Talk:John Roberts

Weasel word in lead.

The first paragraph states: "He is usually considered to be a judicial conservative." I had reworded this significantly at one point but it has ended back up at this. "Is considered" is a weasel term. Is considered by who? Obviously it is true.. but lets be more precise. Either he is or is not. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's more wrong with this than weasel wording. What is a "judicial conservative?" If the perceived voting alignment needs to be mentioned at all, it should be in a factual sentence that no one will disagree with. I'd suggest something like "Roberts is most often a member of the conservative voting bloc on the court."--Paul (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. It had been more detailed before, labeling him as a constructionist, etc. I cannot find the precise edit that changed it back to this - just noticed the change while checking for vandalism earlier today. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Animal cruelty

I added this entry. However another user changed it slightly to almost no notable difference. He obviously wants to claim to have added this section for himself. --Geniusbrainus (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check out the instructions on the edit page just below the submit button. The part that says

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

Bbb23's version is more grammatical, better written overall, and in the appropriate section for the decision. Your "argument" for not changing your "masterpiece", OTOH, seems to consist merely of "Waaahh! He's taking my credit away." Please! Fat&Happy (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That all is certainly not the case. --Geniusbrainus (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Another user copyedited it for style, and correctly formatted the reference - Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and nobody claims or is credited with ownership of individual sections. If you can perceive "almost no notable difference" in the edit, then you should have no objection to it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, that´s exactly the reason that I do object. --Geniusbrainus (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It fixes a typo, correctly formats a reference and generally tidies up your submission - if you personally can see no qualitative difference between the two versions, it would make sense to defer to those editors who can see the difference. If you're simply uncomfortable with the idea that other editors might improve your work or point out your spelling mistakes, you should not submit your writing to Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I put back my description of the case. Somehow, in all the reversions, it got lost. We have to reference the case name (and WP article). I also tracked the language of that article, figuring consistency is a good thing. I also prefer the wording about overbreadth because it tracks the LA Times source, whereas the descriptiion Geniusbrainus was using did not. I removed the vague tag but wasn't sure if Fat&Happy thinks it's still vague. If so, put the tag back in and I'll try to improve it. I think the first sentence is clear enough in light of the second sentence, but I'm happy to try to make it clearer. Finally, my biggest concern is how I sourced the LA Times. I know it's their blog, but it is apparently from the Tribune Wire Service, so that's why I wrote the reference that way. Others can feel free to improve the reference if they think it's substandard.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Country Name

I changed the birthplace of John Roberts Great-Grandparents to Slovakia because Czecho-Slovakia did not exist at the time. The linked information cites 1886 as the date John Roberts Grand-Parent, Jacob Podrasky, immigrated. This is a common mistake but, by using Czecho-Slovakia one cannot be sure the family emigrated from Slovakia. They may be Moravian, Bohemian or even Polish. I mailed the author of the citation as well. 24.5.109.189 (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)gthistle

When your edit showed up on my watchlist without a summary just as I was about to shut down the laptop and go to sleep last night, I reflexively reverted. This morning, I modified the phrasing a bit, since as you point out above there is no indication as to which of the component parts of "Czechoslovakia" his ancestors were from, so we can't just assume Slovakia. I also question the entire sentence, based in part on discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, and wonder whether we might be better living without this non-critical claim if a more reliable source can't be found. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Glover

Is it pronounced like "clover" or like "lover" or like something else entirely? 68.35.40.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC).

I don't see the duties of a Chief Justice in this article

Specifically, what kind of duties does a Chief justice have that are different from other justices of the supreme court? 98.193.210.17 (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the Roberts article. See instead Chief Justice of the United States.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Electoral reform

An IP-hopping editor has been re-adding claims that there "is criticism" of his "judicial activism" on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and attaching the title "electoral reform". The article is the criticism, and only criticizes his decision and argument on that case. I think something could be done, but I'm not going to add it, because I don't feel it's relevant. Almost all decisions get criticized by somebody. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears I was wrong. The article says he (and the entire majority) was/were criticized for "judicial activism" in one of the dissenting opinions. It's still not relevant. You can find notable criticism of any opinion by a Justice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The above appears to be in reference to the Electoral reform in the United States item ...

Roberts has been criticized of judicial activism regarding the process surrounding the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in a May 2012 article in The New Yorker.

99.181.142.87 (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It refers to Citizens United, not electoral reform. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to be locked down

Media are already reporting that someone vandalized this article and added the word "coward" to the infobox. Obviously it was taken down but I predict more and worse to come. If an admin is reading this I strongly recommend putting a lock on the article until emotions die down. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've requested protection for this article. Bms4880 (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 June 2012

Someone put "Chief Traitor of the United States" instead of "Chief Justice" below his picture. It's inaccurate, and disrespectful. 50.115.70.50 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed ...while you were typing this. Dru of Id (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection

The wrong version of the article has been successfully protected.

I've just fully protected this page for one day because of the edit war that broke out this afternoon. Please discuss proposed changes here instead of edit warring (see WP:BRD), you may consider dispute resolution steps, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also see the relevant thread on my talk page, here. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the full thread to the discussion on Mark Arsten's talk page, instead of just one diff, so you can see the whole discussion.--76.189.108.102 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening needs tweaking

"He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy in his jurisprudence." Comes just after another "having", too, and it's clunky anyway.

Perhaps "His judicial philosophy has been described as conservative." The readers will wonder what the difference is between jurisprudence and judicial philosophy. Tony (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC) PS I responded to a query on my talk page about other grammatical issues. Tony (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Great suggestion, Tony. Much better. Logical and straightforward. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Seconding Tony on the current "having been" wording being clearer about the causality than "and was". The other contested edits seem fairly minor, but "death" seems more appropriately formal than "died", and "after admission" seems unnecessarily technical compared to "after being admitted" (the former making it clear that "admission to the bar" is something that happened to Roberts, rather than an unrelated event). I don't see that any of these edits particularly remove any "weak and passive verb constructions", as the original IP suggested. --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony's a great writer. Regarding death/died, Wikipedia says the more direct and less formal "died" is recommended over the more passive "death" or "passed away." Straightforward vs. formal language is always preferred for the enyclopedia. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)