Jump to content

Talk:L. Lin Wood/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

12 October 2011 comment

We need to change the page title to the correct name of L. Lin Wood Jr. so those of us working on live bios can complete, help and reference this page. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyD2010 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

9 November 2011 comment

Reads like an advertisement ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.211.194.118 (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

22 March 2012 comment

No one has stated on this page what corrections are referred to in the 2011 note of; "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." or 2011 note of; "This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information". Many of us have tried to help the original editor of this article but without any notes here it is impossible to know when that editor with the help of others has met that Nov. 2011 two notes. JoeyD2010 (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on L. Lin Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

removal of the "coverage in books and newspapers" section

i removed the peacock tag from the top,and a section at the bottom that was just large quotes books and the AJC. the change was -5k, so i guess it's appropriate to leave a note here. if the removal was wrong, please restore the old version. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.85.193.229 (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

chage X After Joe Biden won the 2020 United States presidential election, Wood promoted conspiracy theories on Trump's behalf,

to Y After the contested election of the 2020 United States presidential election, Wood promoted conspiracy theories on Trump's behalf, 47.185.255.46 (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been discussed at great length in locations including Talk:2020 United States presidential election, Talk:Joe Biden, Talk:Donald Trump, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Is it a NPOV violation to say Joe Biden won the 2020 election?. We are not going to circumvent the consensus that has been developed in those locations at individual, tangentially-related articles such as this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump made false claims of voter fraud

This statement is wrong. I am new to Wikipedia, I see comments like this all the time and I ticks me off. Whether they are false or not is not up to you to say. Keep your personal thoughts and opinions to yourself. It should read “ Trump made accusations of voter fraud with growing evidence to support him” or which has little support from the courts or what have you. The statement imply it’s done and over with.., Thanks my opinion Stang 6969 (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Please review any of the many discussions about describing claims about widespread voter and/or election fraud as false, including elsewhere on this talk page, and at Talk:2020 United States presidential election (summarized in the FAQ section and discussed throughout the talk page archives), Talk:Donald Trump, and elsewhere. This has been asked and answered over and over again. Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable sources, and reliable sources are fairly unanimous on this point. If you believe you have reliable sources that say otherwise, I would recommend first checking their reliability at WP:RSP, then presenting them here for review and discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

> After Joe Biden won the 2020 United States presidential election and Donald Trump and his legal team have gathered insurmountable evidence proving election fraud on a mass scale 172.194.171.46 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I think there are a few inaccurate adjectives and nouns in the proposed sentence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2021

Carterdelgado (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Dear editors, please remove the word "falsely" from the top portion of this article. Lin Wood "claims that President Trump won the election by 70% of the vote." That is what he claims. There has been voluminous evidence of fraud presented by various sources (We can see evidence with our own eyes). Whether the fraud constitutes enough to overturn the election or is "70%" remains to be determined. There are ongoing court and legislative battles, as well as ballot audits. So how in the world can this article decisively claim that the accusations of Lin Wood are "false"? I do not know if they are true or false. That is what we want to know. Stop being part of the problem. Be one of the few information sources with integrity. Thank you.Carterdelgado (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Carterdelgado (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: @Carterdelgado: this exact issue has been discussed many places, including this very talk page (see above), multiple times, and the wording will not be changed. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 16:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

Concise and Clear Summary

Subject: Wikipedia Pages on L. Lin Wood

Currently Stated in Wikipedia

After Joe Biden won the 2020 United States presidential election and Trump made false claims of fraud in the election,[6] Wood litigated on Trump's behalf to seek to prevent the certification of election results.[7]

Correctly Stated in Wikipedia Immediately?

After Joe Biden claimed he won the 2020 United States presidential election and claimed Trump made false claims of fraud in the election,[6] Wood litigated on Trump's behalf to seek to prevent the certification of election results.[7]

I logged in and did not find the usual edit options. Therefore, please make the above changes immediately for me. If you choose not to make these changes, please reduce my donation to zero!

Supporting Details

I have had it with the corruption in government, universities, the legal system, etc. It is time for people who love Wikipedia to personify the universal laws and the virtues (clearly explained in Wikipedia), do the right things, be the best they can be, and show people they care, as Lou Holtz recommends and as Lin Wood and I are doing right now. Lou is currently being awarded a Medal of Honor by Trump. I am anxious to see your choice.

As you know, I am a donor. I am also one of your biggest supporters, even against the approximately 90% of professors who tell their students not to use Wikipedia. I also have many students and I recommend both textbooks and Wikipedia, both professors and search engines. I taught in the evening at the graduate level for 15 years (at the U. of Rochester or the Rochester Institute of Technology), while working at big corporations (Kodak and Xerox) during the day. I tutored for the last ten years, over 10,000 hours, in Business and STEM.

As a financial physicist, I have programmed computers since I was an undergraduate. I have applied computers, statistics, and math to physics research, information retrieval, decision theory, financial analysis, business development, corporate planning, education, etc. Many professors do not have enough education and experience, especially in programming, economics, strategic thinking, game theory, dynamic programming, etc. Education is now corrupt and often does not even allow discourse.

Wikipedia is great. It enables the inverted pyramids to read, learn, improve, communicate, etc. By the inverted pyramid, I mean the voters who are at the top of our Nation’s inverted period. The politicians are at the bottom to support and help the above pyramid. I also mean the students who are at the top of the inverted pyramids at our universities. The professors are at the bottom to support and help the above pyramid.

