2020. Retrieved November 20, 2020.

Wikipedia should add: "Powell has been described by some UNCONFIRMED sources as a supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory. 2600:8801:2400:3A90:43D:A09:425F:D119 (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The original sentence's "sources" refer to Vice and Business Insider. If sources say that Powell promotes QAnon ideology, Wikipedia reflects this. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020 (2)

In the second paragraph,change the wording "overturn President-elect Joe Biden's victory over" to "dispute the Presidential voting results in several states" Totisviribus (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Is it a NPOV violation to say Joe Biden won the 2020 election?. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 13 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)