Jump to content

Talk:Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 299: Line 299:
* EXCLUDE — it apparently was asked about in the confirmation process, but minimal coverage so think leave it out for now based on WEIGHT. At most it would be a 1 liner just mentioning asked of other suggested allegations, and what could one say? Just seems not much can come from “anonymous letter about an anonymous person and an anonymous friend” that “contained no names, no address, and no contact info”. Nor from a phone call of someone who says he beat up somebody in 1985 and recognized photos now as being him. (Without evidence of photographic memory, that a brief encounter is visually remembered 33 years later... ). Precedent from Trump allegations was to not show at least one of the accusations on credibility concerns, so these might be excluded if judged as crank reports — but here seems WEIGHT is too low to need to look at it. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 05:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
* EXCLUDE — it apparently was asked about in the confirmation process, but minimal coverage so think leave it out for now based on WEIGHT. At most it would be a 1 liner just mentioning asked of other suggested allegations, and what could one say? Just seems not much can come from “anonymous letter about an anonymous person and an anonymous friend” that “contained no names, no address, and no contact info”. Nor from a phone call of someone who says he beat up somebody in 1985 and recognized photos now as being him. (Without evidence of photographic memory, that a brief encounter is visually remembered 33 years later... ). Precedent from Trump allegations was to not show at least one of the accusations on credibility concerns, so these might be excluded if judged as crank reports — but here seems WEIGHT is too low to need to look at it. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 05:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''', and exclude anonymous allegations in general. [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 06:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''', and exclude anonymous allegations in general. [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 06:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
* Exclude. Fringy stuff is coming out without any substance at all. [[Special:Contributions/104.169.41.8|104.169.41.8]] ([[User talk:104.169.41.8|talk]]) 22:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


== Anonymous allegations ==
== Anonymous allegations ==

Revision as of 22:28, 28 September 2018

The lead

Kavanaugh has not pre-emptively recused himself from a number of potential issues. Why are Trump or Mueller related items highlighted in the lead? Seems like this should be removed, as it seems to go against BLP to highlight such a specific issue. I do understand this is a current event and likely changing rapidly. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arrests

How many anarchists have been arrested so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.47.42 (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least 277, according to the NPR source (article already updated with info as of a few days ago thanks to User:Leaky.Solar). DirkDouse (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the terminology you're using is appropriate. (People here would typically point out that Wikipedia is not a Soapbox - WP:SOAP - that is, it's not intended for people to proclaim their views or opinions). What you're referring to is Civil Disobedience. Sean Heron (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

- MrX 🖋 18:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GRAPEVINE stories about a letter which nobody has seen which supposedly says some unspecified allegations that happened during high school and has supposedly been referred to justice. This is about as WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPCRIME as you could possibly get. If he is charged with something or the letter is ultimately released and derails the nomination, then that obviously changes things, but right now its just rumors and posturing. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see. Who said anything about a crime? - MrX 🖋 19:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why else would something be referred to the Justice Dept?ResultingConstant (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the FBI does background checks. The allegation is covered in more detail here: A Sexual-Misconduct Allegation Against the Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Stirs Tension Among Democrats in Congress - MrX 🖋 15:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
don't forget that feinstein had this letter before the hearings and could have asked him about it עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The two policies you reference (two of your three policies reference the same policy) clearly do not apply. The matter is quite reliably sourced to the likes of The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and Politico. The allegations have since been specified throughout much of the mainstream media. So WP:BLPREMOVE does not apply. Furthermore, as a judge, let alone one now nominated for the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh is certainly a public figure. So WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. This matter will surely end up in the article in some capacity or other. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed a lot of this out of the article. It runs against BLP and WEIGHT to have such prominence on these details in this article. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of fake news/conspiracy theories surrounding the hearing

These two topics have received an incredible amount of media coverage and are certainly notable enough to warrant inclusion in the main article. Might flesh out at some point. In the meantime, dropping some sources on to the talk page here.