In addition, I mean the citizens who are at the top of the inverted pyramids at our courts, including the “Supreme” Court, which is not supreme as they apparently assume. The judges and justices are at the bottom to support and help the above pyramid. They are so corrupt they have not even fairly enforced the laws for the last several years. Lin Wood and Sidney Powell may soon help them.

Regards, Chuck Masick CSMasick (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please review any of the many discussions about describing claims about widespread voter and/or election fraud as false, including at Talk:2020 United States presidential election (summarized in the FAQ section and discussed throughout the talk page archives), Talk:Donald Trump, and elsewhere. This has been asked and answered over and over again. Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable sources, and reliable sources are fairly unanimous on this point. If you believe you have reliable sources that say otherwise, I would recommend first checking their reliability at WP:RSP, then presenting them here for review and discussion.
As for your donation, volunteer Wikipedia editors have no control over donations, which are all handled by the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization that supports the English Wikipedia and its various sister projects). Feel free to email donate@wikimedia.org with any questions/requests involving donations. But please note that the promise of (or threat to withhold) a donation does not and will never influence article content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

"After Joe Biden won the 2020 United States presidential election and Donald Trump made false claims of fraud in the election" contains 2 falsehoods. 1. Joe Biden has yet to win the 2020 presidential election. 2 Donald Trump has not made false claims of fraud in the election. The existence of fraud has yet to be determined. 173.189.222.91 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read any of the four discussions above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

Trump made "false" claims? Says who? as yet unproven or unsubstantiated claims better describes the situation. 2600:1702:4690:2420:C55E:5738:79FF:1352 (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 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. Seagull123 Φ 16:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 Not done Please review any of the many discussions about describing claims about widespread voter and/or election fraud as false, including elsewhere on this talk page, and at Talk:2020 United States presidential election (summarized in the FAQ section and discussed throughout the talk page archives), Talk:Donald Trump, and elsewhere. This has been asked and answered over and over again. Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable sources, and reliable sources are fairly unanimous on this point. If you believe you have reliable sources that say otherwise, I would recommend first checking their reliability at WP:RSP, then presenting them here for review and discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Biased/incorrect description of fraud litigation outcome

On the Lin Wood page it states "and Donald Trump made false claims of fraud in the election"

This is a biased and incorrect description. The court did not and never does find the claims false. The court found the claims "unproven". That is how the law works. The court does not work to the extent and level of investigation that would be required to prove a claim is false. In the same way an unsuccessful murder prosecution does not find the person "innocent", the court finds them "not guilty", the court does not investigate to the extent required to prove them innocent. That would be an onerous task and probably bigger than the murder investigation.

The word "false" should either be removed, or replaced with "claims the court did not uphold" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern38 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please review any of the many discussions about describing claims about widespread voter and/or election fraud as false, including elsewhere on this talk page, at Talk:2020 United States presidential election (summarized in the FAQ section and discussed throughout the talk page archives), Talk:Donald Trump, and elsewhere. This has been asked and answered over and over again. Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable sources, and reliable sources are fairly unanimous on this point. If you believe you have reliable sources that say otherwise, I would recommend first checking their reliability at WP:RSP, then presenting them here for review and discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

There is no proof that President Trump's allegations of election fraud are false, and stating that as 'fact' as is done on this page is blatant partisan propaganda. 2600:8801:7F06:0:941A:EC29:5CCF:BB88 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide: (1) a specific change that you would like made; and (2) reliable sources to back it up. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

"made false claims of fraud in the election"

How do we know the claims are false, when the investigation has not concluded? Bec0222 (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read the three sections above this which have all asked largely the same question. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Partisan Left Leaning Entry

The sentence stating that claims of election fraud are "false" propagandizes the entry, attempting to lead the reader. The word "false" should be removed and replaced with "allegations of fraud" which is a neutral description. Six Georgia senators issued a report detailing the allegations of fraud: http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF During this period, main stream media is divided on political issues and therefore, citing selected media is not a citation of reliable sources. There are no longer "reliable sources," only partisan sources. The choice of media to cite also places editors into a partisan category. There have been allegations of election fraud due to mail in ballots during the Covid-19 pandemic which remain unresolved. The report by six Georgia Senators details these allegations of fraud and cites sworn affidavits. Hence, claims of fraud should not be called "false" because that is an opinion. Suggestion is to strike the attempt to lead the reader with the term "false". Also citing the report by the Georgia Senators may be appropriate here to put the allegations of fraud and Lin Wood's court cases into a neutral context. Catherine2gr8 (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

These "sworn affidavits" have been deemed by courts, and reliable sources, to be meritless. Contrary to your assertion, there are indeed reliable sources. Here is a convenient list for you of the current Wikipedia consensus of which sources are reliable. And please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for you to vent your frustration about reliable sources (and facts) not lining up with your preferred view of things. NonReproBlue (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd add that the reliable news organisations that we use as sources for this type of content overwhelmingly describe the allegations as "false". Our task is to faithfully represent those sources - we need to use the word, or a synonym. GirthSummit (blether) 12:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump work

Should his work for the president be mentioned twice in the lead (end of 1st paragraph, all of 3rd)? Does it need the reference in the lead when the same information has references in the body? -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Really only needs to be mentioned once, the lead should be a culmination/summary of the body so unless there are two separate references of different occurrences , then just one mention will suffice.PrecociousPeach (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

