Talk:Tom Fitton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questionable Edit[edit]

Can someone please explain why information pertaining to his legal dispute with Larry Klayman was removed from the article? Ruthfulbarbarity 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article[edit]

The article is clearly biased against conservative viewpoints and conservative action groups. Either eliminate it or do a lot of work to show a balanced picture.Danleywolfe (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has gotten even more so since you posted your comment in July 2014. A quick read of the "Controversy" section shows it to be pure garbage, written in a manner that is designed to be as venomous as possible without technically stepping over the line. That kind of writing should be taken to private 'blog sites and not posted at Wikipedia. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 20:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is liberal propaganda. I bet if I edit it to be more balanced that I will catch a warning F. L. (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG! Tom Fitton is a racist, far right ideologue. I have just received a piece of garbage from him and his deplorable organization. Only his ilk would question a well balanced article like the wikipedia. Try to read articles on his far left counterparts. If anything Wikipedia articles are way too nice to both fringe-end political activists. Read the far left activist Michael Moore's: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore>. Communists and nazis should be called what they are. 2601:600:A380:690:48B9:C5A2:FEFB:2935 (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's tragic to see how Wikipedia has been ruined by American left wing activist editors. This article is absurd. Nothing but left-wing attacks, backed up by left-wing sources, against Tom Fitton. Not a word about his accomplishments, or the many accomplishments of Judicial Watch. I have mostly given up on Wikipedia myself due to the extreme bias that has evolved since around 2015, after being an editor under multiple aliases for around 20 years. Anyone attempting to comment on or edit politically sensitive articles in a neutral and balanced way these days will be quickly locked out by left wing editors. FindTheBalance (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage editors to add content about his accomplishments, or the many accomplishments of Judicial Watch soibangla (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE[edit]

Fitton's claims about voter fraud are "alarmist", and should be described as such. Fitton's idiotic claims about climate change amount to a "rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change", and should be described as such. This is consistent with WP:FRINGE where Wikipedia editors should identify fringe theories as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is extremely POV. This is not RationalWiki for such bias. This is violation of BLP:Tone and BLP:Coatrack. Please find Reliable Sources for the "alarmist" claim and we can add it to the article. If it's so obviously "alarmist" then there must be RS to confirm this claim, otherwise it remains POV and Original Research and also BLP violation. FreedomGonzo (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fact-checkers are in agreement that there is zero evidence that voter fraud is "widespread, and substantial to the point that it can decide elections."[1][2][3][4][5] To describe Fitton's remark as "alarmist" is to be extra gentle, because the claim is straight-up "false". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the sources talk about Fitton or not? It seems your actions are of a political activist, not an editor of Encyclopedia. I, personally, couldn't care less about Fitton or American right-wingers, let them burn in hell for all I care, but I don't want Wikipedia to turn to biased and opinionated trash like Conservapedia or Rationalwiki. A good way to show his claims are false, would be adding something like: "These claims, however, have been proven false" and then add all these sources, you provided above, rather than childish "this person is evil" style of writing, which simply unencyclopedic. FreedomGonzo (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the sources are about Fitton or not is irrelevant. Per WP:FRINGE, our language should reflect when something is fringe (e.g. when someone makes false claims about climate change). We don't just repeat falsehoods without clarifying to readers that they are false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. I'll revert my edit. FreedomGonzo (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the new edit you've done looks much more encyclopaedic and well-sourced, and less opinionated. I think this disagreement actually helped improve the article. FreedomGonzo (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "alarmist". As FreedomGonzo noted, unless reliable sources describe his claims about voter fraud as such, we should leave it out. Meatsgains(talk) 00:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All reliable sources agree that his claims about voter fraud are false and unsubstantiated. Per WP:FRINGE, we should describe them as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source provided on the page doesn't. Which sources are you referring to? Meatsgains(talk) 01:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources on this talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as an FYI, I stumbled on this page from the discussion at WP:BLPN. Meatsgains(talk) 00:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fitton's lies about the Obama administration[edit]

One editor removed PolitiFact's finding that Fitton lied about the Obama administration, opting instead to just leave Fitton's lies standing without any correction. Can the editor explain the thinking behind this edit?[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed content noting that "PolitiFact rated Fitton's claim 'mostly false.'" Can this be confirmed from another RS? Meatsgains(talk) 01:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
??? PolitiFact is a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said another. We don't need to add Politifact's analysis to every claim. Meatsgains(talk) 01:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight[edit]

