This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thomist added in a conspiracy on Kavanaugh being linked to wrong doing in Feburary 2006,[1] it is now August 2006[2]. Since Feburary he has engaged in revert wars when he was told he must have WP:RS by numerous people. Recently, as noted above, by an adminstrator he must present well-sourced material as such or it will be removed.
As demonstrated above he was given the opportunity to give court docket numbers, report page numbers, media sources, etc. Instead of offering those relavant materials, Thomist has chosen to argue semantics, and play wikilawyer. I am not will not get into an arguing match, I don't have time nor interest.
If Thomist chooses to present WP:RS material, he will be fairly heard, but that hasn't happened. For six months he has kept garabage on with the justifcation that an appendix page presented by a conspiracy (fbicover-up.com) webpage here proves something the media, court system, and government have (as he believes) been overlooked.
Thus, the material will be left off the page. If Thomist choose to actually offer WP:RS instead of arguing he will be heard. As is, with the above argument, reasoning with him is going nowhere. C56C 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Facts from the U.S. Court of Appeals to be included
Dear C56C:
You are being unfair trying to label the Official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals, "conspiracy theory." You are putting up straw men and knocking them down. You are trying to change the subject into a discussion about me. This should not be a discussion about me. This discussion concerns the source document I provided, the Official Report, specifically the Appendix to the Report on the death of Vincent Foster, Jr., made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Since you will not view the copy online, have you obtained a library copy so we can discuss the witness intimidation on pages 3 and 4 of the letter by Attorney John H. Clarke? Have you read about the mention of the "cover-up" in the Official Report?
Please be fair. Thomist 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
YOU HAVE STILL NOT OFFERED ANY WP:RS AS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED! AND YOU PUT THE GARABAGE IN SIX MONTHS AGO!
A link to a library catlog is not WP:RS for the conspiracy theory. What is the docket number, what's the court cases name, who were the judge(s), what's the decision citation? The claims are less than what youput in the article.
If any of this happened as you claim, then go to the court's webpage and give a link of the decision
How many more times should I ask for these citations? Pointing to an appendix page of an obscure record isn't convincing for these claims. For six months you were given the chance to source this better. This is not a debate class, give proof for your claims.
Obtaining a copy of the Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster, Jr., by the Office of Independent Counsel in Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association is not difficult. You have rejected online copies because you say they are a "conpiracy theory." The other option is to go to a public library.
Use the Find a Library site and simply enter your own postal zip code and you will be provided the nearest location with the Official Report.
The government has placed the document in libraries all over the country but not on line. This is not unusual. Demanding the document must be made availble at certain government web site is asking for something that is not available. WP:RS has stated, everything is NOT available on the Internet. This particular official document IS on the Internet, just NOT WHERE YOU WANT IT TO BE on the Internet.
Your unwillingness to obtain the public document issued by the Court of Appeals does not justify your claim that no source has been provided. I am surprised you are asking me to provide the names of the judges. They have been mentioned several times. Haven't you read this discussion page? I continue to give you the source and you continue to say that I have no source. Perhaps we should seek some mediation here.
The most authoritative source has been provided and it is available online or at a public library. Thomist 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
YOU HAVE STILL NOT OFFERED ANY WP:RS AS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED! AND YOU PUT THE GARABAGE IN SIX MONTHS AGO! It is not acceptable to just say, "read this book/report and you'll believe Kavanaugh is linked to a conspiracy."
A link to a library catlog is not WP:RS for the conspiracy theory. What is the docket number, what's the court cases name, who were the judge(s), what's the decision citation? The claims are less than what youput in the article. Any media sources? C56C 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear C56C
This discussion is about adding this statement to the article, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation of Vincent W. Foster's death headed by Mr. Kavanaugh."
Only the facts in the statement need a source. The sources for the facts have been provided. There is no need to provide a source for a fact not stated. There is no "conspiracy theory" stated. What is the conspiracy theory in the statement? Please explain. Thomist 18:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. However, as you have been told, the information as-is is not acceptable to be included. C56C 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear C56C:
Please explain why the statement is not acceptable? "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation of Vincent W. Foster's death headed by Mr. Kavanaugh."
I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS BEFORE. Page 137 of the report[3] does not say "U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up". Nor does it link the "witness intimidation" to Kavanaugh. You are taking elements of an appendix page, which lacks contextual information, and piecing a theory around that. You need WP:RS for your claims. C56C 07:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The facts in the statement are sourced to a Washington Post article (that Kavanaugh headed the investigation) and to the publicly available Official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals. Unless something in the statement is not supported by an authoritative source, it should be acceptable.
Please answer the previous question. You have said there is a conspiracy theory. Please explain what is the conspiracy theory in the statement as it is? Thomist 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear C56C:
You falsely stated the facts at 07:09, 9 August 2006. Exhibit 2 of the Appendix to the Official Report is not the source for the statement to be inserted. (you also incorrectly called Exhibit 2 "page 137" of the Official Report. You continually link to this one page of the Official Report to argue that it alone does not support the statement to be inserted. No one is arguing that Exhibit 2 is alone intended to support the statement. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. The statement to be inserted does not state that Brett Kavanaugh was linked to witness intimidation therefore no source for such a link is needed. It only states, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation of Vincent W. Foster's death headed by Mr. Kavanaugh." This is a statement of the facts as they officially are according to the Report on the death of Vincent Foster, Jr., made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals. PLEASE do not insert that Mr. Kavanaugh was linked to the witness intimidation, which is not stated. You are being unfair to use something not stated in order to dismiss the statement.
It is self-evident that grand jury witness intimidation was included in the Official Report to anyone who has read the Appendix to the Report. You have not provided a valid reason not to include the statement.
Please respond to my previous question. You have said there is a conspiracy theory. Please explain what is the conspiracy theory in the statement as it is? Thomist 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in evidence. You have failed to provide any. C56C 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear C56C:
The publicly available Official Report from the Court of Appeals is the evidence. You have been told how to obtain a copy from your local library. You are ignoring the source provided and you have ignored my repeated question. Thomist 22:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
(See above in several sections for what you have been asked to provide.) C56C 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear C56C:
The section above shows you wrote: "A link to a library catlog (sic) is not WP:RS for the conspiracy theory."
A library source for the Official Report is a WP:RS because Wikipedia policy states at #7, "Until more authors publish online, and more material is uploaded, some of the most reliable and informative sources are still available only in printed form. If you can't find good sources on the web, try a local library or bookstore. Major university libraries usually have larger collections than do municipal libraries."# 7 Finding good sources may require some effort In addition an authoritative and qualified source has been provided on line which also meets WP:RS because Wikipedia policy states at 6.6, "Full-text online sources are as acceptable as offline sources if they are of similar quality and reliability."# 6.6 Online sources vs. offline sources
You asked, "What is the docket number, what's the court cases name?" The Official Report of the Independent Counsel does not have a docket number or case name. You have been told the OIC comes under the Ethics in Government Act and the Independent Counsel statute requires that the Independent Counsel be independent from the Justice Department. You insist that something be produced which does not exist because you lack the basic knowledge of the statute.
You asked, "who were the judge(s)? There were three and they have been named repeatedly on this discussion page, which you also apparently have not read. Your failure to grasp the basic facts in the official record does not constitute a failure on my part to provide the authoritative sources for the statement to be inserted. Your choice to remain ignorant of the facts does not justify your continuing to remove the facts from the article.
You wrote, "If any of this happened as you claim, then go to the court's webpage and give a link of the decision." Again please read WP:RS which states, "...some of the most reliable and informative sources are still available only in printed form."
The Washington Post article and the Appendix to the Official Report, which is available through a public library as well as on line provide WP:RS in support of the statement. Your demanding a "docket number" for a document mandated by the Independent Counsel statute only demonstrates your ignorance of the law and the purpose of the Ethics in Government Act.
You have consistently demonstrated you unwillingness to read the source documents and have even relied on book reviews as a substitute for reading books. Your lack of knowledge makes you poorly qualified to have a voice about what is appropriate in this article. I have been patient with you and tried to direct you to the public record. You choose to ignore the facts and dismiss them with prejudice that they are some sort of "conspiracy theory" which you have never explained. Please explain the "conspiracy theory" in this statement to be inserted, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh."
Your self-confidence that you are an "expert" is matched by your own admission that you haven't read much of anything related to official investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh nor have you bothered to read the Official Report of the investigation. You are admittedly ignorant of the facts, except that you read an online book review, yet you are adamant that your uninformed opinion is correct. Thomist 16:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Calling the Official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals "a joke" is not a sufficient reason to reject this authoritative source.
This additional statement should also be included in the article to note the historic significance, "The inclusion of this evidence by Judges David Sentelle, John Butzner, and Peter Fay marked the first time in the history of the Independent Counsel statute that evidence of a cover-up by an independent counsel’s own staff was ordered included in an Independent Counsel's Report."Thomist 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Your responses, evasion of evidence, and diatribes are a joke. Not the official report. You stilll have not addressed issues from weeks back or sourced it better when you entered it into the article in Feb 2006. C56C 07:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear C56C:
Please do not change the subject. We are not discussing the article in Feb 2006. We are discussing adding this statement, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh." which is sourced to the Official Report and an article in the Washington Post. Using invectives like, "evasion," "diatribes," and "a joke" fails to address the officially documented facts. You have admitted not reading the source documents. Name-calling is not a substitute for scholarship and an insufficient reason to reject the insertion of the statement. Thomist 14:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Significant historic event should be in the article
Brett M. Kavanaugh conducted the investigation of the death of former deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr.