In July 2020, Wood was retained to represent Dr. Simone Gold, founder of America's Frontline Doctors, who was fired for appearing in a video making false claims about COVID-19.[34][35] Should be changed to In July 2020, Wood was retained to represent Dr. Simone Gold, founder of America's Frontline Doctors, who was fired for appearing in a video making allegedly false claims about COVID-19.[34][35] 47.204.229.19 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 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. Seagull123 –Φ 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
it's pretty clear to me what he's asking. He's asking to change it from a conclusive statement of "making false claims" to "making allegedly false claims". read carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:1319:4e17:a0ed:80db:337d:ad47 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The sourcing is quite clear that they are false claims, no caveat. There are no reliable sources that support her claim that hydroxychloroquine cures COVID-19. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
That's incorrect. In order for the statement to be labeled as "false" (as you've claimed) it would have to be proven "false". To date, there is no study in existence that has even attempted to do so. What these political articles actually say is that her statement "hasn't yet been proven to be true". This is a very very different statement. Bottom line, it should be removed. you can't label something as "false" until it's been proven to be false. Again, read carefully. Apply logic apolitically, Set your POV aside. 2605:E000:1319:4E17:A0ED:80DB:337D:AD47 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources describe her claims as false, so we do as well. If you have any reliable sources that contradict that her claim is false, feel free to provide them and then we can discuss, however as I've said there are no RS describing hydroxychloroquine as a cure. Your logic is not sound–if she unequivocally describes hydroxycholoroquine as a "cure", and there has been no evidence that hydroxychloroquine cures COVID, then it is a false claim to describe it as such. If she had said it might cure COVID, or something like that, that would be an "unproven" claim, but the claim that it has been shown to cure COVID is false.
I would ask you to stop marking this edit request as unanswered–the template is meant to tag changes that are ready for implementation, such as extremely uncontroversial changes (typofixes, etc.) and changes that have already reached consensus. This is neither. We can continue discussing here without the tag, and if we reach consensus for a change and there isn't already an autoconfirmed editor around to make the change, you can restore the tag. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you who are the one making the actual claim of "false". I've simply pointed out the flaw in your logic, equally as flawed as trying to turn it back on me when I've already proved it. So let's do a side by side as that may be easier for you. Also, the issue we are discussing here is pervasive throughout this entire article. Conclusory statements of "false claims" etc. Which haven't been litigated. It even contains false claims about who won an election based on articles, completely neglecting the fact that it is congress who decides. This article is riddled with statements and conclusions not supported by the source material. Very POV and that's not what Wikipedia is for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1319:4E17:A0ED:80DB:337D:AD47 (talk) 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe her claims as false (name a single study that has proven it has no impact) "If you have any reliable sources that contradict that her claim is false" this is your flawed logic. The person making the claim is you, not me. What I've said is you cannot make a conclusory legal statement without proof. A WaPo opinion piece is not proof. Saying that it hasn't been yet proven is not proof that it is false. The only thing that can support the "false" statement is proof that the statement is, in fact, false.2605:E000:1319:4E17:A0ED:80DB:337D:AD47 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

name a single study that has proven it has no impact Her claim was that hydroxychloroquine cures COVID. Not that it "has some impact on COVID".
The person making the claim is you, not me. No, the claim is being made by The Washington Post. Wikipedia reflects what is published in reliable sources, and unless there is some reason to believe their statements are incorrect or have been challenged (such as a reliable source publishing a contradictory statement), we present them without caveat.
The source is not an opinion piece. The Washington Post publishes opinion columns at washingtonpost.com/opinions; that is not where this is published.
This is an encyclopedia, which reflects what is published in reliable sources; we are not making "conclusory legal statements". You may wish to review WP:TRUTH. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting exactly what I have said. An encyclopedia does not source opinion articles as it's source material on scientific statements. it uses facts that have no POV. Opinion pieces (which is what the sources are) are not reliable sources. They are inherently POV. Perhaps that is lost on the current generation of editors. I'll break this down for you
This is the general rule:
Unproven Statement (requires no proof either way, it's just a statement). This is the statement the woman has made. There are many studies that have supported it's positive impact. There are zero studies proving her statement is "false".
False Statement (requires actual scientific proof [in this case] that it is false) This is your claim, no studies are cited (you keep missing this fact and going back on opinion pieces that only show it's an "unproven statement" as evidence that it is false. This is where you're going wrong.
True Statement (requires positive scientific proof that the statement is correct)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1319:4E17:A0ED:80DB:337D:AD47 (talk) 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not having problems understanding what you are saying. As I have explained, that is not how we write Wikipedia articles. Feel free to suggest a policy change such that any description of something as "false" or "true" needs to be backed up by a scientific study, but until then we will go with the current policy, which is reflecting what is published in reliable sources (such as articles from The Washington Post's non-opinion sections, which is the source being used here). GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
cite the Wikipedia policy specific to this issue. Is WaPo a reliable medical journal? Has the WaPo ever been cited by the medical community as a reliable medical journal for medical procedures? If either of these are true your statement is correct. But we both know the real answer here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1319:4E17:A0ED:80DB:337D:AD47 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The policy is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The consensus that the WaPo is a reliable source for usage on Wikipedia (which is what is in question here; we do not need to meet WP:MEDRS to say that Immanuel has made false claims about COVID-19, if that is what you are trying to suggest) is summarized at WP:RSP#The Washington Post, with links to the discussions establishing that consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
your opinion on whether or not Trump's assertions of fraud is true or not is pure conjecture. It has not been proven or disproven GorillaWarfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:de8e:9200:355b:4521:b1e:42f9 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia articles reflect what reliable sources say, which is that Trump's claims of fraud are false. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