White supremacy hand signal coverage

"Abortion inducing drugs"/Kamela Harris

DirkDouse (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A number of these sources are not reliable and must be excluded. 71.193.207.45 (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the sources being of marginal reliability, these two stories were a flash in the pan. Every maneuver and machination of each side (and each side's media) arguing and spinning can't be covered. ResultingConstant (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
how is cnn and the wapo unreliable and they can hardly be called the republicans side media עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These were major stories that received coverage and discussion from media outlets on all sides of the political spectrum. The subject of general hysteria surrounding the hearing is more than noteworthy; one of the main subjects of the hearing. As עם ישראל חי pointed out, even major left-wing outlets were criticizing inaccurate coverage of false stories that were being circulated by a substantial number of media outlets (which is why I titled this section "fake news/conspiracy theories" rather than something like "criticism of media coverage"). If there are specific sources there that seem questionable, there are plenty of other sources that can be pulled in instead. DirkDouse (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case of a 50-50 tie

Since Senators can abstain from voting shouldn't this article simply say "in case of a tie" as the vote could theoretically be 48-48 (unless 50-50 refers to percentages rather than number of votes)? Emperor001 (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

50-50 also refers to 50%.- MrX 🖋 15:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I couldn't tell if the previous author meant 50% or 50 votes. Emperor001 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
changed it 50 50 tie when talking about the senate implies votes not percent and also all ties are 50% 50% so it would still be redundant עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. Kavanaugh Images

Mostly from meetings with senators.

Had been hoping to find something usable for a photo of the hearings themselves, but didn't turn up anything useful with the appropriate licensing/copyright. DirkDouse (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't CSPAN be free? Volunteer Marek 18:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These photos are published by the White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/remarkable-career-photos-judge-kavanaugh-testify-senate/ Victor Grigas (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking news / BLP concerns

There is currently one source (WaPo) with a new update regarding the allegations against Kavanaugh. We need to take extreme care in updating this article with respect to BLP and NOTNEWS about this information. Use this talk page before adding contentious material. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about the importance of BLP and NOTNEWS in general. But when it comes to the material that Mr Ernie has tried to delete most recently [1][2], this comment is mischaracterizing the situation. The fact that Ford had told her therapist and husband about the matter years before Kavanaugh's nomination makes the accusations much more credible and less likely to be a politically motivated atttack. Which is why numerous reliable sources (not just WaPo, but also e.g. USA Today, CNN and besides that also Fox News) are reporting it. It falls under none of the four criteria of WP:BLPREMOVE, by a long shot. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB: Each of the three sources you cite (USA Today, CNN, Fox News) merely rehashes the WaPo report. Mr Ernie's statement, "There is currently one source with a new update regarding the allegations…," remains in full force, and we must stay cautious about putting all our eggs in one basket. KalHolmann (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"much more credible"? Only if you believe her story - this could just as easily be some sort of confused fantasy, or a lingering grudge that for whatever reasons she brought out in 2012. Let's stay NPOV here.50.111.25.206 (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KalHolmann: Each of these three sources have independently made the call to treat the WaPo report as reliable and notable enough to rely the information to their own readers, which is a very common situation in news reporting (also for a lot of other information cited in this article). I think the above comments are conflating this kind of situation with the problem that we encounter as Wikipedians in a case where only one particular news medium has reported a particular allegation and all others have stayed away from it giving it credence.
(There is an all-eggs-in-one-basked situation one need to be wary of, described at Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Syndicated stories, but it doesn't apply here - USA Today, CNN and Fox are all independent of WaPo.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kavanaugh and the other witness there have denied this story. The accuser herself can’t remember where the party was, how she got there, or how she got home (and her therapist got the story wrong too). Can we not just be cautious with allegations against people? Let’s follow the model that we did over at Sarah Jeong. There’s currently one original source reporting this stuff, so let’s please have some patience. It’s the least we can do. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of personal theorizing and assessing of the credibility of Ford risks into veering into original research.
I think including Kavanaugh's denial may be warranted though.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it "risks veering into OR". It *IS* OR. Volunteer Marek 00:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This comes right out of the WaPo article. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the assessment, not to what professor Ford and her therapist said or wrote (obviously I didn't assume you were doing first-hand reporting there).
Also I don't think the WP:OTHER suggestion is helpful here. Supreme Court nominations are regularly considered among the most important and most scrutinized personnel decisions in the United States, and a couple of tweets criticized as racist are not the same as an alleged sexual assault or rape attempt. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging sexual assault content to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

The matter of the alleged sexual assault is currently covered in three places at about the same level of detail: Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.