Mr. Foster, the highest government official since John F. Kennedy to die a violent death, was found shot to death on July 20, 1993. Thousands of news reports over a span of five years reported the death and subsequent investigations. There were investigations by the Park Police and FBI, two independent counsels and two Congressional hearings into the White House and Park Police handling of the investigation. College history textbooks mention the event. Virtually every book written on the Clinton Presidency has an account of the death: “The Agenda,” Bob Woodward; “The Seduction of Hillary Clinton,” David Brock; “The System,” Haynes Johnson & David Broder; “Blood Sport,” James Stewart; “Unlimited Access,” Gary Aldrich; “Boy Clinton,” Emmett Tyrrell; “Spin Cycle,” Howard Kurtz; “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Ann Coulter; “Discovering Clinton,” Michael Isikoff; “All Too Human,” George Stephanopoulos; “Truth to Tell,” Lanny Davis; “The First Partner,” Joyce Milton; “Front Row at the White House,” Helen Thomas.
The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh. This is the only time in the history of the Independent Counsel statute that evidence of a cover-up by an independent counsel’s own staff was ordered included in an independent counsel's report.
In the brief career of Judge Kavanaugh, what has been more significant than his investigaton of Vincent Foster's death? Yet his role in heading the investigation of Vincent Foster’s death is conspicuously absent from his official judicial biography, his official White House biography, and his official Department of Justice resume. Judge Kavanaugh's significant role in American history should not be absent from his Wikipedia article. Thomist 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It can't be included, see above. C56C 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
C56C, I applaud your steadfastness in maintaining this page.--Smashingworth 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. If it's not in the biographies, it's not verifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 08:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This statement is not true, "If it's not in the biographies, it's not verifiable." Senator Orrin Hatch stated at Judge Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearing that Mr. Kavanaugh conducted the investigation into the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster. Clearly it is verifiable that Mr. Kavanaugh did conduct the Foster death investigation even though it is not stated in Mr. Kavanaugh's biographies. The goal is not to right a great wrong but only to state the facts that officially are true. Thomist 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions his work with Starr, the objections are with the other claims you wish to add. C56C 23:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone object to adding this single statment to the article? Everything stated is officially true based on the statement by Sen. Hatch.
Associate Independent counsel Brett M. Kavanaugh conducted the investigation into the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr.Thomist 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It is already in there! The last paragraph reads:
Prior to his service in this Administration, Kavanaugh was a partner at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where his practice focused on appellate matters. Kavanaugh also served as an Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel', where he handled a number of the novel constitutional and legal issues presented during that investigation and was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton and Vincent Foster investigation.
Thank you for adding that phrase, do you think it should have a reference to his confirmation hearing? Thomist 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Brett Kavanaugh. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The first two deal with his confirmation, which was rather contentious and appears under-covered here, especially since there are plenty of reliable sources addressing the topic. MastCellTalk 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2018
This edit request to Brett Kavanaugh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This has been done already. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2018 (2)
This edit request to Brett Kavanaugh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change "United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit" to "former United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."l update biography with his current status as Trump's nominee for Supreme Court Justice (07/09/2018) [1]Grohlski (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done He is still an appeals court judge unless and until he is confirmed by the Senate as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Cullen328Let's discuss it 01:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that this page be locked in order to prevent vandalism since this will be a heated issue for the forseeable future. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see it is already protected, my bad. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I suggest correcting the existing Neutral Point of View problems with the article. This reads like a Talking Points Memo. Is it Wikipedia policy to lock out edits when an issue is heated? Aaron Bailey (Mesa, AZ) (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Ethnicity
Brett Kavanaugh is of mostly Irish ancestry. The one exception is his maternal grandmother, who is of partial English and German descent. Here is a link with proof: [1]
This edit request to Brett Kavanaugh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Kavanaugh does not serve as a lecturer at his parish, but a lector. This should be changed as it is wrong and actually sounds silly (a lector reads from the Bible, he does not lecture). 50.203.67.226 (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Page needs to be unlocked so that people can talk about his large head on such a small body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.115.10.30 (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia is not a place to voice your own personal opinions. Lempamo (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, this is vital information that must be included. I'll get right on it. Bold and Brash (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Bad Grammar
Change "did not forbid the government from requiring meatpackers to include a country of origin label" to "did not forbid the government to require that meatpackers include a country of origin label."
(Check the proper usage of "forbid" in the KJV Bible and the Declaration of Independence.)
"In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote an article for the Minnesota Law Review where he argued that U.S. Presidents should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”[53]"
This is incomplete, and creates an impression of bias. In the same source article, it is stated the Kavanugh sees the existing remedy of impeachment should be used. That should be added to this section. "If a president were truly malevolent, Kavanaugh wrote, he could always be impeached." (same article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.228.48.13 (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Brett on Roe v. Wade
Source linked for the statement that Brett would uphold Roe v. Wade comes from a C-SPAN video where he doesn't say anything of the sort. Plus, his current stance is against Roe v. Wade. Unless anyone can find a better source for his support of Roe v. Wade, we should correct the section with his current stance. Lempamo (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. This section needs cleaned up until consensus can be made. Bluefirecorp (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
new info
Why did somebody delete my request for inclusion of info re Kavanaugh's teaching career at Harvard? Did it offend someone's political bias???
Is this vandalism???
Earlier today I offered this:
U.S. Circuit Court Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has taught courses at Harvard Law School since 2008. He was appointed by Supreme Court Justice, then Dean Elena Kagan, he has offered highly regarded courses on both the Separation of Powers (2008 to 2015) and the Supreme Court (2014, 2016 to 2018), and he has been the Samuel Williston Lecturer on Law at HLS since 2009.
I also included sources that were deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.135.115 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Edit Request, Joly 10, 2018
This edit request to Brett Kavanaugh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The following two paragraphs, which are written one after another, are redundant, that is they say the exact same thing, citing the same sources:
During his confirmation hearing in 2006 for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh stated that he considered Roe v. Wade binding under the principle of stare decisis and would seek to uphold the ruling of the higher court.[25] However, he also ruled in favor of abortion restrictions in several cases.[26][27][28]
In May 2006, Kavanaugh stated he "would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully" and that the issue of the legality of abortion has already "been decided by the Supreme Court".[25] During the hearing, he stated that a right to an abortion has been found "many times", citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[25]
Done Looks like someone else already took care of it. Lempamo (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2018
This edit request to Brett Kavanaugh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove this section as it's not relvant to his opinions. It's him refusing to answer questions personally (according to the direct source), and that he'll do his job.
In May 2006, Kavanaugh stated he "would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully" and that the issue of the legality of abortion has already "been decided by the Supreme Court".[1] During the hearing, he stated that a right to an abortion has been found "many times", citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[1]Bluefirecorp (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Comparison to Scalia and Thomas of more value to article than comparison to Alito and Gorsuch
The comparison to Scalia and Thomas should be added to te lede as being of more value to this article than comparison to Alito and Gorsuch. Another editor claims that I have removed his reference from the lede which I have not done, but supplemented it with two article to TIME magazine which indicate Kavanuagh as "a stalwart originalist" and pro-life in the tradition of Scalia and Thomas. Is is not offensive to keep the cite for Alito and Gorsuch, which my edit retained, but it is not as notable and significant as comparisons to Scalia and Thomas. The comparison to Scalia and Thomas is more notable and should be restored to the lede. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The TIME link does not say that Kavanaugh is a "stalwart originalist" in its own voice (TIME is explaining the Trump administration's thinking), and at no point in the TIME link are even Scalia and Thomas mentioned. The 538 piece explicitly says and concludes based on existing metrics that Kavanaugh would be a very conservative SC justice in the vein of Alito and Gorsuch (specifically those two). You keep removing the sourced mentions of Alito and Gorsuch and replacing them with what appears to be WP:OR that portrays Kavanaugh as a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
There were 2 TIME magazine cites in the edit, one linked and the other is dated July 25. It is TIME magazine policy not to digitize issues they send to subscribers until the cover date comes around (one week after release). I transcribed a facsimile quote for 'stalwart originalist' from my current subscription copy and confirm it as an accurate quote with page number given in my cite. My edit is meant to strengthen the form of your comparison and I have been keeping your citation in the footnotes for this edit each time I have made it as constructive. Gorsuch is documented extensively as a full supporter of Scalia, and the citation of Scalia in this edit only adds strength to your citation to Gorsuch in the footnotes as I have retained it. The lede looks stronger and more useful to readers by stating that Kavanaugh is pro-life and a strong originalist. The Time July 25 issue will be digitized within a week and if you can improve the wording of the edit then try it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The use of "stalwart originalist" in the TIME link is not in TIME's own voice[4] but rather the Trump administration's perception. Are you saying that the subscriber copy is different? Are you also saying that the subscriber copy explicitly says Kavanaugh is like Thomas and Scalia? And why should we not use 538's comprehensive assessment of existing metrics for this designation rather than a TIME print copy that nobody has access to except you? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I reverted the edit because I wasn't sure if 538 is a strong enough source for BLP - I personally don't think it is for statements about his judicial positions or philosophy. Seraphim System(talk) 03:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Going with Seraphim on 538 issue. This means that the Alito and Gorsuch mention needs to be removed. Using two articles from TIME magazine as reliable sources, and dropping Alito and Gorsuch from edit. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The 538 piece is an editorial commentary, not a statement of factual reporting. It doesn't have to be "reliable" in that sense. "Kavanaugh has been described as..." would be a factually correct statement - it is factually correct that he has been described as whatever it is. The accuracy of the description isn't relevant. JTRH (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Protection
I have fully protected the article until the dispute is resolved. You may contact me or any uninvolved admin to remove the protection once consensus is reached. KnightLago (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
SC petition was vacated not the DC Circuit judgment which was fully applied
Section I
I am linking the SC Petition which was vacated. Last paragraph of Liptak was a hypothetic which did not occur because the SC vacated its previously granted petition. Please read the SC Petition which was originally granted but was then vacated as moot after the abortion took place in full compliance with the DC Circuit court decision. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Your multipleedits incorrectly stating that the petition for certiorari was “vacated”, and that the appeals court’s opinion was not, misstate the facts and contradict your cited source. The Adam Liptak New York Times article multiple times explicitly says the D.C. Circuit opinion was vacated. In the second paragraph he writes “In an unsigned opinion with no noted dissents, the court vacated an appeals court ruling that had allowed the teenager to obtain the procedure, saying the dispute was moot. That wiped out the appeals court’s ruling as precedent.” Later on he says, “In its brief, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to vacate the appeals court’s ruling, which the court did.”