First, let me apologise for not reading the request properly, and therefore answering how I did. However, the WaPo source (which isn't an opinion piece) doesn't describe the claims as "allegedly false"; but as false. Therefore, per GorillaWarfare above, and WP:V - unless reliable sources can be found that say otherwise - there's no reason to add the word "allegedly". Seagull123 Φ 17:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"Litigated on Trump's behalf"

Is this meant to indicate that he is not definitely representing Trump or his campaign, given the frequent shakeups in the legal team? It reads quite oddly; I don't think I've ever heard that phrase before, actually. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say if you can come up with something that flows better and isn't quite as confusing go for it, I think it would probably stand as an edit, the only things getting reverted are disputes about proper sourcing and citations. Always remember if you feel you can improve an article , be bold and make the edit. =)PrecociousPeach (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A factual error in the sentence: "Donald Trump made false claims of fraud in the election".

This has been discussed at length; we do not need to rehash the same discussions over and over again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has a factual error in the sentence: "Donald Trump made false claims of fraud in the election". It unnecessarily subtracts from the credibility of this article. The error is that it appears to falsely suggest that Donald Trump's claims have been factually disproved (those who disagree, please, show me a factual proof that the said Donald Trump's claims were false), which is not the case. Moreover, some of Donald Trump's claims were proved by means of presentation of thousands of cases of dead persons voting and non-citizens voting. The only questionable part is whether the fraud was wide-spread enough to change the outcome of the elections or not. This part, however, has not been proved or disproved at this time.

Since this sort of error ("Donald Trump made false claims", or similar statements) is common to many articles published in mainstream newspapers and and major TV networks' reports, I am going to explain it in detail here so that the editors may have a choice to make this article factually correct.

A sentence p that states a (presumed) fact may be either true or false. Some but not all sentences that are true may be proved, and some but not all sentences that are false may be disproved, using a suitable proof system. For instance, p may be true but not proved, or it may be false but not disproved.

For example, the sentence "There exist the largest prime number" is false. It was disproved by Euclid some 23 hundreds years ago. Alternatively, one can say that the sentence "For every number N there exist prime number M such that M is greater than N" is true and use Euclid's argument to prove it.

On the other hand, the so-called Goedel's sentence "I have no proof" is true and it does not have a proof. Here proof means a proof within a consistent proof system PA for first-order arithmetic. Similarly, the sentence that negates the above Goedel's sentence is false but cannot be disproved within the same consistent proof system PA for first-order arithmetic.

As a result, there are sentences that no one knows if they are true or false because they cannot be proved or disproved. The true/false logical value of some them may be established in the future once a suitable proof or a refutation is found, but for some of them we will never know whether they are true or false; in particular, they will never be proved or disproved.

For instance, as of today, no one was able to prove or disprove this sentence (the so-called Goldbach hypothesis):

Every even number greater than or equal to 4 is a sum of two prime numbers.

As a result, we do not know at this moment if the above sentence is true or false. In particular, a claim that the above sentence is false would be just an expression of opinion and not an established mathematical fact (not at this time).

In other words, the mere fact that a sentence in question has not been proved does not make that sentence false. And, conversely, the mere fact that a sentence in question has not been disproved does not make that sentence true.

Going back to the sentence "Donald Trump made false claims of fraud in the election", it is vague as it can be understood in two different ways.

A: "Donald Trump made false claims that there were cases of fraud in the 2020 elections"

and

B: "Donald Trump made false claims that there were cases of significant fraud in the 2020 elections in that they changed the outcome of the elections".

If B is false then A is false, too, but the converse may or may not hold. In particular, B may be true even if A is false.

Sentence A has been disproved by proving that the sentence "there were cases of fraud in the 2020 elections". This was done by means of presentation of thousands of cases of dead persons voting and non-citizens voting. Therefore, the sentence A is false.

As of today, no one provided a factual proof that 2020 elections were free of significant fraud that changed the outcome of the presidential race, not withstanding the fact that several mainstream newspapers and and major TV networks claim, without a factual proof, that the said elections were free of significant fraud. They failed to provide factual proof of their claim. Therefore, sentence B has not been proved as of now.

On the other hand, there is a voluminous evidence (sworn affidavits of eyewitnesses, videos, pictures, real-time logs of vote counts, etc.) that supports the claim of a wide-spread election fraud, while at the same time there is no proof that the existing election fraud was not wide-spread enough to change the result of the elections, and the statements of various officials assuring that there was no election fraud were not made under oath (hence their limited value as evidence). Part of the said evidence is being disputed, so as of now it is fair to say that the existence of significant election fraud in 2020 elections have not been proved, at least not yet. Thus the sentence B, in addition to not being proved at this time, can possibly be disproved once all relevant evidence is presented to the public.

Taking the above into account, it is not known for fact at this time weather there was a significant election fraud in 2020 elections or not, and, perhaps, we will never know, although there are known facts (for instance, statistical analyses of the statistical unlikelihood of observed votes distribution under assumption of a lack of a wide-spread election fraud) that seem to suggest that there was one.

Therefore, while claiming that "Donald Trump Donald Trump made some unproven (so far) claims of fraud in the election" is - in the case of interpretation given by sentence B (defined above) - factually correct at this time, but claiming that "Donald Trump made false claims of fraud in the election" is just an expression of opinion and is not proven to be true, and is plain false if it is interpreted as sentence A (defined above).