It appears likely that this matter will generate more coverage and therefore more content. Maintaining this in three places at once without contradictions is a WP:BLP challenge. I therefore propose that the matter is covered in the main at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, because this is the political context in which the matter arose and is discussed. The other two articles should each have a one-paragraph summary with a {{main}} link to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. Sandstein 06:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There would seem to be a similar model at Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination, Clarence Thomas, and Anita Hill -- where the subject matter appears to be covered in-depth in all three pages at the same time. Sagecandor (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least for now, readers looking for NPOV content about these allegations are almost certain to come first to Brett Kavanaugh, and that is where the detailed content should be. We should not expect readers to have to find the proper section and then have to go to another article to get the encyclopedic content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this hour, Wikipedia's Christine Blasey Ford BLP devotes only two paragraphs to the sexual assault allegation. As one of the top 10 editors of that page, I am confident it will not be onerous for us to accommodate subsequent developments without unduly weighting the article. Certainly we don't have to go into depth in covering Professor Ford's expected testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee—that is more properly a matter for Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination.
But I balk at Sandstein's proposal that the professor's page should be restricted to a one-paragraph summary with a {main} link. It is much too early to box ourselves into such an inflexible approach. I request that editors hold off on limiting in advance how the professor's page treats this important topic. Please, let's wait to see what transpires. KalHolmann (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, although it may be hard to implement in practice. I would also support from the standpoint of not having possibly divergent narratives in this fast-paced environment. To direct readers to the info on the controversy, this could be perhaps dealt with via a hatnote on both BIO pages, such as:
I do agree with Cullen that most people would be googling "Brett Kavanaugh" and going to the BIO pages; just look at the page view stats, the BIO pages vs this page: [3]. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Judge

Have started page Mark Judge (writer). E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should not Mark Judge be mentioned in this article? According to Professor Blasey, there were three people in the room: Blasey, Kavanaugh, and Judge. Both Kavanaugh and Judge deny that this incident ever occurred. Should not this be mentioned in this article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He should be linked from this article. But but to his career of a modestly notable journalist and author of 2 books that attracted some attention (they are about his alcoholism as a young man, and his recovery,) I thought it a better idea to start a page. User:Joseph A. Spadaro, feel free to go ahead and link it where you think it appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory - he should be mentioned in the narrative (wherever it winds up) but should not have an article per WP:BLP1E. He is his own person but without what is this article’s topic had no article of his own — and if his article is limited to actually being about his life (I.e. excluding other than a 1 liner and wikilink to here)... ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ford May Testify Either In Public or In Private

See here [4]2601:447:4101:41F9:9C29:D3:7532:FBA5, here [5] and here [6].68.47.65.239 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of credibility and evidence

The current introduction does not include that Kavanaugh has denied the allegations. The only components present are that there is an allegation, that the White House has denied it, and that the two have been asked to testify. There should be a note that Kavanaugh has denied these allegations and there should be a discussion discussing the credibility and evidence presented by the accuser. Otherwise the reader of this article will not know how credible or evidence-based the claim is. Wikipedia is leaving out key details, which I hope is not an attempt of partisan bias. In order to make sure they are being fair to both sides of the debate, they should include important, left out details. These details include the following: - Kavanaugh's accuser didn't tell anyone about the incident at the time and did not go to the police. - Her first retelling of the story came in 2012, three decades after the alleged incident, in a spousal counseling session with a therapist. - She told the Washington Post that she doesn't remember key details of the night in question. - In addition, she doesn't remember the location or how she got to the party, or the date of the alleged encounter. - The notes of her therapist conflict with her statements about the evening as well. - Ford only came forward months after sending letters to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and contacting the Washington Post. - She originally didn't want to reveal her name or her story. - Feinstein didn't ask Kavanaugh about it in writing, or in closed or open hearings, and she didn't inform her fellow Democratic senators about the allegations; now she's reportedly attempting to prevent Republican senators from asking questions of Ford. Lawrencebeesly1912 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawrencebeesly1912:, I'm not finding any evidence that Feinstein has been attempting to prevent Republican senators from questioning Ford. Can you provide a citation for that contention? I did find this, which is hardly definitive:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said Ford, who lives in California and has received numerous death threats, shouldn’t “be rushed" in her decision of when to testify. “Show some heart,” Feinstein said. “Wait until Dr. Ford feels that she can come before the committee.”[7]