The Supreme Court was no less clear. In the last paragraph of the opinion, which had I identified in my edit, the Court says, in full: “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The Court vacates the en banc order and remands the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss the relevant individual claim for injunctive relief as moot. See Munsingwear, supra. It is so ordered.”
The Court’s docket entry is also perfectly clear, saying the petition is granted and the circuit judgment is vacated.
Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that the abortion took place under the circuit decision. As the Harvard Law Review comment already cited in the article clearly explained, the case was remanded and, on October 24, District Judge Chutkan issued an amended TRO, which is what allow abortion to proceed.
What part of the Solicitor General’s November 3, 2017 writ petition are you referring to? The pdf you cite midsentence in the article as “Supreme Court Petition being vacated” is 130 pages long. The SG’s conclusion, on page 29, reads: “The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted, the judgment of the court of appeals should be vacated, and the case should be remanded to the court of appeals with instructions to remand to the district court for dismissal of all claims for prospective relief regarding pregnant unaccompanied minors.” Needless to say, nowhere does it say what the Supreme Court eventually did in June 2018, seven months later.
The Supreme Court ordinarily either grants or denies a petition for a writ of certiorari. To the best of my knowledge, it has never “vacated” a writ petition. While it is important that we use accurate terminology, it is essential that we correctly inform our readers that the D.C. Circuit opinion, which Kavanaugh dissented from, has been vacated. Lord Monboddo (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it's just a terminology thing, the writ is just a document filed with the court and they either grant cert or not. They don't explain it. If they do hear the case, the judgment can be vacated (or upheld), which I think what happened here. Should be an easy fix. To follow up on Lord Monboddo's point above, if he dissented and the opinion was subsequently vacated by the Supreme Court that would be worth mentioning.Seraphim System(talk) 01:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
While being overturned at the Court is usually significant in this case it looks like what happened is simply that Doe had the abortion rendering the case non-justiciable. The en banc order was vacated and remanded with orders for the lower court to dismiss the claim as moot. What's important here is that the Court's ruling does not have much to do here with Kavanaugh's dissent - unless there are secondary sources that say this dissent was significant, I'm not sure why this needs to be in the article. The Liptak source doesn't mentioned Kavanaugh by name. Seraphim System(talk) 02:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to both editors for getting back. My inclination is to go with Seraphim on this and it seems to be a matter of adjusting the language. The case was vacated as moot because there was no longer a pregnancy to decide upon. Whether the DC Circuit decision has full standing under stare decisis seems secondary, and possibly a little wordy to get into. Also, the SC declined any disciplinary action against any of the lawyers for misconduct although allegations were made. If both or either of you can make a suggestion here then that is fine and it should be easy to decide here on Talk what wording works. Regarding the issue of general relevance to this article, the Kavanaugh dissent does indicate his pro-life inclination which seems notable. I am inclining towards Seraphim here as to the wording issue being mostly "terminological". JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree. While the petition was granted, the case was decided without argument and in a per curiam decision. If we mention the case was moot, we indicate to the reader that the Court was not commenting on Kavanaugh's dissent. We should rely on the SCOTUSblog article specifically discussing Kavanaugh’s position while discarding the Liptak and 130 page pdf sources. We could write: “After the girl had an abortion, the D.C. Circuit's judgment was vacated as moot by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garza v. Hargan (2018).” Lord Monboddo (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think People Magazine is generally considered RS for BLPs, and while SCOTUSblog is a very high-quality blog, I'm not sure we can use it for a BLP. The Harvard Law Review article does discuss Kavanaugh and I would propose rewriting the content in the article based on the HLR source. Seraphim System(talk) 02:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with regard to People Magazine. That material should be removed. With regard to SCOTUSblog, my view is that it is highly reliable. It employs professional editors and so should not be considered a self published blog. The particular article in question was written by Amy Howe, who is an experienced court reporter and litigator. While the HLR comment is valuable, it was published before the Supreme Court decision and so is of limited use.Lord Monboddo (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Or, possibly spelling it out following Liptak as something like: "After the girl had an abortion following the D.C. Circuit's judgement in her favor, the D.C. Circuit's judgment was then vacated as moot by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garza v. Hargan (2018)." JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
How about the following copy for the entire paragraph: In October 2017, Kavanaugh joined an unsigned divided panel opinion which found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement could temporarily prevent an unaccompanied alien minor in its custody from traveling to obtain an abortion.[2] Days later, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment, with Kavanaugh now dissenting, and the girl subsequently had the abortion.[3] The D.C. Circuit's judgment was later vacated as moot by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garza v. Hargan (2018).[4]Lord Monboddo (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I would change the last sentence to: "The court's decision vacated the judgment and instructed the lower court to dismiss the relevant claim for injunctive relief as moot on remand." Seraphim System(talk) 03:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
If both of you are agreed then does Seraphim place the last form of the edit. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Section II
I thought we had reached consensus here. User:JohnWickTwo removed that copy, its wikilinks, as well as the wikilink to the Garza v. Hargan article in this edit, specifically asking for input from User:Seraphim System. I cannot guess on why this material was or would be removed. Any input from any editor would be most welcome. Lord Monboddo (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You're right, I restored the wikilink to Garza. John is right that I intended this to refine the language about the Supreme Court's decision - the lower court was instructed to dismiss the claim as moot rather then the judgment was "vacated as moot" because the average reader won't understand what "vacated as moot" means but everyone will understand "instructed the lower court to dismiss the claim". Seraphim System(talk) 15:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I’m sorry. I don’t agree. I think those procedural details are more likely than not to confuse the reader, and the interested reader would be better served by being directed to the more extensive discussion on the Garza page. Your sentence is admirably accurate but uses twenty-six words and is less specific. The original sentence uses eighteen words, names the particular court, clarifies the sequence of events, and includes the wikilink at its conclusion. It is also very close to the original copy I posted four weeks ago, which had remained stable through the over 1.5 million views the article received after the nomination announcement. Perhaps: “The claim was dismissed as moot after the D.C. Circuit’s judgment was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garza v. Hargan (2018)."
I do not view the unilateral instability created by JohnWickTwo as good reason to discard quality copy. That user’s original edit introduced material mistakes without evidence. That user then continued to tendentiouslyrepost those errors, citing sources for things they did not say. These are not isolated incidents. JohnWickTwo misattributed unsourced claims in the lead about Kavanaugh’s ideology to Time Magazine. When User:Snooganssnoogans alerted that editor of the misattribution, JohnWickTwo tendentiouslyreposted and reposting the unsourced claims. I seperated out the unsourced claims and User:1l2l3k then removed them. JohnWickTwo responded by reposting an unsourced claim, again misattributing it to Time Magazine. And now we have lost our hard built consensus from Sunday. These behaviors check a lot of the boxes for WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Lord Monboddo (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the current version is fine. There is no need to repeat the same sentence twice.Seraphim System(talk) 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. I feel your current version is overly wordy and can confuse the reader with regard to unfamiliar concepts such as injunctive relief and remand. What is your objection to the compromise copy I proposed above? Lord Monboddo (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
We can't compromise accuracy for concision. I've replaced the blog citation as well.Seraphim System(talk) 18:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Your new unilateral edits are an improvement. It would have been better, though, to seek consensus first. I feel your current version is needlessly over detailed. Is there any particular reason you reject the consensus copy I proposed above? Lord Monboddo (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I am glad you approve of the new edits. I don't think the Supreme Court decision needs to be mentioned at all but you guys wanted it in. I still think it implies strongly that the Court was "upholding" Kavanagh's reasoning in their opinion. This inference is completely unsupported by secondary sources, but strongly implied by the inclusion of the unrelated content about how the Supreme Court holdings line up with Kavanagh's dissents. (I've noticed this in other sections also, but haven't had time to follow up). My original position was that we should mention only his dissent. The decision in Garza had nothing to do with Kavanaugh's dissent and the space in the article would be better used covering what Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent. Seraphim System(talk) 19:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright. I guess we haven't reached consensus yet on what copy to use. You reverted my copyedits after making unilateral copyedits yourself. We should reach consensus here first. What, exactly, about my edit did you find objectionable?Lord Monboddo (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I already explained that above. Seraphim System(talk) 19:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Now I see you have unilaterally deleted all mention of the Supreme Court case. I do not agree with that and I do not think any of the other editors involved in this discussion would either. The SCOTUSblog source you removed earlier clearly discussed the Supreme Court’s involvement. My impression has been that almost all news media profiles of Kavanaugh also mention the Court’s involvement. While I agree with you that, jurisprudentially, the Court’s decision did not weigh in on the merits of Kavanaugh’s argument, we still need to follow the secondary sources and say it was involved in the controversy. The reader would want to know.