One can correctly criticize Donald Trump for making claims that have been not proven (although their proofs may exist but be unknown to the general public) but claiming that "Donald Trump made false claims of fraud in the election" is at least as unjustified, as of today, as Donald Trump's claim that there was a significant election fraud in 2020 elections.

In other words, those who claim that "Donald Trump made false claims of fraud in the election" commit the very same, if not worse, factual error that they ascribe to him. In particular, the statement "Wikipedia falsely accuses Donald Trump of making false claims of fraud in the election" is every bit as valid (or invalid) as the statement "Donald Trump made false claims of fraud in the election". There is no known proof or disproof of any of the two at the time of this writing.

I would suggest that Wikipedia articles in order to have a serious credibility should steer clear from making unproven claims, particularly, if they criticize Donald Trump for making unproven claims. For if they criticize him for what they themselves are doing then it may appear hypocritical. 172.88.197.74 (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Reliable sources say "false", so we say "false". All your original research is meaningless with regards to Wikipedia policy. We do not give credence to fringe conspiracy theories. In the immortal words of Christopher Hitchens: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." We do not assume that wild conspiracies "may" be true until they are disproven. I could assert that you are actually a non-sentient entity that I am controlling with my mind so completely and subtly that you aren't even aware of it, and you could never "prove" that I am wrong, but we would not present that idea as in any way valid. Exceptional, conspiratorial, fringe claims are held to be false until they are proven true, not the other way around. But the only thing that matters on Wikipedia is what reliable sources say. They say "false", we say "false". Fin. NonReproBlue (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Your "Nope" is not good enough. Scientifically speaking, your ascribing to "them" an authority to decide truth and falsehood is nonsense. You may call my sound logical explanation of the factual error in this article "miningless" but yours is just an uninformed opinion of someone who authoritatively writes about truth and falsehood without showing signs of any basic scientific knowledge of these concepts. Your other claims, like "Exceptional, conspiratorial, fringe claims are held to be false until they are proven true", are false. You don't seem to understand the difference between true and proven and between false and unproven. I suppose you didn't understand my simple explanation, either. 172.88.197.74 (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
My understanding or lack thereof is immaterial. What I do, and you don't, understand are Wikipedia's policies. We don't base what we write on editors' "scientific knowledge", or "logical explanation of the factual error". We base what we write on one single thing: What reliable sources say. That is the end all, be all of the matter. You don't have to like it. You are welcome to believe that "Scientifically speaking" this policy is "nonsense". But that's the way it is. To quote one of the core policies of Wikipedia "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Them's the breaks. NonReproBlue (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
You are wrong, again. Now you confuse "research" with "what reliable sources say". This way you can favor propaganda over scientific truth. Your admitted lack of scientific knowledge and understanding of science and its methodology prevents you from realization that the main purpose of any encyclopedia worth its name is to provide a wide compendium of facts that are true. Any policy that an encyclopedia may have is supposed to serve that purpose and not to override it. Your repeated insistence that publishing false or unproven claims is fine as long as it conforms to your interpretation of Wikipedia policy is absurd in itself.
It is not true that Wikipedia articles just quote sources. There is also a dose of critical rationality that is expected of those articles that editors who lack basic knowledge of science and ability to reason rationally are often unable to provide. In particular, those editors are often unable to correctly ascribe credibility to sources. Peer reviewed articles in scientific journals are usually considered credible sources, as long as their results were not falsified later by other peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. Articles in newspapers and TV networks' reports may be credible for some matters of facts, like that there was a tornado in Tulsa, Oklahoma, if they provide verifiable evidence (say, videos) for their statements, but are generally not credible sources in deciding which statements made by others are true and which are false. The bottom line is that if it is a policy to not publish any statements that have not been proved, there must be a reference provided with such statement to a credible source that provides the relevant proof and not just a claim supported only with references to other "credible" sources that do not provide such a proof.
And last but not least, the statement "Donald Trump made false claims of fraud in the election" requires a proof or a reference to it. Publishing it without a proof (or a reference to a proof) violates Wikipedia policy about not publishing unproven claims, particularly controversial ones. That some individuals and some media keep repeating it without proof is not enough to award it a status of proven fact. Besides, there are credible sources, for instance The Epoch Times, that provide ample evidence that contradicts the statement "Donald Trump made false claims of fraud in the election". Here is a link to a summary of such evidence and a link to a recent specific evidence ("Dominion Software Intentionally Designed to Influence Election Results: Forensics Report", The Epoch Times, December 14, 2020). 172.88.197.74 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
It also should be noted that Wikipedia credibility among the Ameirican public is at stake here. Below are excerpts from a recent poll about public opinion about fraud in 2020 presidential elections.
McLaughlin Poll: Majority See Vote Fraud as National Problem
[...]
Although Election Day is over a month ago, when we asked — "Do you believe there was election and voter fraud in the presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump back in November?" — the plurality of voters, 46%, said yes, with only 45% saying no.
[...]
The results of this national survey of 1,000 likely voters, conducted between Dec. 9 and Dec. 13
[...]
Trump voters say that there was fraud 80% to 10%. But 16% of Biden voters said that there was fraud as well.
Republicans said that there was fraud 75% to 15%, but 41% of Independents agreed, as did 22% among Democrats.
Conservatives said that there was fraud 74% to 19%, but so did 30% among moderates, and 29% among liberals.
The majority among white voters, 53% to 37%, said that there was fraud. So did the majority among Hispanics 50% to 42% and 12% among African Americans.
Older voters over 55 years said there was fraud 50% to 42%, while 43% among voters under 55 years said there was fraud.
The majority among men said there was fraud 55% to 36%. Among women 38% said there was fraud.
55% among rural voters said there was fraud; 46% in the suburbs and 40% in urban areas.
172.88.197.74 (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