That doesn't remotely demonstrate what you've alleged. I look forward to your response. Activist (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That "preventing" allegation is just typical Fox News spin. Other sources were also repeating it, all of them fringe and unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @Activist! Thanks for taking interest in my post. First, thank you for providing a citation. Mentioning that Feinstein said “Wait until Dr. Ford feels that she can come before the committee.” means that she was trying to avoid the hearing proposed by Senate Republicans to hear from Ford and Kavanaugh. Using simple logic, this means she is attempting to bar Republicans from being able to question her. In addition, here’s an article from AP News: https://apnews.com/0cd952aedc474df893d50cb9bc9fb4e1

This article shows how Chuck Grassley is attempting to set up calls to Ford, and cites Feinstein’s rejection of such an idea. It appears she does not want members of the Republican Congress to talk with Ford.

Here’s another article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/17/feinstein-faces-gop-heat-for-sitting-on-kavanaugh-accusers-claims.html

A section from this article says, “The top Republican also accused Feinstein of refusing to help set up follow-up calls involving Kavanaugh and Ford, which he called "standard procedure" when there are updates to a nominee's background file.” "I asked Senator Feinstein’s office yesterday to join me in scheduling these follow-ups," Grassley wrote. "Thus far, they have refused. But as a necessary step in evaluating these claims, I’ll continue working to set them up." In response, all ten Democrats on the Judiciary Committee issued  a statement condemning Republicans for holding staff-level calls with Kavanaugh in the wake of the allegations, saying the FBI should investigate first.”

The abnormality of refusing to cooperate in setting up this call raises serious questions as to the Senate Democrats—notably Feinstein’s—actions. It appears they are trying to prevent Senate Republicans from speaking to her. I would love to hear your opinion on why it may be something else—great to hear your point of view! Just having difficult info drawing a different logical conclusion.

In summary, I think my entry should be changed. Instead of saying she’s “attempting to prevent Republican Senators from questioning Ford” it should read she’s “refusing to assist and public rejecting the idea of Republican Senators speaking with Ford, despite Republican Senators following standard procedure for updating a nominee’s background file.”

Thanks again for your interest! Would again love to hear your opinion on the updated section. Also, if you re-read your post, it has a slightly condescending tone. Let’s try to help each other present the most accurate, informative information to Wikipedia readers. No need for condescending undertones, we’re ‘’stronger together’’ as a team! Really looking forward to your response too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencebeesly1912 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other RS which make it clear that this isn't about "preventing" it, so much as preventing the GOP from arbitrarily rushing the process without including all witnesses. Ford is willing to testify. She just wants a proper investigation with the FBI (as was done with Anita Hill. It took two days.) and including all witnesses, but Kavanaugh doesn't want an investigation. I wonder why. Instead, the GOP has been trying to rush it. Now Ford has at least gotten part of what she wants by waiting until Thursday. By then more can happen. There is no justification for rushing this. Monday was a totally arbitrary day. It's good Grassley finally agreed to wait. Not that anyone's testimony will make any difference: Lindsey Graham says "the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser won’t change his mind, no matter what she says." These men don't care about justice. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: So you've made a total of three posts in less than three days, Lawrencebeesly1912, since you first got an account, and you know all about Wikipedia already. Amazing! A regular savant! Activist (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Article with new victim

This article has two major points. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