Your revert to my copyedits simply said that the content was disputed. And yet, you have been making unilateral changes yourself. In my edit, I tried to maintain as much of your form and structure while removing some of the excess wordage. I would be comfortable with you openly editing copy without prior Talk page consensus if I may do the same. If not, then not. Please explain. Lord Monboddo (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You haven't added secondary sources. the issue of use of blogs in this article should probably go to RS/N before we continue. I'm ok with it if the community is. Seraphim System(talk) 19:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Secondary sources as diverse as The New York Times, Roll Call, and the National Review all discuss the Supreme Court's involvement in the case. I would particularly recommend you read Linda Greenhouse's elegantly concise summation. That said, the issue here doesn't seem to be reliability but rather notability, which these sources demonstrate. Since we seem to agree that the Supreme Court's disposition of the case is a bit off topic, shouldn't we mention the case in shorter language that doesn't go so far into the procedural weeds? If we mention the case, the reader can be directed to a more elaborate discussion of Kavanaugh's dissent and the matter's ultimate disposition in the Garza article. Lord Monboddo (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Both the Sarah Pitlyk and Linda Greenhouse articles should be fine. Greenhouse is a lecturer at Yale Law School, so her opinion should be ok to include, even for a BLP. It should be attributed though because it's an opinion article. Seraphim System(talk) 20:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I’ll just go ahead and restore the case then. Please make any changes you see best instead of blanket reverting. Lord Monboddo (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
After our exhaustive discussion yesterday, I felt User:Seraphim System and I had reached a consensus regarding that editor’s concerns that we were including over extensive material on developments in the Garza case subsequent to Kavanaugh’s involvement. JohnWickTwo did not participate in that discussion. That user did, however, quickly repost disputed, unsourced material about subsequent developments in the Garza case. This matches the pattern of behavior I documented above. I have since provided a source for the unsourced material and am happy to leave it at that, although I can only speak for myself. I would simply ask all editors to please seek consensus before reposting disputed material and to please, please, provide WP:ILC whenever adding material to a WP:BLP. Lord Monboddo (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
My edits are clearly posted in this section from the start as fully participating. The edit was established by Seraphim in this discussion which I supported. From some reason you then decided not to follow that agreement and for some reason decided to rework the critical apparatus for our own reasons. The result of the DC Circuit Court was applied and must remain in the edit. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I’m afraid I don’t quite follow. You seem to be objecting to the removal of your phrase “Using the D.C. Circuit reversal”. That language is inexact and contradicted by the given source. I directed you to the Harvard Law Review’s discussion of the subsequent remedial orders at the outset of this discussion. Now, I guess I must provide you with the direct quotes. On p. 1815: “Sitting en banc, the D.C. Circuit reversed, ordering the denial of appellants’ emergency stay and a remand of the case to the district court to update J.D.’s abortion date in the TRO.”
Later on that same page: “On October 24, Judge Chutkan issued an amended TRO, again preventing the government from interfering in J.D.’s abortion and specifying that it should happen “promptly and without delay.” J.D. received an abortion on October 25, 2017.” You seem to be confusing the emergency stay petition in the court of appeals, that court’s remand order, and the subsequent temporary restraining order issued by the district court. That would be easy to do for any reader unfamiliar with federal civil procedure and we should not make it easier. While I do not feel we need to bombard the reader with over-technical legalese about subsequent developments in the case, we also should not include vague language that is technically incorrect.
The consensus copy from Sunday read: “Days later, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment, with Kavanaugh now dissenting, and the girl subsequently had the abortion.” I would still be comfortable with that wording. Lord Monboddo (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Section III
Let me clarify. When you decided the rework the edit for your own reasons you left out the clause on the direct effect of the DC Circuit reversal. I have added it back into your reworked version of the edit. The clause on the direct effect of the DC Circuit reversal must remain in the article. Separately, you appear to be offended that Scalia is an originalist and that Kavanaugh is an originalist. That means that both Scalia and Kavanaugh are originalists with no original research whatsoever. Do you require one dozen references and citations to demonstrate Scalia as an originalist or will you require two dozen citations to indicate that Scalia as an originalist. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Just one source would help. You have been tendentiouslyreposting, reposting, reposting, reposting, and now reposting disputed claims to the conclusion of the lead without evidence. Neither of the sources you added ever mention Justice Scalia or originalism, even in passing. Please stop citing sources for things they do not say. We cannot misattribute. We cannot make unsourced claims.
Your claim is also likely false. There are many types of originalists and very little evidence on if or how Kavanaugh is one. Liberal originalist Akhil Amar, Yale’s Sterling Professor of Law, has praised Kavanaugh precisely because his approach differs from Scalia’s. The Washington Post has opined that Kavanaugh is a centralist that is most similar to Chief Justice Roberts. Please read these sources carefully. While there may be a place in the article’s body for sources speculating on Kavanaugh’s ideology, or discussing his high-school classmates, there is no place in the lead for unsourced claims that are contradicted by the sources we have. Lord Monboddo (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You still appear to be deeply offended that Kavanaugh is an originalist, and that Scalia is an originalist, and that Gorsuch is an originalist. To document this, I have plainly linked their Wikipedia articles which document them as originalists multiple times. You are still deeply displeased that Kavanaugh, and Scalia, and Gorsuch are all originalists; here are another 3 citations on Gorsuch as an originalist to start to quell your penchant on this question of their background as originalists.[5][6][7] Do you now require another 3 citations as further proof that Kavanaugh is an originalist, that Scalia is an originalist, and that Gorsuch is an originalist. You would be well served to discuss the issues here by citation and by links which is Wikipedia policy for discussion, rather than making your personal accusations of attributing falsehood against other editors which is against Wikipedia policy. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Two problems. One: we cannot cite sources for things they do not say. You have persistently been attributing sources to say that Kavanaugh is an originalist in the tradition of Scalia when they in fact contain no such claim. The Time Magazine article you originally cited does not mention Scalia. The New York Times article you cited does not mention originalism or Scalia. The Business Insider article does not mention originalism or Scalia. We cannot liken Kavanaugh to Scalia and then cite these sources as the support.
Two: it is highly questionable that Kavanaugh is in fact an originalist in the tradition of Scalia. The New York Times and Washington Post sources I already provided indicate that he is not. What did you think of those sources? Is there a reason to reject them? Why? The National Review likewise characterizes Kavanaugh as more similar to Roberts and Rehnquist than Scalia or Thomas. Is there a reason we should reject this source? The sources in the body of the article likewise do not support the claim. We cannot WP:WINARS other articles about originalist judges and then WP:SYNTH that Kavanaugh is just like them. There very well may be sources out there that do liken Kavanaugh to Scalia, just as the Ponnuru article you cite does for Gorsuch. If there are, please provide them. Lord Monboddo (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Two solutions: One: Why you continue to appear to be deeply upset that Kavanaugh is an originalist and that Scalia is an originalist is still completely unexplained. To repeat, if Kavanaugh is an originalist and Scalia is an originalist, then Kavanaugh and Scalia are originalists without any original research. If you have read the articles for Gorsuch and for Scalia then there must be no question in your assessment that they are both originalists as well. If you have challenges to Scalia being an originalist, then you can make your challenges and revisions on the biography article for Scalia and I will review any revisions and edits that you make there and the reliable sources which you use. Similarly, if you have challenges to Gorsuch being an originalist, then you can make your challenges and revisions to the Wikipedia biography for Gorsuch and I will review any revisions and edits that you make there and the reliable sources which you use. Otherwise your comments here on the Talk page appear to be mere banner waving for your own unexplained opposition to Kavanaugh being an originalist which is already cited. Put your edits into the Scalia article first to add substance to your claims here, if you can do so which remains to be seen.