December, 2020 attempt to halt Senatorial runoff election in Georgia

The section titled "Other significant lawsuits" should now have added:

On December 18, 2020, Wood filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, with himself as plaintiff, against Georgia's Secretary of State and others, seeking an emergency injunction halting the Senatorial runoff election for the two United States Senate seats from Georgia.[1] The Complaint contained a remarkable typographical error in that it was verified by Wood "under plenty of perjury" rather than "under penalty of perjury".[2] U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten Sr. denied Wood’s request for a temporary restraining order stating, among other things, that Wood lacked standing to file the lawsuit and his claims of potential voter fraud were “too speculative.”[3] 69.114.93.199 (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

69.114.93.199 (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Verified-Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief-Wood-v.-Raffensperger-et-al..pdf
  2. ^ https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Verified-Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief-Wood-v.-Raffensperger-et-al..pdf
  3. ^ https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/federal-judge-rejects-request-to-stop-georgia-runoff-election/5KYBDFNINBGW5GIOJXQH4JDYIE/
 Done, with some small copyedits and with a different (non-primary) source for the first two sentences. I've placed this in the "2020 elections → Lawsuits" section, rather than in "Other significant lawsuits", since there was already some discussion of the Georgia Senate election in that section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Was Lin ever actually part of the Trump legal team?

I can't find any sources about whether Lin was ever actually engaged by the Trump campaign. He has filed numerous lawsuits that line up with the Trump legal efforts to overturn the election, but was he ever actually named as part of the team or is he doing it all on his own initiative? Is anyone paying him to file these lawsuits? I would think some reporters would have looked into this, but I can't find anything. Anyone else? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

TY Melanie; I want to know that, too. In particular, I want to know who's bankrolling all of this. Verdana♥Bold 19:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@MelanieN and Verdana Bold: - no, Lin was not. He's independent. I'm seeing media reports that he was, and Wood's lawyer claimed that Wood was, but I haven't seen the Trump campaign claiming that Wood was. Then there is this: [1] Wood’s relationship to Trump’s attorneys is somewhat nebulous, but the president two weeks ago promoted a story that described Wood as having “joined Trump’s election team.” [2] . In mid-November, in fact, Trump even promoted a tweet that described Wood as having “joined Trump’s election team.” (Wood has not otherwise been identified as Trump’s lawyer.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship.paint (talk • contribs)

In the summer of 2020, Lin Wood added a Qanon slogan #WWG1WGA to the biography of his Twitter account

Can some please translate this to an understandable form of English? Just now its gobbledegook. Wikipedia should be written so we who were born in the last century shall understand it. Weatherford (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

#WWG1WGA is hashtag related to the far-right Qanon conspiracy theory. It stands for "Where we go one we go all" and is a slogan common among Qanon followers. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

WHO CARES??!!!! You swallow camels and strain out gnats. Your biases are quite apparent.108.217.198.23 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2021

After this sentence:

"Wood has also called for the imprisonment of Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, based on the conspiracy theory that the two Republican officials worked with the Chinese to help rig the vote for Biden.[7]"

Add the following sentence:

He later called for the arrests of Chief Justice John Roberts, Vice President Mike Pence, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. [1]

Sources

  1. ^ @LLinWood (2021-01-01). "When arrests for treason begin, put Chief Justice John Roberts, VP Mike Pence @VP @Mike_Pence, & Mitch McConnell @senatemajldr at top of list" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Already  Done, in a different manner. starship.paint (exalt) 02:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

Add the following sentence immediately after "...following his false claim members of the mob were Antifa activists in disguise."

And also add WP:BLP templates.

After his suspension from Twitter, Wood called for the execution of Mike Pence on Parler, stating "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST."[1]

Jdphenix (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/07/trump-online-siege/
 Partly done: @Jdphenix: I've made the suggested addition. Can you clarify what you mean by "also add WP:BLP templates"?
Yes, I had a brain fart. I was thinking about the talkpage banner, which I just added. Jdphenix (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

For the sentence about his undergraduate and law school education in the "Early life" section, replace the current source with the following: [3]. A Mercer press release isn't a great source but it's the best one I could find, and infinitely better than Wood's LinkedIn profile, which is currently cited. —DanCherek (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Much better, thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Social Media

Wood, like Trump, Sydney Powell and many others who promoted Wednesday's protests and political discord, has been suspended from Twitter. Haven't seen any sources for this yet. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Already in the article: [4] GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Final paragraph in lead - representing Condit

Lin Wood represented Gary Condit in his defamation case against The National Enquirer and Vanity Fair; this was not an alleged sexual harassment situation like Herman Cain's (see [5]). Additionally, Wood was hired by Cain's campaign to respond to sexual harassment allegations; the word "charges" is probably misleading because Cain was never criminally charged ([6]). I think the paragraph should be revised to something like the following (apologies for the seemingly blank references, I preserved the repeated citation names from the current article for easier copy/paste):

In addition to representing Jewell and Trump, Wood has represented the family of JonBenét Ramsey and former U.S. representative Gary Condit in defamation suits.[1][2] He was also hired by Republican political candidate Herman Cain to respond to allegations of sexual harassment.[3]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Woolhouse, Megan (January 26, 2004). "'Every lawsuit is a war'". Atlanta Business Chronicle. Retrieved January 9, 2021.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rachel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