  1. It has another victim that names him during college. A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that's not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.” She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. “I wasn’t going to touch a penis until I was married,” she said. “I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.” She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there.”
  1. Brings into doubt Mark Judges story. After seeing Judge’s denial, Elizabeth Rasor, who met Judge at Catholic University and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that “ ‘no horseplay’ took place at Georgetown Prep with women.” Rasor stressed that “under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t reveal information that was told in confidence,” but, she said, “I can’t stand by and watch him lie.” In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, “Mark told me a very different story.” Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated. But Rasor was disturbed by the story and noted that it undercut Judge’s protestations about the sexual innocence of Georgetown Prep. (Barbara Van Gelder, an attorney for Judge, said that he “categorically denies” the account related by Rasor. Van Gelder said that Judge had no further comment.) Another woman who attended high school in the nineteen-eighties in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Georgetown Prep is located, also refuted Judge’s account of the social scene at the time, sending a letter to Ford’s lawyers saying that she had witnessed boys at parties that included Georgetown Prep students engaging in sexual misconduct. In an interview, the woman, who asked to have her name withheld for fear of political retribution, recalled that male students “would get a female student blind drunk” on what they called “jungle juice”—grain alcohol mixed with Hawaiian Punch—then try to take advantage of her. “It was disgusting,” she said. “They treated women like meat.” Casprings (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is an interesting development. It should make for a lively week ahead.- MrX 🖋 00:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Farrow, Ronan; Mayer, Jane (September 23, 2018), "Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh's College Years", The New Yorker, retrieved September 24, 2018

Sagecandor (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you posted too much from the newspaper article - this is a copyright violation. An Admin should have addressed this - in future, please be more careful.104.169.41.8 (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to watch here: As more women appear, when is it time for a sub-page?

It appears we will soon have another. See: https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044006928416825344 and See: https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044013350873489409

When do we do a sub-page on this?Casprings (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably never. Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination is already a sub-page of Brett Kavanaugh. There won't be so much content to need a split. We certainly shouldn't split pre-emptively because Michael Avenatti promises a circus later this week. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Models exist, at Category:Sexual misconduct allegations, for consultation of organization and layout. Sagecandor (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you have three women you do something like Brett Kavanaugh sexual abuse allegations... are you saying this wouldn't meet WP:N? I think it is there now.Casprings (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article def needs a split: at the rate things are going, it seems most likely that the majority of this page will be about his assault allegations, and a jumbled mess as a result. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And on the circus, if this is what he has: https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044032678951960576 .. Yeah, we need an article. Crystal, right now, but Jesus. Casprings (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to start with a section about "Sexual assault allegations" and then spin off most of the content when it becomes large enough to create an undue weight problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Avenatti claims should not be treated with any degree of WP:DUE until something comes of them. There is no question that the other allegations have WP:WEIGHT, but these other claims for which Avenatti is essentially the source should not be given any mention per WP:BLPGOSSIP until there is some sort of follow-through. Just because the media jumps all over something does not mean that Wikipedia editors need not show any restraint. Have we all forgotten that this Avenatti character also claimed to have three more women clients to come forward against Trump who he alleged were paid hush money, who never came forth?[8] Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, until he produces something and based on how WP:RSes view it. That said, if he has something credible and WP:RS's view it as that, of course it should be included. Casprings (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand whether you are agreeing with me or not. I am saying that we should have absolutely no mention of what Michael Avenatti alleges because 1) regardless of the fact that CNN and other WP:RS might run with it, as long as he's the one making the claim, he's essentially the source for it, and 2) he has made similar claims in the past and failed to produce. Furthermore, cables news networks and other otherwise reliable WP:RS will frequently run with stories like this that clearly would not make it to Wikipedia under WP:BLPGOSSIP. Therefore, I am saying that we should exercise caution in including anything that comes from Michael Avenatti. If Ronan Farrow said he had multiple clients saying the same thing, that would be a very different story. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should've clarified. I'm saying the section that mentions a "third allegation," presumably the Avenatti one, should be removed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think that while it is putatively part of the confirmations it belongs as part of this article. It does not exist separately and this article could not just skip it, so it should not be a separate article. The precedent of Clarence Thomas is that way. It also gets very iffy in scope if split off and messy arguments with content thereby offending everyone and informing none —- would it just be allegations and thus verge into an attack page; would it have to include counter-accusations of the women and veer that way; would it include protests; would it include the accusations of last-second reveals being just a slimy election move; etcetera ... Lots of such exist out there, but. Let’s just not go there at this time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kavanaugh faces new accusations; Avenatti claims 'evidence' of 'targeting' women for gang rape