This article reads less as a bio on Fitton and more like an article on Judicial Watch. That needs to be remedied. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I've removed content specifically pertaining to Judicial Watch and climate change. Readers can go to Judicial Watch's page if they want to learn about the group's stance on climate change - this is a BLP on Fitton. Meatsgains(talk) 01:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source explicitly and repeatedly mentions Fitton in the context of the actions that he organization that he heads has taken in regards to climate science and climate change. The argument that it has nothing to do with Fitton is absurd when the cited RS repeatedly mentions him and quotes him in regards to the actions that the organization is taking. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The section highlights Judicial Watch. The article is a BLP and should focus on Fitton. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The section is about Fitton and his work for JW. The sources explicitly and repeatedly mention him in the context of JW's actions on this issue and Fitton himself speaks about JW's actions on this issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. It's about Fitton's personal views on issues. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So your concern now is with the sub-section title "Views"? I think the title is perfectly fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's certain a disconnect from what I actually said. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV edit warring[edit]

There is POV edit warring with a hint of WP:OWN going on at this BLP.[7] Looks like it's been going on for a while, same editor. Pinging Meatsgains and FreedomGonzo as having been down this road at this article previously. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you conveniently ping the two editors whom I just so happen to have tussled with on this page, and then you start to edit-war as soon as one of them shows? No, not canvassing at all... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about it, it's about the article. And the disruption of it as well as no attempt on the only person disrupting to discuss anything. If you want to start editing cooperatively and collegially, fine. Until then, I will most certainly ask editors who also have an interest in this article to look at what's happening and evaluate recent edits. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you want to ask Lionelt to take a look at me also? Going around canvassing people seems to be a pattern with you[8][9] when you are unable to substantiate your whitewashing of reliably sourced content from conservative pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-styled[edit]

Why does the intro paragraph say that Judicial Watch is a "self-styled" watchdog group?

The WaPo and the Hill have both called JW a watchdog group in print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingle22 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the Judicial Watch page where this was the agreed-upon language after extensive discussion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand what you're saying, you're referring to a discussion that took place at another article's talk page? If so, that discussion isn't valid here. You're welcome to start a discussion on it here, though, at which point the consensus on this page will decide what goes into this article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes me as redundant to have two separate discussions as to how we describe JW on the JW page and head of JW's page. There was a RfC on the JW page.[10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-styled" is when you call yourself something. "Styled" is when other people call you something. Legitimate sources have called Judicial Watch a watchdog organization. So JW is "styled" a watchdog organization, not "self-styled" a watchdog organization. Explain how the word is being used correctly in the intro paragraph. Or we could all just admit that "self-styled" has been injected as an editorializing adjective, in the same way that saying "Bob is a self-styled opera singer" would imply that he really isn't and Bob is deluded or deceptive to say so. I guess the real question is: does Wikipedia allow that sort of editorializing in articles or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingle22 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that not one example of JW’s successes in exposing govt misconduct is in the article. Very telling https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/tag/success/ F. L. (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RS say a claim is false, therefore wiki voice says it's false[edit]

This is very simply. Fitton's claims that there is a coup against Trump are false (per RS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The claims are not false. The article is biased to say that they are. Editorializing should not be allowed on Wikipedia. This is why you're not credible.--AnalyticalChick (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our content is based on reliable sources. The cited source says that the statement was false. R2 (bleep) 23:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2019[edit]

In the first paragraph of the article about Tom Fitton there is a statement regarding the Mueller investigation that "[h]e has falsely claimed that the investigation is a "coup" against US President Donald Trump and called for it to be shut down." The word "falsely" should be omitted because it reflects the author's opinion which is refuted by the following statements:

28 CFR § 600.6 is a regulation which authorizes the attorney general, or in the event of his recusal, the deputy attorney general, to appoint a special prosecutor who can exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any US attorney within the scope of his jurisdiction. After AG Jeff Sessions recused himself DAG Rod Rosenstein appointed SP Robert Mueller to just uncover evidence of President Trump's alleged collusion with the Russians. Mueller, in fact, went way beyond the original scope of his jurisdiction which was to find evidence of collusion, not to investigate an alleged "cover-up."

United States attorneys are principal officers of the federal government and in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Clearly, Mueller and his team of lawyers clear violated 28 CFR § 600.6, and by allowing Mueller to exercise the investigative and prosecutorial powers of a US attorney - see above paragraph's last sentence - Rosenstein and Mueller violated 5 US Code § 1211(b) which states that a special counsel shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

A number of online dictionaries define "coup" as a sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover. Some definitions include the words "illegal" and/or "violent" but it can also be bloodless (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution). (I won't get into the legal vs. illegal debate here.) Additionally a coup need not be successful so one can have an "attempted" coup.

Most of the attorneys on Mueller's team were Democrats and many of them contributed money to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Many if not all are partisans and prone to bias against Trump - they simply could not be impartial.

