Talk:L. Lin Wood

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 [1]? 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)

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)

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)

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.