Sagecandor (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New woman comes out against Kavanaugh

New woman comes out against Kavanaugh - [9]. 46.70.206.132 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number 4?

https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/09/24/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-faces-more-allegations/ Casprings (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to mention US Supreme Court

Hi friends! I propose we rename this to Brett Kavanaugh US Supreme Court nomination to clarify that this is talking about the United States. There are hundreds of Supreme Courts around the world and Wikipedia has a global audience, not just the US. I think that since the page got started without the "US" in it that we can add a redirect to Brett Kavanaugh US Supreme Court nomination from its current name. Anyone else in favor of this change? Thanks! -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See names at Category:Nominations to the United States Supreme Court. Sagecandor (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off: Brett Kavanaugh sexual abuse allegations

I would suggest it is time to get this started. The WP:Weight in this article is already too large and keeps growing. It is time for a Wikipedia:Spinoff.Casprings (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realise the article is still developing, but you seem to have suggested this (multiple times?) above already. To the point - the hearings, at the moment, are about little other than the sexual abuse allegations (whether that is warranted, or to your or my liking is not the point - that's the way it is) - and have overall been a highly significant issue as well. So cutting them out of here would not be giving them their due weight. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favor of a spinoff at this point. The material is not very lengthy, and I don't think we should make it so by adding more detail. If other accusers come forth, we may have to consider creating a new article, but at this point it fits well here.- MrX 🖋 12:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:Spinoff refers the reader to WP:Article size.
  2. WP:Article size says: Total article size should be kept reasonably low, because many readers use low-speed connections including dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections. The text on a 32 kB page takes about five seconds to load for editing on a dial-up connection, with accompanying images taking additional time, so pages significantly larger than this are difficult for older browsers to display.
  3. This article, Brett Kavanaugh sexual abuse allegations, is currently at 77.6 kB.
  4. This article would seem to be over the size limit recommended, per WP:Article size.

Sagecandor (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor, see WP:SIZERULE, which says that having "< 40 kB" of readable prose size means that "Length alone does not justify division"; the readable prose size of this article is 27 kB. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still will start to load slower on pages, and is over double the recommended size for better loading. Sagecandor (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is part of the confirmations, so belongs here. As mentioned above, any separate article with scope outside just confirmation process gets into difficult questions on what scope and has a lot of yucky bits - counter accusations against the women, claims that stage-managed late appearance is just a slimy election move, bits about it being Stormy Daniels lawyer, protests in various venues ... and no NPOV means including all the mud in due WEIGHT. The parts outside confirmation scope belonging to this article are not significant and problematic, so let’s not go there for now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Mark's comments. Plus, let's face it - some of these accusations are so bizarre they beggar the imagination.104.169.41.8 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hearings at the judicial committee lasted 4 days ? seems wrong...

In the second paragraph of the lead section, we have this sentence: "... confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee began on September 4 and lasted four days, ending on September 7." That seems in absolute opposition to the fact that the hearings before the Judiciary Committee have not concluded yet? I'd change it myself, but I'm not familiar with these kind of hearings / proceedings, and so I wanted to check first. Thanks! Sean Heron (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is wrong. The hearings will continue on Thursday. We will only know it's over when the committee vote actually occurs.- MrX 🖋 12:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Woman

Should be hitting WP:RSe: https://twitter.com/michaelavenatti/status/1044960428730843136?s=21 Casprings (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramirez Is Willing To Testify Before The Senate Judiciary Committee If Allowed

This has been confirmed by her attorney.[10] Please include this.2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swetnick Is A Government Employee and Is Liable For Perjury if the Written Testimony Was False

She has been a longtime federal government employee and has a security clearance which would prompt an immediate investigation for potential perjury. See here[11] Please include this in the article as well.2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1998 incident - Senate probes new misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh: NBC News