Two: To repeat again, if Kavanaugh is an originalist and Scalia is an originalist, then it involved no original research to state that Kavanaugh and Scalia are originalists. Of course they are not "identical" jurists, I am sure that one was taller than the other, and I am sure that one was heavier than the other; those points are not relevant to the issue of the cited fact that Kavanaugh is an originalist and that Scalia is an originalist. Make your case on the biography page for Scalia first if you believe Scalia is not an originalist, and I will review your edit there on Scalia's biography page and the citations which you use to support your claims. Otherwise, your edit claims here appear to be merely your personal opinions for your own personal reasons which is against Wikipedia policy. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Why do you feel that it's absolutely necessary to bring up comparisons to Scalia and Gorsuch in portraying Kavanaugh as an originalist? JTRH (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think think Brian Bennett is a good source for this. Pre-confirmation media sources should not be used at all for something like this. This Court has been avoiding constitutional questions more then they have been seeking to interpret parts of the constitution using contemporary dictionaries. That isn't really "originalism". The press will often use the labels "judicial activism" and "originalism" without much precision, but we should wait for stronger sources. Seraphim System(talk) 14:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Seraphim. Time magazine is normally taken as a reliable source which means that it is normally treated as a reliable source. Since this source is also current, it looks notable and worth retaining. His article is quite well-written. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@JohnWickTwo: There is no source that is "normally taken as a reliable source" - every source is evaluated in the context in which it is used. This type of content should be cited to an expert or specialist source. I doubt there are any such published widely accepted academic sources yet, so I'm not sure where the press would be getting it from. Some scholars have posted some opinion articles, but at this point those can only be used for the opinions of the individual scholars like Akhil Amar. It's even more troubling that none of the sources you cited verify any comparison to Scalia. To repeat, if Kavanaugh is an originalist and Scalia is an originalist, then Kavanaugh and Scalia are originalists without any original research. - Your edit says [6]originalists in the tradition of Antonin Scalia. Those two are very different things. Based on Lord Monboddo's diffs you have restored this unverifiable and disputed content to a BLP article six times over objections from multiple editors. Seraphim System(talk) 15:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
That's not quite the history of editing the lede section here. The original form of the edit by a previous editor was to speak of Kavanaugh as part of the court voting pattern associated with Alito and Gorsuch. Everyone agreed to remove that edit because of poor sourcing with which I agreed. So please correct your edit count of "six" times since all agreed to the deletion. The current article does establish educational ties with Gorsuch who is also notably identified as an originalist in his Wikipedia biography article. Also, the Time magazine is a reliable source for including in this article on Kavanaugh. There are journals and websites that Wikipedia does designate as unreliable, such as IMBD for film articles, though Time magazine is not among the excluded journals and websites. The Time magazine article is a reliable source, and it is quite well-written and informative. Kananaugh is well established in the press as an originalist in multiple respected news sources: [7][8][9]. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
News sources are not authoritative for law articles. They are only being used here because there are currently no other alternatives, but some caution should be exercised in their use. I left in the content that is cited to Time magazine, but the content about Scalia is not supported by either of the cited sources, so I have removed it. This is a highly-visible BLP and we have to err on the side of caution. It should not be restored without a consensus. Seraphim System(talk) 15:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You removed much more than just the Scalia portion of the edit. Pease await consensus prior to further edits. News sources and journalistic sources are used extensive in many law biographies on Wikipedia. You also appear to edit warring and ask that you return the edit to its previous form until consensus is reached on the Talk page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
At least two editors have objected to the edit on the ground that the citations do not verify the content. Consensus for inclusion is possible, if you can provide additional sources that actually verify the content, as other editors in the discussion have already requested. As Lord Monboddo says above Just one source would help. You can't just keep edit warring to restore unverifiable content to a BLP. Seraphim System(talk) 16:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Your are requested to stop edit warring on the article and to return the page to the state that is currently being discussed on this Talk page. Your persistent reverts are against Wikipedia policy and have been reported. Please return the page to the version which is currently being discussed on the Talk page prior to your edit warring in which you are trying to force your version of the edit into the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to restore citations that fail verification to a BLP with nearly 2,000,000 monthly views. Current RS are not even in agreement about whether Gorsuch is an originalist and the citations in the article don't verify any connection between Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, originalism and the school. The burden is on you to adequately source the content before adding it to the article. I would not restore this content to a BLP unless there was a clear consensus supporting it. If it has "been reported" you need to notify me with the proper substituted template, so I know where the discussion is. You have not done that and I'm not able to locate the discussion based on the comments on my talk page. It might be a good idea to have an admin apply some ARBAP editing restrictions, as this article is not templated for any editing restrictions yet.Seraphim System(talk) 20:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You are currently edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article. You appear to be saying that you will revert on the Talk page indefinitely in order to force your version of the edit into the article regardless of the Talk page discussion which is currently in progress. This is against Wikipedia policy. Restore the edit to the form being discussed by multiple editors on the Talk page first, and then start a formal RFC following Wikipedia procedure and policy. Also, do not re-factor my edits into your format. Do not re-factor my edits here on the Talk page. Please stop edit warring and restore the article page to its original form so that the Talk page discussion can continue according to Wikipedia policy. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not my version. I only commented on this discussion because I saw complaints from other regular editors about major errors being made and because I have a law background and thought I could help. You have made several significant errors in interpreting law sources on this article and also at Azar v. Garza. For example, claiming the "SC petition was vacated" (cert petitions are not vacated). Or this factually incorrect "correction" [10] (the petition was to vacate). Now you are restoring different versions of content about originalism to the lede that fail verification. I'm done with this, but if any editors want to file this at AE I've already templated the above editor and will comemnt if I am pinged. Seraphim System(talk) 20:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
It is your version of the edit and you are edit warring to force it into the article against Wikipedia policy. Please restore the original version of the article which is currently being discussed here on the Talk page and wait for consensus to be reached. You can then return to the Talk page discussion and make whatever points you want to make but stop edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article. Please return the article to the version currently being discussed by multiple editors on this Talk page. Please stop forcing your version of the edit into the article and restore the original version before you started edit warring. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Should Gorsuch be mentioned in the lede?
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for the inclusion of the sentence in its current form. I am unprotecting the article. This sentence should not be reinserted without discussion and a consensus being reached on this page. If it is reinserted without consensus the editor who does so will be subject to any discretionary sanction an uninvolved administrator deems appropriate. KnightLago (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The lede already mentions that the Trump administration considered Kavanaugh an originalist. His schooling is discussed in the article. The cited sources don't say anything about Gorsuch being an originalist and even if he is it doesn't seem to be relevant for the lede of this article.Seraphim System(talk) 20:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose We should not make comparisons that are not sourced. The cited sources do not mention originalism. Neither should we. Lord Monboddo (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Support strongly. There are multiple reliable sources stating that Kavanaugh is an originalist and multiple sources stating that Gorsuch is an originalist. Their schooling relationship to one another is also already established in the main body of the current Kavanaugh biography article as it stands. The statement in the lede section is also useful to readers of the article who study the voting patterns of the Supreme Court and the adjudication patterns of the Supreme Court. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
No - the existing lead "Kavanaugh as "a stalwart originalist"." is summary of the article section on his legal philosophy per WP:LEAD. A mention of other originalists Gorsuch (or Thomas) woud not follow WP:LEAD as it is not within the article. It also is not commonly covered, and is a bit WP:OFFTOPIC -- this is the bio page for him, not a comparison article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The comparison of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch "is...within the article". It is discussed in the 'Early life and education' section of the article discussing their demographic similarities. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Extended discussion
Invalid RFC format. If you are proposing a valid RFC for the edit then you should restore the article to the original version prior to your edit warring. Your edit warring has been reported for administrator protection to restore the article to its condition being discussed by multiple editors in the section above. If you wish to start a valid RFC, then stop edit warring and restore the article to its condition prior to your forcing your version of the edit into the article. An RFC is procedurally out of sequence and not valid until you restore the article to its original condition prior to your forcing your version of the edit into the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe your claim is supported by the Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Could you please explain from that link to our RFC procedure? Rmhermen (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Rmhermen: It appears that Seraphim has fully withdrawn from editing the Kavanaugh article in his statement at RFPP and on his Talk page. I was planning to consider archiving temporarily this pre-RFC that Seraphim started here and allowing the Talk page discussion above to continue until consensus is reached. Whatever consensus is reached by the multiple editors in the Talk section above would then go into the article. If you want this Seraphim version of the RFC to take place then it will be with his having stated his already withdrawing from further editing of the article. I will say that all of the other editors participating in Talk here have been following all the proper Talk page procedures, and that should normally result in a consensus edit being quickly determined mutually among the editors. I will await your advice if the Serfarim RFC should be temporarily archived since Seraphim has withdrawn from editing this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Redrose64: It appears that Seraphim has fully withdrawn from editing the Kavanaugh article in his statement at RFPP and on his Talk page. I have left a note to Rmhermen above to request advice if this pre-RFC left by Seraphim should be temporarily archived since Seraphim has stated that he is no longer editing this article. Perhaps both of you can advise on the best path to take here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@JohnWickTwo: As an involved party you have no authority to force-close the RfC, and "restoring to the original version" would mean restoring to the version before you made the contested edit. Per WP:BRD, you should have started a discussion to form a consensus as soon as your edit was reverted. The fact that you're attempting to prevent discussion and restore your edit to the article anyway is not good. Swarm♠ 23:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The Talk discussion was already underway with multiple editors participating on the version of the edit as it was placed in the lede on 3 August. After the discussion was well underway with multiple editors, then Seraphim began to try to delete it without consensus having yet been reached on the Talk page, and was put on warning for doing so by KnightLago on his Talk page. KnightLago then protected the page. No one noticed that Seraphim had tried to start this pre-RFC while the page protection was being put into place. The initiator of this pre-RFC, Seraphim, has since stated that he no longer wishes to further edit this page by his statement on the RFPP page. I have no authority of any kind to archive this RFC (it was made a regular RFC by Rmherman after the page protection was made by KnightLago) and I will do whatever @Redrose64 and Rmherman: require since the original writer of this RFC, Seraphim, has stated that he has withdrawn from further editing this page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Please focus on content, not contributors, going forward. Page protection is specifically a measure to force discussion and is not an endorsement of either side of a dispute. If your problem was your edit being reverted "without consensus", then there is now an RfC open to settle the matter and you should have no problem with that. It's up to you whether to participate but there is nothing wrong with the RfC and it's inappropriate to try to prevent dispute resolution measures. Swarm♠ 00:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
One editor has been adding material to the lead likening Kavanaugh to Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, or, especially, Scalia. That editor does not provide a source that supports the claim, although they do include citations to sources that do not. The editor’s logic seems to be that because those judges are all originalists, they are all alike. User:Snooganssnoogans, User:1l2l3k, User:FinalForm, and User:Seraphim System have removed the unsourced claim. JohnWickTwo has reposted it a half-dozen times.
