Talk:Judicial Watch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old uncategorized discussions

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

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

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

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

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

On reviewing (12/26/2006) Judicial Watch submissions on YouTube.com regarding the Pentagon 9/11 Flight 77 impact, I was struck by the fact that this group which espouses "openness of information" would disable the ability of other users to submit comments, as per usual YouTube practice, either to support or to question Judicial Watch conclusions and inferences. In the larger context of alleged US government infiltration by New World Order factions, I strongly urge all USA and international viewers to closely scrutinize all so-called "think tanks" for the ways in which they distribute information and/or disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codevictim (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

funding

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

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

Removing

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

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

Nonpartisan?

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

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

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

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

References

That's a ludicrous assertion. Yes they sued Cheney at one point. They have also sued Hillary Clinton 20 times in the last year alone! They are pretty much the definition of partisan. Ff11 (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah they sued Cheney ONCE... 15 years ago. Registering as 501c3 doesn't make it a non-partisan (it has nothing to do with that), 501c3 is a tax status for non-profits. Zzsignup (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CNN source for "non-partisan" is a blog, not an article. This has been noted previously. I challenge anyone to look at the JW Twitter feed and honestly claim that "nonpartisan" is descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberus0 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you forgot our subsequent conversation (in this thread, above) about our verifiability policy and about how news blogs such CNN's are reliable sources. I am restoring the "nonpartisan" label, along with the {{dubious}} tag, to bring us back to where we were before (no consensus). The tag was removed by 71.179.27.243 without explanation on March 23. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reintroduced the line with an AP/Boston Globe piece stating it since CNN source appears to be insufficient for some--with more available if required to assuage. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The author is not an AP reporter. She is a business investment consultant.

From http://www.salon.com/2016/08/22/judicial-watch-vs-hillary-the-conservative-group-has-a-long-history-of-spreading-clinton-lies/

 The history of this group is very clear. The first time it waged its campaign of character assassination against Bill and Hillary Clinton, it’s perhaps understandable that the press failed to recognize they were being manipulated by political operatives. The trumped-up Obama scandals added up to nothing as well. There’s no excuse for the media to fall for it again.

What is the excuse for Wikipedia to promote this same deception? Cerberus (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"The author is not an AP reporter"; Boston Globe byline says they are.

Try to find her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberus0 (talk • contribs)

Salon isn't a reliable source; neither is this opinion-piece from contributing blogger Digby, nor their upstream-source of Media Matters. Doesn't say they're partisan either, and Klayman (chief-focus of this hit-piece) is no longer with the organization.

Our excuse is two five reliable sources explicitly and verifiably make the claim; which is firmer bedrock than your bollocks opinion and shit sources. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

As Dr. Fleischman has noted, the Salon piece was previously presented and found to be unreliable. Unless new evidence supported by reliable sources is provided, I'm inclined to remove this "badge of shame" yet again. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Few more in sandbox here--including NBC Nightly News. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not as confident as dsprc that the Salon source isn't reliable, but it doesn't matter, since it doesn't say that JW is not nonpartisan. Thanks to dsprc, we have four reliable sources all saying that JW is nonpartisan, and none saying it is not. I certainly understand other editors' concerns, but removing the "nonpartisan" label given the extensive sourcing would violate our core policies, which say: follow the reliable sources. It is not our job to stop the promotion of "deceptions" by established, reputable news outlets. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just trying to understand your claim that the Salon source "doesn't say the JW is not nonpartisan". So ... your view is that Digby may mean that JW are nonpartisan political operatives? (Are we really going to play with words that way?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberus0 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm saying Digby doesn't expressly say whether JW is partisan or nonpartisan. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not clarifying. I agree that the word 'partisan' is not used. What in your view is the conceptual content of the article? What in your view is the meaning of the phrase 'political operative' in this context? Cerberus (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but see WP:SYNTH--the source must state something expressly before we can rely on it. This is a bedrock, bright line principle. Without it, every source is subject to reinterpretation. (E.g. "Where does the source say that?" "It doesn't say that, but that's what the author meant, at least by my reading." "Well not by my reading." That's the very sort of debate our verifiability policy is designed to avoid.) If Digby wanted to say that JW was partisan, then she easily could have said that explicitly--but she didn't. She didn't even explicitly say JW was biased toward Republicans or treated the two parties differently. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

So if I understand you, you agree that any reasonable reader of the article is will conclude that JW is partisan (according to Digby), but since she did not say it explicitly, this entry cannot say it. But the request is not that the article say that JW is partisan. It is that it not say that it is nonpartisan. Cerberus (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not what I'm saying, and I don't think I could be any clearer: We have several reliable sources all explicitly saying that JW is nonpartisan, and no reliable sources explicitly contradicting that. From a policy perspective that should settle the debate. I have nothing more to add. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