If you think those changes would be appropriate, feel free to revise further for language clarity, etc. —DanCherek (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems a pretty clear improvement, I've gone ahead and just made the change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

He called for the assassination of Mike Pence

He called for the assassination of the Vice President of the United States. I'd suggest you include that. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/parler-lin-wood-mike-pence/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.210.123.167 (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see the bottom of L. Lin Wood#2020 elections and QAnon, where this is mentioned already. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2021

This is what is stated as of January 10, 2021: Lucian Lincoln "Lin" Wood Jr. (born October 19, 1952) is an American attorney, political commentator, and conspiracy theorist[1] based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Edit the statement to say: Lucian Lincoln "Lin" Wood Jr. (born October 19, 1952) is an American attorney, political commentator, and a defender of the United States Constitution, based in Atlanta, Georgia. Donarcher (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hatchet job

This article is nothing more than a hatchet job on the subject. It’s a disgrace. Wikipedia is abandoning any hope of being regarded as a fair and truthful source with articles like it.

Perhaps this is as it should be - there’s no getting away from the fact that Wikipedia has been heading that way for several years. Articles like this one make the point abundantly clear. Boscaswell talk 07:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Generalized griping about an article is never successful. You need to provide specific examples of wording that you object to, along with links to reliable sources that offer a different perspective on this person. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to summarize reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


There is really no need for me to do as you suggest. Anyone breathing who uses their eyes and has a fully-functioning mind can get what I’m saying without any difficulty whatsoever. With no more than a quick scan of it, such people will understand where I’m coming from. However, it would appear that “using eyes” is proving to be a difficult task in wiki-land nowadays. For it’s evident that blinkers have become a very popular attire for both editors and admins. Boscaswell talk 09:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021

Change Conspiracy Theorist to blank. There is no reason to commit character assassination in a Wikipedia article, would you find that in a common encyclopedia? 75.185.144.4 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Declined. His activity in promoting conspiracies is well documented in the article, and in Reliable Sources.[7] -- MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Time Magazine Confirms Lin Wood's Claim of a Secret Cabal Influencing Election

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ On this wiki article it says that his claim of a secret cabal influencing the election is not true but it is in fact true and was reported on by Time Magazine. "That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream - a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information...to ensure that democracy in America endures." Wearetheresistance (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It is quite clear from reading the full Time article that Time is talking about a much different "cabal" than Wood was, and that they are using the word for hyperbolic effect. They are most certainly not talking about "international communists, Chinese intelligence, and Republican officials". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

Change Atlanta, GA to Yemassee, South Carolina which is where Lin Wood is he based out of now. Reference: https://www.fitsnews.com/2021/03/28/pro-trump-attorney-lin-wood-moves-to-south-carolina/ Daschud (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I've removed the "based in" statement from the lead since it's not really leadworthy, and his residence is described in a more appropriate location already at L. Lin Wood#Personal life. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Lin Wood

The writer of the article seems to think their opinion is the only ones who matter. They can make any claim they wish but it doesn't make it true. Fishwanda (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fishwanda: 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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 elections and QAnon

I've looked at both sources for the statement: "his false claims that members of the pro-Trump mob were antifa activists in disguise and that Vice President Mike Pence was a "child molester"", but I can't find anything that backs up that he made the specific "child molester" accusation (he did say Pence should “face execution by firing squad.”).

OK, I found an archived copy of the tweet on archive.org; I don't know if that counts as a reliable source? https://web.archive.org/web/20210107062629/https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1346891959860944898?prefetchTimestamp=1610000789332 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goaded (talk • contribs) 08:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Goaded: The citation to support that is the Washington Post article, which says, "The pro-Trump attorney L. Lin Wood, whose Twitter account was suspended Wednesday after he baselessly accused Pence of being a 'child molester,' leaped quickly to the alternative social network Parler..." I've copied the cite to directly follow the sentence (it was located after the subsequent sentence) for clarity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There are, especially in the first few paragraphs, a lot of journalistic articles used as cites. These journalistic "works" are not without bias and there should be something to mention this. For example the use of "Conspiracy Theorist" is over used as, for example, Hillary Clinton and many others could be called the same because of their pushing of the proven false Russia Collusion in the 2016 election, because how many "Conspiracy Theories" have been proven true in time? It seems the bulk of this "article' is focused only on that and nothing else...the man had done more in his life than that...I give this a rating of Left Leaning Bias bordering on High School book report work...this "article" needs a complete do over...too much focus on a small portion of a person's life...Dr. C. Brook Johnson, BA, MSIR, PhD... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.17.37 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to suggest specific changes to this article, along with reliable sources to support them, please do so. But I would recommend a quick read through our reliable sources policy, as well as WP:BIASEDSOURCE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, there's a lot of edits happening. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#L. Lin Wood GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

POV tag

@DGG: I see you've just left a {{POV}} tag on this page without explaining your concerns here. Could you elaborate? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The article needs to make clear that the individual is defending positions generally considered to be incorrect, and should have appropriate links to our articles on them. The nature of his opinions is so prominent that it is even appropriate to use such a negative expression once in the lede. It does not need to say that repeatedly. It's POV to use negative adjectives about a person when they add no information, or when the information has already been given. Using an example from earlier in the discussion "his false claims that ...", The adjective is unnecessary. It amounts to overkill, and has the effect of making the article look biased against him. The nature of his claims is very adequately shown by the reports of the legal decisions, and limiting to that makes the article appear properly objective.
The choice of the word "false" is unnecessary--it implies he doesn't believe them. I think the problem is more likely to be that he does, but we can't actually know that. When non-neutral language is used, it shows bias. Now, I personally share that bias, and so does almost everyone here. But we should try to write as if we didn't. For one thing, it's more convincing. And it makes us look like a reputable news source, not an editorial page. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