We should not include the likening. It is unsourced. The sources we have, from the Washington Post,[1] the New York Times,[2] and the National Review,[3] indicate Kavanaugh is dissimilar to Scalia or Gorsuch. Professor Akhil Amar, a leading exponent of originalism very different from Scalia, praises Kavanaugh precisely because he is dissimilar to Scalia.[2] It is far too early to make ideological comparisons between Kavanaugh and others, especially comparisons that are contradicted by the sources we do have. Lord Monboddo (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The proposed sentence makes it sound as though the reason that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are both originalists is that they went to college together. That implies causality. One, did they know each other and influence each other's philosophy as undergraduates to the extent that it defines them both as jurists 30 years later? Two, most judicial philosophy is formed much more strongly by law school rather than by undergraduate education. Is the editor arguing that their philosophies were formed in college, not law school? Can that be documented? Three, slightly off topic, the proposed phrasing contains several redundancies. "Both," "co-students," "together" and "same" are not all necessary. "Kavanaugh and Gorsuch attended college together" makes the same point, but again, that's only relevant if the undergraduate education is being presented as the cause of the judicial originalism in both of their cases. I haven't read through this entire discussion, but I repeat the point I raised previously: Why does the editor seem to feel that it's absolutely necessary for a discussion of Kavanaugh's originalism to raise a comparison to some combination of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, particularly when it hasn't been sourced? JTRH (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
There are multiple reliable sources for Kavanaugh being an originalist and for Gorsuch being an originalist. Wikipedia articles for jurists often discuss Voting alignment among the judges which readers find to be useful and notable. Analysis of Voting alignment on the Court usually involves looking at both history and demographic background of judges in order for analysts to assess the voting patterns of judges in deciding potential cases brought to the Court. The current Kavanaugh biography covers some of the demographic similarity between Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. They are both Roman Catholic, and they are both church members of the same orientation within Catholicism following the Jesuit approach to Catholicism. They are both pro-life according to reliable sources, and they were educated at the same school prior to law school during over-lapping years. These are notable demographic similarities for readers who study Voting alignment on the Court and has been significant to readers of Wikipedia biographies for many jurists in the past. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Kavanaugh is an originalist. Gorsuch is an originalist. They overlapped in college. All true, but none of that has apparently produced a source explicitly comparing the two of them or relating their philosophies to each other, and yet that's the connection your edits keep asserting. JTRH (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The literature on comparing Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in reliable sources is extensive. The New York Times article here [11] compares them as both being conservatives, and compares them also to other Judges already on the Supreme Court. Another reliable source from July 9 also places the two judges as having closely related conservative orientations by name here [12]. A third source is the Washington Examiner here [13] which indicates Trump as choosing Kavanaugh because he is aligned with Gorsuch. That is 3 of the reliable sources regarding Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, and there are many more reliable sources regarding the comparison of the two of them. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The sources, yet again, do not say what you say they say. The New York Times graphic explicitly says Kavanaugh: “may be less conservative than Mr. Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch”.[4] It then goes on to list statistical metrics that show Kavanaugh as “more liberal” than Gorsuch. The USA Todayopinion piece you cite likewise actually says: “it’s likely that he will be another sturdy conservative, somewhere between Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts.”[5] Which is to say, with Roberts now the man in the middle, that Kavanaugh is more moderate than Gorsuch. Neither source ever mentions originalism.
The James Dobson Family Institute opinion piece in The Washington Examiner you cite does explicitly liken Kavanaugh to Gorsuch and Judge Amy Coney Barrett, and praises him on that basis.[6] This may, perhaps, be a usable source to support a claim that some evangelical organizers favor Kavanaugh’s nomination. Their opinion is not, however, a usable source to support underlying factual claims about Kavanaugh’s ideology, especially claims that are contradicted by our other sources. Lord Monboddo (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Your comment here appears to be accepting that all 3 articles plainly refer to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name as "conservatives", and that is the purpose of my presenting these 3 articles. One of them even quotes Trump as stating that he chose Kavanaugh because he resembles Gorsuch as a Judge. There are already multiple reliable sources which tell everyone that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are 'originalists', and now I have just added 3 reliable sources which tell everyone that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are both 'conservative' Judges as well. The fact that they are not identical conservative judges looks like it is secondary to the direct quotes in the 3 reliable sources that I have given here which indicate that they are both "conservative" Judges. The 3 sources I have listed above are the first 3 reliable sources given on Google search for this comparison which lists over a dozen reliable sources giving quotes for Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as both being "conservative" Judges. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2018 (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.
Judicial Common Space score
I changed this to reflect that the score is calculated based on the president who appointed the candidate to the federal bench and I updated the citation to Boston Globe. This wasn't made clear in the previous version of the edit, possibly because it wasn't clear in the underlying source Five Thirty Eight - this source is not preferred for law articles. Seraphim System(talk) 00:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Rollback requested to KnightLago yesterday evening at time of page protection being removed. You are editing while ignoring Talk page discussion on your Talk page. Temporary full page protection is requested. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
My talk page is not the right place to discuss article content.Seraphim System(talk) 02:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy requires that your Talk page be contacted when you are violating BRD and requests to start Talk as required by BRD policy which may require intervention for you to stop violation of BRD. You were requested yesterday to stop deleting material from the article and to start Talk page discussion following BRD and you have ignored these requests. Please return the article to the last neutral point of editing when KnightLago removed page protection a day ago and start Talk page discussion to make consensus before continuing your edits. You are refusing BRD and you are using one-click archiver to ignore requests for Talk page discussion on your Talk page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I have reached the bounds of my patience with this article. See here. I did not like leaving the article fully protected for more than a week and do not intend to do so again. Editors should seek consensus. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a great way to establish consensus. Go read that. Seriously, go read it and come back. From now on, if you do not believe an edit will be controversial, make one edit. If it gets reverted, come to the talk page and form consensus. If you do not follow this direction you will face sanctions. The article is now on a one revert restriction. If you revert more than one time in a 24-hour period and it is not to remove clear vandalism you will be sanctioned. The easiest way to handle editing in controversial areas is to think about your edit. If you think the edit in anyway may be controversial, do not make the edit. Instead, start a talk page discussion about your proposed edit. You may be surprised when everyone on the talk page agrees with you or even helps you improve your proposed edit, thus, improving the article and avoiding conflict. Improving the article is not only a goal everyone should aspire to, but avoiding conflict when possible just makes everyone have a better editing experience.
Addressing the latest conflict, discussion about the article should take place on this page. As a courtesy, please notify anyone whose edit(s) you are discussing by leaving a notification on their talk page. It should not be an argument on the merits, but merely a courtesy notice directing them back here so everyone can be involved in the discussion. I am not going to hunt the entire wiki to determine consensus. Discussion has started here, please continue discussion here until there is a consensus. Again, all editors involved are highly encouraged to read BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If someone believes a policy violation has occurred that warrants action now in light of what was on this talk page, and Wikipedia's general policies prior to this edit please contact me directly and provide differences. If there are any questions, please contact me directly on my talk page. KnightLago (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, to be clear. I am not going to look highly on someone who reverts but then does not engage in discussion on this talk page moving forward. One revert and the immediate initiation of discussion about that revert is required. KnightLago (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@KnightLago: I'm not sure this is a good idea on a law article, moving forward, where many of the updates will be be about legal decisions, but we can give it a try. Seraphim System(talk) 19:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: Right now it has a lot of focus due to the politics involved. Once the current attention resolves one way or the other, the article's status can be reevaluated. I would be open to reevaluation even sooner if everyone starts to edit from a consensus based approach. I think once everyone understands how to do this properly things will calm down. I am going to be actively monitoring to make sure everyone follows the guidelines I have put in place today, but it is going to remain under increased scrutiny until we stop having these issues. KnightLago (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@KnightLago: Thank you, it's a lifetime appointment, so we'll probably see less politics and more law and we move past confirmations. Seraphim System(talk) 19:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Should information be added clarifying Kavanaugh’s position on pursuing litigation against a sitting president?
