Talk:Robert Barnes (attorney)

Original research

Concerning the line, "He has also been common guest on RT and wrote articles for them[24][25][26][27][28][29]."In addition to being WP:OVERCITE, seems to be WP:OR. In order to show that he is a common guest on RT and that it is notable enough to include in the article, you need some reliable source or sources saying that he is a common guest and wrote articles for them. For better or for worse, the Wikipedia community doesn't consider RT to be a reliable source (see WP:RSP), and certainly what some Wikipedia editor thinks is notable about him writing articles for them matters a lot less than if a reliable source thinks it is notable. If reliable sources don't think it is notable enough to write articles about when describing Barnes, that is an indication to us that no matter what our original research might show, it probably isn't notable enough to include in this article.

Wikipedia at its core is an encyclopedia. We don't create new stories of our own, but instead rely on what reliable sources say, hence the policy of WP:OR. Even if something is true, it doesn't necessarily demand inclusion in the article and whether he is a "common" guest is something for reliable sources to decide (if they think it important).JMM12345 (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)JMMM12345

Despite trying to remind myself to assume good faith, I am having trouble believing that the unregistered (IP) contributors who have recently edited this article to claim Barnes is either a "leading American public intellectual" (on the one hand) or a "Russian propagandist" (on the other) are really trying to improve the article in keeping with WP norms and standards. Deletion of the edits and semi-protecting the article may prove to be the only solution, even assuming that Barnes himself is genuinely a notable subject for an article.PDGPA (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Representation After Conviction

The claim that Snipes was represented by different counsel after conviction may be true, but the source for the assertion an article in Today, does not identify appellate counsel, nor does the accountingtoday.com blog post which was also added as a reference. Arllaw (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. The information you removed is accurate, so I will restore with RS when I get a chance. Frankly, the details of Snipes' case after Barnes' and Bernhoft's remarkable success at trial are not even relevant to an article about Barnes *except* to clarify that he was *not* Snipes' attorney after a certain point. PDGPA (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. Elaboration restored. Additional RS added that names Snipes' appellate counsel. PDGPA (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Bets on Trump winning

The text belies the reference. Reference #26 states 470,000 E won from two 30,000 E bets. This is closer to 400,000 winnings rather than 100,000. Tallard (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

A source to support replacement of "FBI's" to "failed domestic terrorist"

@TomTuohy:Can you please give a reliable source to support replacement of "FBI's" to "failed domestic terrorist" at [[1]] and [[2]]. If the source is the video cited later in the article [[3]] - could you please mention time where this claim is backed up? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, and thank you for helping me to be a better editor! If anything more is needed, don't hestitate to let me know. TomTuohy (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for adding a reference. I am unfamiliar with the information about Robert Barnes, and don't know whether the information is correct. I would defer for the other editors to judge if somebody is willing to do so. 😊 Still, your edit just attracted my attention in the list of recent changes on Wikipedia, because, as you know, changing or adding information in biographies has a higher burden of proof than the other articles, and this is described in detail at WP:BLP. So, my edit (revert) was mostly technical. Another area where burden of proof is high is medicine, see WP:MEDRS. In the other areas, we are relatively relaxed. 😊 Thank you very much again for your contributions to Wikipedia! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a miscommunication here. In the cited talk, Barnes discusses *his view* that the Whitmer plot was engineered by the FBI, and *his view* that the bail rulings in the J6 cases were "weaponized" (whatever that means). The issue, it seems to me, is not whether those claims are objectively accurate or well-supported by WP:RS standards, I don't think, but whether the talk by the subject of the article, expressing those opinions, is notable and worthy of being summarized in this detail in a Wikipedia article, simply because Hillsdale College has chosen to post a video of the talk on the Internet. PDGPA (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thank you for the explanation! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The material under discussion has now been removed by a more experienced editor, on the basis that it was not notable by Wikipedia's general standards but rather was typical of material included in "vanity articles." PDGPA (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)