Talk:Andrew Napolitano

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Napolitano article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

United States: Notre Dame / Seton Hall Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Indiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana - Notre Dame (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Jersey - Seton Hall University (assessed as Low-importance).

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Libertarianism

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

United States courts and judges

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Voorts, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 10 September 2023. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!
Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: some citations needed tags and better citations needed for much of the article.

Incorrect: "allegations ... that U.S. President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower."

I am unqualified to make changes so I submit this for those concerned with accuracy.

Both phrases "Obama wiretapped Trump" and "Obama wiretapped Trump Tower" are incorrect. At no time did Napolitano accuse or allege either the British or Obama of wiretapping. Ever.

What he did state is that Obama used the British agency to "go around" normal surveillance channels. That's it, as far as the Fox News interview goes. (Please listen to the interview itself.)

Evidence that neither British nor Obama / White House wiretapping was not even IMPLIED by Napolitano is unambiguously detailed in the Fox News [online] article http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/16/andrew-napolitano-did-obama-spy-on-trump.html where he explicitly states what the unnamed sources told him: "GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s calls."

That's it. Not that the British wiretapped anybody. Or that the White House did. He very clearly explains that the British agency has digital access to electronic communications held in the NSA.

Thus he

1. never says that Obama ordered such.

2. never says that the White House wiretapped anything. Nor British.

3. does say that the NSA - the U.S. agency - DOES surveil communications.

4. does say that the British have access to that.

5. does say that Obama legally could have requested transcripts directly from the NSA, however there would be a record of such if he did.

6. says that sources told him that Obama was most likely provided with transcripts from the British.

Even more, he

1. never said that Obama DID do any of this. Or the British.

2. never said that his sources said Obama DID do any of this.

3. did say that "if (emphasis mine) Obama did order the NSA to prepare transcripts of Trump’s conversations ... there would exist somewhere a record."

4. did say "GCHQ, most likely (emphasis mine) provided Obama with transcripts" (per sources).

5. did say "by bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access" Note that this is stated in the hypothetical "would have had" - not that he "did".

Even the title of the online article is the speculative conjecture "Did Obama spy on Trump?" rather than the accusatory or alleging or declarative "Obama spied on Trump"

Everything above is in the online article, and nothing to the contrary is found in the broadcast interview.

So going directly to source - not the interpretation of a USA Today or NYT writer's interpretation - there's no "Obama wiretapped."

Change it to whatever you think best from direct sources. "allegations ... Obama wiretapped" is factually incorrect. Maybe "allegations that Obama obtained surveillance" ?

Thanks for all your hard work. I spend quite significant personal time preparing and sourcing and carefully proofreading this too, saving you time, and presenting it in verifiable form, so I hope you appreciate the work that I have put in, even though I am not following through with making the change itself. Being a nonmember, I suspect it would just have been reverted anyway, so I'll just leave this in your capable hands. And thank you for your time on this as well.

And perhaps this is significant - Napolitano used the word wiretap (in any form) exactly once - and that was to describe old fashioned telephone line wiretapping.24.27.72.99 (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Nobody wants to act upon this travesty of misinformation? So do we need to ramp up the memes of the ridiculousness of wikipedia, or does someone give a ____ about credibility and integrity?24.27.72.99 (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that myself right now. Especially since later im the subsection there is the following passage:

In response to “Fox & Friends” host Brian Kilmead stating that Napolitano was claiming Trump's phone was “wiretapped”, Napolitano denied actual physical tampering, instead citing the agency has digital access to digital information.

Kinda contradicts the whole narrative of the section. Name of that section should be refactored. 37.99.44.30 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]