  1. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/senate-probes-new-misconduct-allegation-against-kavanaugh-nbc-news.html
  2. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/senate-probing-new-allegation-misconduct-against-kavanaugh-n913581

Sagecandor (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2018

Add alleged victim's last name to allegations headings, e.g. First Allegation -> First Allegation (Ford), Second Allegation -> Second Allegation (Ramierez) , Third Allegation -> Third Allegation (Swetnick). Happyaspie (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest using the same headings as at the Brett Kavanaugh article:
  • Christine Blasey Ford
  • Deborah Ramirez
  • Julie Swetnick
Numbering the allegations is a bit odd. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, have left the fourth allegation as "Fourth allegation" as there's no name at this point. Fish+Karate 10:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island , 1985 allegation

CBS News is reporting another allegation out of R.I. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-judiciary-committee-asked-kavanaugh-about-2-new-claims-of-sexual-assault-1998-1985/ Happyaspie (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • EXCLUDE — it apparently was asked about in the confirmation process, but minimal coverage so think leave it out for now based on WEIGHT. At most it would be a 1 liner just mentioning asked of other suggested allegations, and what could one say? Just seems not much can come from “anonymous letter about an anonymous person and an anonymous friend” that “contained no names, no address, and no contact info”. Nor from a phone call of someone who says he beat up somebody in 1985 and recognized photos now as being him. (Without evidence of photographic memory, that a brief encounter is visually remembered 33 years later... ). Precedent from Trump allegations was to not show at least one of the accusations on credibility concerns, so these might be excluded if judged as crank reports — but here seems WEIGHT is too low to need to look at it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude, and exclude anonymous allegations in general. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. Fringy stuff is coming out without any substance at all. 104.169.41.8 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous allegations

Preserving here by providing this link. I believe it's better to stick to the named accusers for now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-removing; here's the diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kavanaugh discussed it in his testimony today. Sagecandor (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swetnick

Nothing useful here, some BLP problems here I think Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

<redacted>.--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gateway Pundit is not a reliable source. See WP:RS.- MrX 🖋 12:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted>.--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything we need to keep from this section, or can it be cut out wholesale ? Since it's basically just unsubstantiated snark, as far as I can tell (without looking into it). I'm thinking along the lines of WP:SOAP here (collapsing rather than cutting out might be a good alternative..). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed most of the details. It is an unquestionable BLP violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More info on the use of a "female sex-crimes prosecutor" needed

I believe that the article should include information regarding the fact that a female sex-crimes prosecutor, referred to as a "female assistant," will take the place of the Republican senators. This is noteworthy because it has been strongly objected to by Ford's lawyer and the Democratic senators who will conduct the questioning. [12] Gandydancer (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a brief mention of Rachel Mitchell to the September 27 section, but more development and sourcing is needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganising in a manner that promotes one side ? (edit by Leaky.Solar)

I guess I'd normally just undo (or reshuffle in some manner) this kind of edit, but since American Politics is under Discretionary Sanctions, and I certainly don't want to start any wheel warring or such, I thought it better to raise the issue here first: In this edit, User:Leaky.Solar introduced some welcome structure to the section, but at the same time pushed down all the support for Ford and the others that have brought forward accusations against Kavanaugh. (Plus I don't understand what the "Investigation" heading is supposed to mean / refer to). Dunno where exactly to go with that now... Maybe someone else here has some good suggestions :), regards Sean Heron (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Investgation section seems to be for those advocating FBI should do more investigation. The other sections are supporting one of the people. Cheers

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Bar Association

If anyone is reading this Wikipedia article, it seems really important to include that the American Bar association gave Brett Kavanaugh the highest rating saying , as Senator Graham pointed out, " “His integrity is absolutely unquestioned."

Also that the American Bar association has written (see Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-requests-to-delay-brett-kavanaugh-vote-until-fbi-investigates.html ) that the ABA has written to Chairman Grassley asking for an FBI investigation of Christine Ford's allegations before Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, writing about the Supreme Court, "It must remain an institution that will reliably follow the law."