I have read the Mueller report. No evidence of collusion was found and so stated by Mueller. Mueller then went on to say say that although he did not charge Trump he did not exonerate him either. It is not the job of a prosecutor to exonerate anyone - only a court of law can do that. Moreover, Trump cannot defend himself because he cannot cross-examine Mueller as he could do in a court of law. So Mueller's remark was damaging the Trump.

Andrew McCabe, the fired former Deputy Director of the FBI, admitted that he tried to drum up support to sideline Trump using the 25th Amendment. It is not the mandate of the FBI to do such a thing. Some very powerful Democrats in the Democrat-controlled House are calling for Trump's impeachment, which would not remove him but would further damage him in advance of the 2020 election and possibly contributing to his defeat.

All of the above certainly appears to be part of a larger movement to remove a legitimately elected President from office prior to the election of 2020; this amounts to something more than an attempted coup - it can be argued that it is an ongoing attempted coup.

"Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts." -Bernard Baruch-

The author who used the word "falsely" in this article must now admit that the facts are in dispute so he cannot use the word "falsely." So this word must be removed.

Q.E.D. 74.67.47.35 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reliable sources disagree that it is a coup. DannyS712 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2019[edit]

This article has a noticable democratic slant...we need to get a rebuttal. 72.168.177.18 (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please read WP:NPOV. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voter roles[edit]

His drumbeat on Fox Lou Dobbs Wikipietime (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Harris ineligibility 2020[edit]

Exert; “ Jenna Ellis, the Trump campaign adviser, reposted a tweet Thursday from Tom Fitton, the president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, in which he asked whether Harris is "ineligible to be Vice President under the U.S. Constitution's 'Citizenship Clause'" and shared an op-ed from John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University, published in Newsweek.” Needs inclusion

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-vice-president-eligibility-birther-conspiracy-trump-campaign/ Wikipietime (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a passing mention: unless you have (multiple) reliable sources who are interested what Fitton has to say about this (or anything other) issue, it doesn't belong here. --Calton | Talk 10:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Call out by Trump[edit]

Accolades at 2020 Council for National Policy. August 21 2020, cspan Wikipietime (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish in opening paragraph[edit]

Someone tried to add references to the opening paragraph and produced gibberish instead. I have no idea what they were trying to say. They should try again or delete the addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkC162 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing and Disturbing Bias[edit]

The opening paragraph makes statements about Mr Fitton via a narrative that seems obviously designed to present him and Judicial Watch in a negative light. The use of absolute statements to describe Fitton are misleading at best.

There seems to be a conscious choice to focus on a a few topics related to Mr Fitton and present this info in way to unfairly paint him as a racist, far right... This is supported by the irresponsible response of one reader who blatantly called Fitton “a racist and far right ideologue”.

This article should be totally removed and rewritten with an effort to be less biased and hyperbolic, and actually share current and legit information about Mr Fitton. His work at Judicial watch is significant and should be included, but presented in a way that is an accurate and balanced account. 2601:681:4B03:7A0:E56E:9141:2E82:1A3E (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he's in the news now[edit]

is this the same Tom Fitton mentioned in recent coverage of the Jan 6 hearings? 166.196.107.57 (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New section on role in Mar a Lago doc case[edit]

Fitton was a central figure in the Mar a Lago espionage and document theft case. From NYT:

"When asked to say the former president had no more government documents after the return of 15 boxes in January, the lawyer, Alex Cannon, would not do so... Cannon was not the only person who warned Mr. Trump that he could face legal perils if he did not return the material... Eric Herschmann, a lawyer who had worked in the White House... told [Trump] that he could face legal consequences if he did not give the boxes back... But Mr. Trump continued to consult with informal advisers who told him... that the material could be considered personal records — such as the conservative activist Tom Fitton, who is not a lawyer but who leads the group Judicial Watch"

Suggest a section on Fitton's role in this and other advice to Trump that led to criminal investigations. MBUSHIstory (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New section on role in election denial & Jan 6 insurrection[edit]

Fitton suggested denying election loss before the election. From Mother Jones -

"The committee also revealed a pre-election memo that Tom Fitton, an occasional Trump adviser who runs of the right-wing nonprofit Judicial Watch, emailed to White House aides on October 31, 2020. In it, Fitton proposed victory remarks for Trump. 'We had an election today—and I won,' Fitton’s suggested remarks said. Fitton resent the memo on Nov. 3, 2020—Election Day—and said that he had discussed it with Trump."

Suggest new section on Fitton's role in advice to Trump that led to criminal investigations. MBUSHIstory (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reference to this. As Mother Jones says, it was a "pre-election memo" and I would expect it's routine for politicians have the sense to prepare a victory speech in advance of an election. No suggestion of election denial. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Fitton&oldid=1222618971"