For assertion that Sara Lepro is not an AP journalist and that one should try to find her: I did, and they are a prolific author for both AP wire service and numerous publications printing the wires. (In the future, properly thread replies instead of interjecting in middle of other's comments.) If JW is partisan one should present multiple reliable sources which state as much, and reliance upon a single opinion-blogger (Digby) becomes moot. Arguing Digby for over five months(!) is a dead horse at this point; let us not pound that horse into soap just so there is a box to stand on. -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your view of Digby is disputed. See above. And to restate the obvious: the reason you are finding statements that JW is nonpartisan is that reporters are simply taking the description from their page. The only piece that actually investigates their purported nonpartisanship concludes that they are "political operatives" who have bamboozled the media. (Thanks however for finding Lepro; I tried and failed.) Cerberus (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Digby is an opinion-blogger; that's what won their award from a progressive advocacy group. Calling hackery an "investigation" is generous, to say the least. Ten examples have been provided demonstrating a broad-spectrum of media labeling JW non-partisan for nearly two decades now.[4] Ignoring that consensus and repeating the same position over again isn't going to change it. (But your edit-warring will swing the ban-hammer.) Your "obvious" wild guess for why that consensus may be isn't reliable. Come back with evidence that isn't Digby parroting Media Matters, which explicitly states the party and in what manner JW is affiliated, then you might have something. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• We are getting nowhere. Arguments are being recycled, and we are entrenched in our positions. There is no consensus at this time to remove the "nonpartisan" label and the supporting sources. I suggest that anyone seeking to establish such a consensus do so via dispute resolution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman, I thought we had agreed that the dubious label would nevertheless remain because of this disagreement. Note that Dsprc has repeatedly removed it without justification (in this context). I am also curious about the basis on which Dsprc threatens to ban me for reverting his change, which does not reflect consensus on this list. That aggression seems abusive to me. I would think that the expression of doubt in the community would have editorial priority over his desire to enforce his view. Thanks in advance for your insights. Cerberus (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

My feelings about {{dubious}} changed when Dsprc identified several reliable sources beyond CNN that described JW as nonpartisan. At this point I believe that insistence on the tag is no longer justifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you forgetting the NYT article that expressed doubt about JW's nonpartisanship? (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton.html). The claim of nonpartisanship is evidently dubious. I find it out and out bizarre. None of the articles cited *investigate* the nonpartisanship of JW; they just rely on JW's self-description (or possibly this now misleading Wikipedia article, which now contributes to the media failures identified by Digby.) How will these doubts be reflected in the article? Will you propose some other more appropriate tag? Cerberus (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No I am not forgetting it, and no I will not propose another tag because I don't think a tag would be appropriate. Please either pursue DR or drop the stick. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please use "they" and "their" not "he" and "his" when referring to myself.

Justification is RS overwhelmingly saying for decades; with zero presented directly contradicting. Aforementioned NYT piece merely said non-partisanship would "be tested" if Trumpians won White House. When reviewing Digby, NYT et al, they fail to back claims made on talk page, and is why explicit evidence was requested; providing that, not only can 'non-partisan' be removed from lede but conflicting positions can be written into article body if reliably sourced and passing verification.

Blocks are different from bans; I've neither power[5] nor desire for either but they remain possible remedies for disruption. Should one find such remedies undesirable: seek DR as suggested or simply let it go before coming to that. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Whew. That was a long thread. Dr. Fleischman, with all due respect, why does it matter to you so much that this group be labeled the way they advertise themselves? Isn't it like calling FOX NEWS "Fair and Balanced"? It's pretty clear to me that the consensus opinion here, excepting yourself, is that Judicial Watch is an advocacy group. Dispute Resolution seems rather drastic for something that you could simply drop. Would you consider doing that, please? If not, please let us know why you are so invested in this one word. Thank you. Ben (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

[P.S. Just to be clear, I presume Dr. Fleischman is writing in good faith. I want to understand his motivation, not impugn his character, when I ask why he feels so strongly.]] Ben (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not the only person taking that position. Why do you want to know why it matters to me? Perhaps we should take it to user talk, as "why it matters to me" is an editor issue, not an article issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus that Judicial Watch is a partisan organization, that there is no such thing as a "conservative non-partisan" organization, and that Dr. Fleischman is being willfully obtuse in his defense of the non-partisanship of Judicial Watch. They aren't ashamed of their partisanship, you shouldn't be either. Mugsywwiii (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No, there is no such consensus, let alone a “clear” one. Let’s focus on Wikipedia community standards. We have some editors who want to follow the reliable sources, and some who don’t because obviously how could JW be partisan. That basically sums up our predicament. Now if you want to ‘’obtain’’ a consensus, I’m all for that. Feel free to set up an RfC. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems there's at least a consensus that they are "nominally" nonpartisan. I have edited article as such. ChrisBrown (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No there isn't. "Nominally nonpartisan" hasn't even been mentioned, so there's no way it could have consensus. "Nominally nonpartisan" simply not verifiable, it's as simple as that. --04:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"Judicial Watch is an American conservative non-partisan" Fix this nonsense. This is contradictory and your argument here makes a joke out of WP. Pick ONE of these or leave out both of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.168.72 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Only a joke to those who don't understand our community standards or the various meanings of "non-partisan." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup. They are just as happy to go after a Republican who fails their ideological purity test as after a Democrat, all of whom of course fail it by definition. 23:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to stick with what the reliable sources say so I'm not even going to touch that. . --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no way that this org is non-partisan. It's a misnomer to call it "conservative non-partisan". That makes zero sense. Would it make sense to call it "liberal non-partisan?" not at all. I would like to remove "non-partisan" reference. It is clearly a partisan conservative propaganda arm and should be labeled as such and not try to masquerade as some kind of neutral party which is certainly is not. Someone ask an admin for an arbitration if this is going to turn into an edit war. Anyone who is editing this article with a conservative bias should recuse themselves from the discussion as you're not editing objectively and in the spirit of Wikipedia.Techimo (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I oppose for the reasons already given. Please gain consensus before making your proposed change. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)