I am going to have a go at adding this section, any valid editors welcome to modify or delete if not npov though I think it is.

Actually, no I won't but someone please decide soon because the voting members of Congress will be waking up soon. Createangelos (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your concern (I have similar qualms making changes :P ). Did you see that in the "Nomination" section, it already says that the ABA gives Kavanaugh their highest rating (whatever that means) ?
I guess the point that the ABA asked for an FBI investigation might make for a good addition - not sure where I'd fit that in though (I don't think I'd make a separate section for it). Actually, come to think of it - under "Support and investigations" there is a heading "investigations" where according to what I got as a reply above, statements supporting an investigation are mentioned. I guess that might be an appropriate spot?
Regards, and don't over worry on making additions (I don't think others do either :P ), Sean Heron (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Createangelos and Sean Heron, should be added to the article, such an addition to ABA statement is unprecedented in United States history. Sagecandor (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good that I waited. Now I see that it was the president of the ABA somehow speaking on behalf of the ABA, rather then reporting on a resolution.Createangelos (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic magazine un-endorses Brett Kavanaugh, American Bar Association demands an FBI investigation

Sagecandor (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

America: The Jesuit Review concluded, "For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson." Sagecandor (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dershowitz: Postpone Kavanaugh confirmation until FBI can investigate accusations against him

Sagecandor (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Jesuit's America Magazine has withdrawn its support for Kavanaugh

They had been major supporters of his nomination for Supreme Court Justice since July and felt that he would overturn Roe v. Wade[13] Here is also the original article from yesterday.[14]2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABA Has WEIGHT, but this seems not due any mention. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead photo

@Volunteer Marek:, regarding this edit, what makes that photo WP:UNDUE? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photo seems back, of him and family with Trump in the rose garden nomination presser. ???? Maybe an oops transient there? It seems an appropriate one to start with, no reason I can see to pull it. Also.... As it was present since 11 July, I think it is “long-standing” content so by some discussions it is a de facto consensus that would require TALK to remove. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Flake wants the floor vote delayed for a one week FBI investigation

Despite the fact that Kavanaugh made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Flake made it clear it would not proceed with his support until after the floor vote is delayed for one week to make room for an FBI investigation.2601:447:4101:41F9:19F9:F6EE:D3E:6B13 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this update. Sagecandor (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I why user Obsidi made an edit mentioning Flake and then erased it. I also sent a message to this user and have so far received no response. I would like to see Flake's FBI investigation request restored please.2601:447:4101:41F9:19F9:F6EE:D3E:6B13 (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my prior edit as it included a committee vote, I hadn't realized someone else had already added that (I thought it was just the vote to not delay the committee vote). I added back in Flake's request as well as the Senate Republican Leadership's agreement to that request. -Obsidi (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swing vote Senators Lisa Murkowski (R) and Joe Manchin (D) have backed Flake's request as well

This is very interesting. Here are at least two sources backing this[15][16]2601:447:4101:41F9:19F9:F6EE:D3E:6B13 (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • OBE - not a good idea to chase events and this seems wrong, but no edit was proposed and the above is OBE by actual results. It has been referred back to FBI for limited period of up to 1 week investigation. Not stated as a delay in vote. Not clear to me as yet what date the full senate vote would tentatively now occur. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Floor vote now officially delayed, as GOP Senators have now agreed to ask for an FBI probe of Kavanaugh

While there is currently no update on the White House's position, GOP Senators have finally caved in to demands for an FBI probe.[17] The Senate Judiciary Committee will now ask President Trump to order the FBI to commence with the probe.[18]2601:447:4101:41F9:19F9:F6EE:D3E:6B13 (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC) The floor vote has been delayed as well.[19]2601:447:4101:41F9:19F9:F6EE:D3E:6B13 (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an investigation of one week, not necessarily a vote delay. Flake said investigation and could delay vote “up to” but not more than a week... but he doesn’t set votes, and there was no reported vote schedule. Would need to have a prior fixed vote date and a new vote date to know if the vote itself gets delayed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination&oldid=861641347"