In his 2009 article, Kavanaugh addresses this criticism, writing, “The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and in- vestigations until the President is out of office.” [1] Should this sentence be added in the scholarship section after the Washington Post source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Users Helping World (talk • contribs) 12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
At some point, information like you suggest was added to that section--it now says that his opinion was, the President should be impeached and then subject to litigation/indictment. — Narsil (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Marathon
I reverted some recently added content as overly detailed. Which of these versions should be included in the article?
Version A
Kavanaugh is an avid runner who has run the Boston Marathon twice. In 2010, when he was 45 years old, he finished the course in 3:59:45, one hour, fifty-three minutes and fifty three seconds behind the winner.[2] In 2015 he finished the race in 4:08:36.[3]
Version B
Kavanaugh is an avid runner who has run the Boston Marathon twice. In 2010, and in 2015 he finished the race in 4:08:36.[4]
Which version should be included is a Hobson's Choice. The question is, should his "avid" running be mentioned at all? He is an extremely mediocre runner. Runners, after their thirties, tend to slow down with age, which is why I added it, providing explanatory context. However, by contrast, Sister Marion Irvine never ran at all until she was almost 50. She ran 3:01 in her first marathon when she was over 50, and eventually ran 2:51.01 (one hour, eight minute and 44 seconds faster than Kavanaugh when he was eight years younger) when she was 53 years old, qualifying for the Olympic Trials. Elite race walkers, who are restricted to always having one foot on the ground, and who have to keep their lead knee locked until they are fully upright, cover the marathon distance in less than three hours. You are worried about "detail," yet you want to consider restoring the text, "...he finished the course in just under four hours (3:59:45)," presumably for those Wikipedia readers who are unable to calculate that his time was 15 seconds faster than four hours. The winner in 2010 finished in 2:05:52. Kavanaugh's marathon time, avid runner or not, may the equivalent of a duffer being a 75-handicap golfer, but I don't play, so don't take my word for it. You asked for feedback, but reverted my edits without getting any and are one revert short of 3RR. Activist (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Please avoid BLP violations. A 4 hour marathon is not a bad result for an amateur running enthusiast. It is a relevant bio detail, as (for most people) being in shape to just finish a marathon requires significant training (or time investment).Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Version B (with further reduction in detail - so version C) - "Kavanaugh is an avid runner who has run the Boston Marathon in 2010 and 2015.". I've run a marathon - in my bio or self-description I don't mention my time, and usually don't unless I'm going into the nitty gritty details with someone who is interested in running. For amatuer runners - it's usually only the participation that really counts as a notable bio detail. Now - if Kavanaugh had done this below 2:40 hours, then maybe that would be worth a mention, but not a "normalish" result.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Support version C. Version A contains accurate and relevant text which I supplied. Version B's second sentence is poorly punctuated and contains an inaccuracy: He did not run 4:08:36 twice. Activist (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Version C, but I could get behind a version of A that left out the comparison to the winner, and maybe used language like "completing the race in around 4 hours both times". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Version C unless someone wants to argue that his marathon time is relevant to his qualifications for the Supreme Court. JTRH (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
DoneChanged to Version C per apparent consensus. Daask (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Persistent Disregard for WP Sanctions by Multiple Individuals
I've noticed there have been quite a few cases of flagrant disregard for the sanctions in place on this article. As per them no individual is entitled to revert more than 1 edit every 24 hours. As of now two admins and three users have violated this in the past hour. While in some of these cases it was merited, in others it wasn't. Furthermore much of this edit warring could've been avoided by simply holding dialogue and asking them to remove personal bias. There are criticisms of Kavanaughs appointment, these should be reported on, as should criticism of democrat conduct as both of these things are current events and should be brought up. While sources were inadequately cited and sometimes questionable, these edits did not constitute vandalism, and in one case a users post was outright reverted as vandalism when it appeared to be a fully legitimate attempt at a constructive edit. I would like to request that User:Kn0w-01, User:Drmies, User:Oshwah, and User:155.52.187.12 Actually attempt to discuss their gripes out rather than unconstructively violating WP sanctions, something that Kn0w-01 actually called out Drmies for, albeit in an incredibly hostile unproductive manner. I feel this would allow us to properly add information to this article without risking everyone leaving this hating each other and leaving minor errors across the article as repeated reverts tend to muck with things quite a bit. Jyggalypuff (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, said Oshwah has 368,169, and while I have a few less, I think we both have some experience and some knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies between the two of us. What appears to be legitimate to you might have been a BLP violation or a forum post to us. And please don't patronize two administrators by doing away with their concerns as "gripes". Drmies (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussed this off page with Drmies, I misunderstood the situation and I apologize for that. Jyggalypuff (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Should sexual harassment allegations against Judge Kozinski be discussed in the article?
I recently removed a large edit that shuffled content around and added a lengthy section about Judge Kozinski here [14]. However, after the removal of this section which needs consensus to be reinstated, there is now no mention of sexual harassment allegations against Kozinski. Should this be mentioned in the article? Seraphim System(talk) 19:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
No. This is Kavanaughs article. The allegations against Kozinski, and Kavanaugh's response regarding them has had no meaningful impact on the life or career of Kavanaugh, and such content is WP:UNDUE for the BLP of Kavanaugh. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the diatribe against Judge Kozinski should be removed. Prior to the added material, the article read: "Kavanaugh recalled his time in Kozinski's chambers as demanding a very heavy workload but says he had no knowledge of the allegations against Kozinski of sexual harassment." The user who added the new material retained that sentence while, inexplicable, removing its source. I feel that the source, The New York Times, did a good job advising the reader of Kavanaugh’s response to the controversy without getting off topic. The original sentence and its source should be restored. Lord Monboddo (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The original version of the edit was brief and stayed on-topic. I would not object to restoring it. Seraphim System(talk) 08:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd say no, unless there are reliably-sourced specific indications that he knew and didn't act. He might just have been too focused on the work to notice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Support: I'd say yes. There had been a close relationship between Kozinski and Kavanaugh going back almost two decades, and Alex's sexual improprieties had been well known amongst his clerks and associates, though none "outed" him until a couple of years ago. He testified at length in support of Kavanaugh at his 2006 confirmation hearing in Senate Judiciary. A decade before his resignation was forced late last year, Kozinski and the judge's son Yale, were implicated in the bestiality, etc., porn on his computer. One of his sons (I don't know which) clerked for Kavanaugh. (Judge in porn trial had obscene website | US news | The Guardian) Kozinsksi, as Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, personally buried the years-long serious behavioral allegations against Judge Richard Cebull. So that extensive familiarity would seem to justify inclusion. Activist (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Secret Feinstein document
There is an intriguing story emerging about a secret document related to Kavanaugh. This may need to be covered pretty soon as it seem like it's pretty serious.
This looks like manufactured drama to me. There's no reason whatsoever for it to be included in this article. If there's continued coverage it may need to go in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination article, but not yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Uh, there's coverage of it everywhere, and Feinstein isn't usually one for empty drama (if it was Warren or Schumer or Pelosi (yes I know that's House) then I'd be more suspicious too). Added it. Volunteer Marek 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
While the accusations are unsubstantiated, they do meet WP:NOTABLE levels of coverage. DirkDouse (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@DirkDouse: absolutely true, when you replace "ABLE" with "NEWS" in your link. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)wumbolo^^^ 11:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The section has gotten fairly long for the Brett Kavanaugh article, though. Unless anyone has any objections, would be good to move that full section to the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination article and leave a sentence or two summary in this (Brett Kavanaugh) article. DirkDouse (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Update: Moved content to hearing article; left shortened version in main. DirkDouse (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the move to the hearing article was appropriate, but you've moved it 12 minutes or less asking for feedback, and after none was received. I'll read both versions to better inform myself. Activist (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The article referred to the complainant as "anonymous." She was not so, and the article clearly states, at the beginning, "The woman, who has asked not to be identified,..." In other words, as I presumed before going to the cited source, Eshoo and Feinstein both were aware of both her actual identity and her request that her name not be released to the public, which is hardly atypical of alleged or confirmed victims of sexual assault. Activist (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Any reason why the following text was removed?