Lin is not a conspiracy theorist in the way it is defined in Wikipedia. He does not believe things most people do not. I would like to take that smear off his page. Kamadams (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

WP, like MSM, is entirely left-biased. Good luck. --IHTS (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: what else would you call a man who claims "globalists" stole the election, Pence should be executed for treason, and Chief Justice Roberts is a pedophile [8]? This isn't just "left bias". Marking request as answered EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't try to reason w/ liberals. --IHTS (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
that’s not any type of credible argument. Ceoil (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Would help if you would elaborate on your observation. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
He's made a lot of (seemingly) crazy claims in a situation which is going to make him extremely unpopular with a lot of people, but there doesn't appear to be anybody suing him for defamatory comments which is even more extraordinary I think. He's one of the top defamation lawyers in the US and seemingly knows exactly what he's doing. If you take the time to hear him out he seems to be trying to get out what he believes to be the truth based on the evidence he has, but the problem is that he is also pushing a lot of conspiracy claims made by the Q lot and is mixing with people who are just not credible. I would still call him a conspiracy theorist based on the fact he is claiming some things he isn't sure about, but has a strong opinion, though you could argue he is in a much stronger position to claim them than most people given his connections. I do agree with DDG's neutrality tag, half the article places undue weight on the election claims, he has a very long legal career and many cases which should be covered in more detail and the claims shouldn't be longer than a few paragraphs.† Encyclopædius 12:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
personally, I believe is is trying to use reckless accusations to call attention to his political views, rather than express what he believes to be the truth, it's not just that "he is claiming some things he isn't sure about, " it's that he's being entirely reckless about what he cannot possibly believe to be actually true. That he hasn't been sued is not evidence that he might possibly be right, or could not be proven wrong. Suing people for making extravagant accusations is counter-productive--you sue them when they make false but plausible statements of fact. You sue them when you have an opportunity to actually hurt them or stop them. Not even Trump sued people who attacked him, no matter what they said. He supported people who wanted to kill them, but he didn't sue. But all this is just my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
That last part about Trump not suing people who "attacked" him is extremely false. Trump has sued many people for saying things he did not like or reporting on things he has done or investigating him. Those he has sued include the Pulitzer Prize committee (for awarding journalism he did not approve of) (https://nypost.com/2022/12/13/trump-sues-pulitzer-prize-board-for-defamation-for-awarding-wapo-and-nyts-russiagate-coverage/) Hillary Clinton (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/20/trump-and-lawyer-ordered-to-pay-1m-for-bringing-frivolous-lawsuit-against-hillary-clinton) A lot of social media platforms (https://www.npr.org/2021/07/07/1013760153/donald-trump-says-he-is-suing-facebook-google-and-twitter-for-alleged-censorship) his niece (https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039642768/trump-sues-niece-mary-new-york-times-over-tax-return-stories) NY attorney Leticia James (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-sues-n-y-attorney-general-seeking-halt-investigation-his-n1286307) CNN (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/03/trump-sues-cnn-defamation-punitive-damages) and most recently, Michael Cohen (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/12/trump-sues-ex-lawyer-michael-cohen-0009173 but that is far from an exhaustive list. Loveoflanguage (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree he is coming across as reckless DGG and seems to be looking for attention like a leader of a cult would, but I disagree with you on "what he cannot possibly believe to be actually true". He comes across to me as genuinely believing what he says, as crazy as some of his claims have been. I would have expected at least one of them to sue him for some of his outrageous claims, John Roberts in particular. Either way we don't need 15 paragraphs on 2020-21 and only four paragraphs on his main career.† Encyclopædius 21:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Add mention of Rittenhouse's alleged mistreatment

Kenosha Unrest Shooting Defendant Kyle Rittenhouse, in an interview with Fox News Contributor Tucker Carlson published on November 22nd, 2021, alleges that Lin Wood, his former attorney, held him in jail against his will for 87 days in order to raise the 2 million dollars necessary for bail. Rittenhouse also stated that Wood, along with Rittenhouse's other attorney John Pierce, claimed that he would be safer in jail rather than at home with his family. Source: Kyle Rittenhouse Says Lin Wood 'Disrespected My Wishes' by Keeping Him in Jail - Newsweek

I feel this is an important and necessary addition to the page, though I believe it may need to be reworded as to not sound like an attack on Wood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.80.95 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Watch the interview with Tucker Carlton. Kyle Rittenhouse blames the second of the two lawyers more than L. Lin Wood. He says that John Pierce skimmed millions for himself! ... Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Wood is still implicated, and Pierce doesn't have a page for himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.80.95 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely a high profile entry which should be added one way or another, and probably some mention should be made of the client expressing that he felt exploited and mistreated by his legal team, thus his dismissal of them.217.209.145.79 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't seen these comments before my additions to that section (I just googled around to replace MEDREL WP:DAILYBEAST, and added what I found), but I think this is now addressed. DFlhb (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

State witness in Fani Willis case

Shouldn't we add a mention of the news that it has been announced (in September 2023) that L. Lin Wood will be a state witness in Donald Trump's Georgia election interference trial? Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/lawyer-pushed-trumps-false-election-claims-listed-state-witness-georgi-rcna111361 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L._Lin_Wood/Archive_1&oldid=1191459615"