"A partial description of the woman's letter was published in The New Yorker on September 14. She alleges that in the early 1980s, at a party Kavanaugh tried to force himself on her by holding her down and covering her mouth with his hand, while his friend turned up the music so that her protests could not be heard outside the room.[1] The classmate of Kavanaugh's said that he had "no recollection" of the alleged event.[1] The woman states that she was able to free herself and that she has sought treatment for psychological distress subsequently.[2] Kavanaugh issued a statement through the White House that said, "I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time."[3][4]"
The edit in which it was removed [15] had no edit summary. Volunteer Marek 05:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
"had no edit summary... for mysterious reasons..." - presumably the lack of edit summary was an error, which is why the next edit is whitespace changes with the summary Moved full section 'Sexual misconduct allegation' to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination; shorted existing version left in the main Brett Kavanaugh article. See talkWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Still, there does not seem to be an adequate reason for the removal. This is particularly true after today's revelations [16] Volunteer Marek 19:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
References
^ abCite error: The named reference newyorker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference vox was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
I have barely gotten started on the an article on Christine Blasey Ford. She has a pretty long background and has a lot of published works. Might be a good article to work, if anyone is interested.Casprings (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The letter
Publicly available with names REDACTED here : [17]. --Calthinus (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
California academic
Regarding this edit, I don't believe the accuser's state or profession are important enough for the lede. All we need is "woman", the rest can be worked out in the relevant section. Bradv 01:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, now that I understand the reasoning, I withdraw my objection and have restored the wording to "woman." Thanks. KalHolmann (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The "woman" has come forward and she is deserves to be identified by her name and her profession.Casprings (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Mentioning her name is completely fair as its already in the article, but just "a California academic" seemed a bit odd. Bradv 02:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I think her profession is irrelevant. The insinuation of the text seems to be "academic, so must be a libr!". Volunteer Marek 04:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Please join the discussion here. Sandstein 06:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Citation needed
Though his investigation concluded that Foster had indeed committed suicide, Kavanaugh has been criticized for investing federal money and other resources into investigating partisan conspiracy theories surrounding the cause of Foster's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q-Hack (talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I took out the bit about the polygraph, because it sounded to much like trying to make it true. The name is relevant, but not I think the test, which isn't reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree - the polygraph is a minor detail, and doesn't add much to the account. Bradv 19:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah the polygraph is a kind of thing which appeals to people who don't know that these tests are more or less fake. On the other hand, the fact that she released notes from her therapy sessions years ago which corroborate her story is quite significant. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The therapist notes corroborate the idea that something happened to the woman. Unless the judge was named in the notes, it isn't actually helpful to the accusation. Some other kid could have been guilty of the act. TMLutas (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The polygraph is a notably and well referenced part of her statement to the press along with the notes. It should be included. ContentEditman (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Allegation is of attempted rape, not merely sexual assault
"Ford considers the incident an “attempted rape,” according to her attorney, Debra Katz."
We don't know whether the allegation is true but we shouldn't obscure the nature of it. It is an allegation of attempted rape, which is a form of sexual assault. We should note this in the article and in the sub-section. We don't call other allegations of attempted rape sexual assault just because they're unproven. Steeletrap (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it clear that she's accusing him of attempted rape? JTRH (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. This has been reported in multiple RS.
That very source says "accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago" - sources generally use "sexual assault allegation" and so that's what we should use, per WP:NPOVGalobtter (pingó mió) 20:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Copyedit some of the notable cases
Sentences like In Klayman v. Obama (2015), Kavanaugh concurred when the circuit court denied an en banc rehearing of its decision to vacate a district court order blocking the National Security Agency's warrantless bulk collection of telephony metadata. strike me as very difficult to understand. (It took me quite a few tries to wrap my head around a concurrence about a denial of a rehearing of a decision to vacate a block of bulk collection.) Can we find a way to convey this more clearly, perhaps by breaking it into a few sentences to make it easier to parse? /wiae/tlk 00:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Current Events
This article needs one of those "Current Events---information changing
rapidly and may not be up-to-date" banners at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8300:17AC:129A:DDFF:FEAD:89D1 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done: not relevant enough. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Done I confirmed it. It is circumstantial evidence relating to his behavior patterns, social culture, mores and customs, and attitude towards women. While this may be "guilt by association" there is some truth that "Birds of a feather hang together." Its weight, therefore, may be subject to dispute. But there are multiple WP:RS that are reporting that, and in that sense it is relevant, if not necessarily probative or dispositive. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, I did not add Fuchs, Hailey; O'Daly, Britton (September 20, 2018). "A flag of underwear: Photo from Kavanaugh's time shows DKE hijinks". Yale Daily News. Retrieved September 21, 2018. But in his first year of college, Kavanaugh joined an organization notorious for disrespecting women: the campus chapter of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity. A photograph that appeared in the Yale Daily News on Jan. 18, 1985, shows Kavanaugh's fraternity brothers waving a flag woven from women's underwear as part of a procession of DKE initiates marching across Yale's campus. Kavanaugh does not appear in the photograph.7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Nor did I add that a couple of papers reported that the Yale DKE chapter was banned from campus for five years in 2011 for harassing the Yale Women's Center in an especially egregious chant.[1] The Chapter apparently hewed unwaiveringly to its heritage, according to that commentator. Nevertheless, this seems more remote from the Judge, and we would not want WP:Undue in Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Brett Kavanaugh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Location of error: Section titled: Sexual assault allegation and hiring practices allegations; second to last paragraph; 2nd sentence -----
Error: "... He wrote that the Ford's statement ..." -----
Correction: delete "the" before "Ford's" to make the following:
"... He wrote that Ford's statement ..." Greg Stokley (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Everett, Burgess; Schor, Elana; Korecki, Natasha (September 23, 2018), "Kavanaugh confirmation in renewed peril after second assault claim", Politico, retrieved September 24, 2018, Avenatti told POLITICO he represents a group of individuals who can corroborate allegations involving Kavanaugh and his longtime friend in the 1980s. Avenatti said he'd describe just one of the individuals as a victim. He said the others were witnesses to the allegations.
... with an edit summary that appears to make no sense. Here [18]. By User:MONGO. Want to explain this? Volunteer Marek 18:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I challenged the edit and it used Wikipedia as one of its refs...start an Rfc.--MONGO (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
One sentence at the end used Wikipedia as a ref. A sentence that frankly nobody really cares about. The rest of the paragraph that you removed used the New Yorker and The Atlantic and other reliable sources. You removed it as well. I'm not asking you for advice on how to proceed, I'm asking you to justify your edit. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018 "What Happens at Georgetown Prep Stays at Georgetown Prep"
This edit request to Brett Kavanaugh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
ADD to SECTION: Early life and education
<blockquote>In a 2015 speech at the Catholic University of America’s law school, Kavanaugh, now 53, said that he and some friends <blockquote>"had a good saying that we’ve held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep. That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think,"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXKX_whwVzs|title=The Judge as Umpire delivered by The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh|first=|last=CUA Law School|date=1 April 2015|publisher=|accessdate=25 September 2018|via=YouTube}}</ref></blockquote> he added to laughter from the crowd.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://people.com/politics/brett-kavanaugh-joke-georgetown-prep-2015/|title=Watch Brett Kavanaugh Joke in 2015: 'What Happens at Georgetown Prep Stays at Georgetown Prep'|author=|date=|website=people.com|accessdate=25 September 2018}}</ref></blockquote> 69.181.23.220 (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
That does not seem to be particularly relevant to the article as a whole past being trivia. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
If that's going to be in this article, it needs to have the YouTube link cut, and it would need a useful context. I don't know how I feel about there not being anything at all about the alleged shady side of his school career, but that's the kind of context this needs. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Leave out per MOS and NPOV. Any discussion of his high school years should stick to what's been reported, such as the yearbook pages, Mark Judge stories, etc. We don't need to overdo it with videos that may or may not necessarily have more sinister connotations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The quote is from people.com, which links to the full speech on youtube.com, which was included for verification, so the text of the quote and the people.com reference would be a cogent option
Kavanaugh was friends with classmate [[Mark Judge (writer)|Mark Judge]]; both were in the same [[Cohort (educational group)|class]] with [[Maryland State Senate]] member [[Richard Madaleno]].<ref>{{citation|url=https://theintercept.com/2018/09/25/brett-kavanaugh-accusations-mike-judge/|work=[[The Intercept]]|access-date=September 26, 2018|title=The closer you look, the worse Brett Kavanaugh's relationship with Mark Judge appears|first=Peter|last=Maas|date=September 25, 2018}}</ref><ref name=erinkelly>{{citation|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/18/mark-judge-what-we-know-brett-kavanaugh-classmate/1344707002/|work=[[USA Today]]|access-date=September 20, 2018|date=September 18, 2018|first=Erin|last=Kelly|title=Who is Mark Judge? Here's what we know about Brett Kavanaugh's classmate}}</ref><ref name=breakssilence>{{citation|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-judge-testimony-brett-kavanaugh-hearings-allegations-christine-ford-2018-9|work=[[Business Insider]]|access-date=September 20, 2018|date=September 18, 2018|title=Brett Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge breaks silence about alleged sexual assault incident but says he will not testify|first=John|last= Haltiwanger}}</ref><ref name=kornhaber>{{citation|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/09/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-writing/570631/|work=[[The Atlantic]]|access-date=September 20, 2018|title=Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and the Romanticizing of Teenage Indiscretion|first=Spencer|last=Kornhaber|date=September 19, 2018}}</ref>
Done - Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 🖋 12:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"Client of Michael Avenatti"
I think this section is premature. We don't know whether the client exists; there's no name; etc. I suggest that this section be removed until there's more clarity. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: We know now, see [19][20]. I suggest more exes on this article in the coming days. Regards SoWhy 15:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done He is still an appeals court judge unless and until he is confirmed by the Senate as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Done Changed to Version C per apparent consensus. Daask (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done: not relevant enough. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Done I confirmed it. It is circumstantial evidence relating to his behavior patterns, social culture, mores and customs, and attitude towards women. While this may be "guilt by association" there is some truth that "Birds of a feather hang together." Its weight, therefore, may be subject to dispute. But there are multiple WP:RS that are reporting that, and in that sense it is relevant, if not necessarily probative or dispositive. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
