Talk:John Eastman

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John C. Eastman. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stthomasmore.net/harrelldesigns/board-of-directors
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518014305/http://claremont.org/scholars/scholarID.380/scholar.asp to http://www.claremont.org/scholars/scholarID.380/scholar.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of board affiliations

The section on board affiliations was removed by user:Drmies on the basis that it was 'just resume padding' and required secondary sourcing. I disagree.

First, board affiliations have broader political significance; the Federalist Society has been highly influential in judicial selection during the Trump administration, and Prof. Eastman's chairship of a practice group therein is not merely a status marker or honorary title but suggests influence on policy direction for that society's membership. Readers can make significant inferences about Prof Eastman's political affiliations and activity from this and other board memberships; I did so when I consulted his bio the other day, and I was startled to discover the information had been removed when I returned to check this morning.

Second, board memberships are binary matters of fact rather than assertions or opinions, and fall within the guidelines for Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources. The institutional and diverse nature of the source data (as opposed to, say, a single resume page on a personal website) strengthen the case for its inclusion.

Because many readers will be reviewing Prof Eastman's biography pursuant to his controversial article about the citizenship of Kamala Harris, and because Prof Eastman's extracurricular activity involves participation in multiple political advocacy organizations of national scope and notability, the deleted information provides important context and these edits should be reverted.

--Anigbrowl (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Anigbrowl, thank you for placing the note here. It is a bit of a wordy note, but in it I see a meaningful word: "suggest". Yes, it "suggests" influence, but putting suggestive words in Wikipedia articles is not what we should do. The answer is really very, very simple: find reliable secondary sources that verify the basic facts (and prove them noteworthy: "prove", not "suggest"), and better yet, sources that prove said suggested influence. Now, you say "board memberships are binary matters of fact", etc., and I am pleasantly surprised at the impressive knowledge of Wikipedia policy you have as a new editor, but what those guidelines indicate is that sometimes primary sources will suffice for verification: they do not state that they are sufficient arguments for inclusion. That remains a matter of editorial judgement. If it were otherwise, every single board membership, club membership, high school badminton record, swimming diploma would be worth mentioning as long as we can get a primary source to verify it. It would trivialize biographies and turn them into resumes. We cannot have that.

  So, I suggest you search around for reliable, secondary sources that not only verify the information, but also prove it noteworthy--lest we write suggestive innuendo in BLP territory. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Using primary sources for Eastman's board affiliations is fine, although not ideal. That doesn't mean we should include an exhaustive list, but noteworthy ones like NOM should definitely be included. It's verifiable to a secondary source anyway.[1] - MrX 🖋 17:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, how to determine what is "noteworthy" is always a delicate matter, and leaving it to secondary sources is always preferable. You know what businessmanfluffvanispam looks like. Anyway, thanks for the ref. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Drmies, I am not calling for the placement of suggestive words in the article, but for the retention of factual information whose relevance is easy to demonstrate. The Federalist Society, National Organization for Marriage and Public Interest Legal Foundation are all national organizations of long standing, all engage in political advocacy, and Prof. Eastman holds formal positions of responsibility (per chairperson and non-executive director) within all three organizations. Thus, Prof. Eastmen's relationship to those organizations is functional rather than honorary. All three are sufficiently notable to have their own comprehensive entries, two of which independently mention Prof. Eastman. In the case of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, that organization's allegations of civic ineligibility for voters have a direct substantive nexus to the recently added 'conspiracy theory' section in Prof. Eastman's entry. Another institutional affiliation, the Claremont Institute, likewise provides relevant context for readers interested in learning more about Prof. Eastman and likewise mentions him in its own entry.

  I understand your worries about the inclusion of badminton scores and swimming diplomas and think the omission of his affiliation with a local school and a county legal society to be no great loss. Still, current board memberships are categorically different from scholastic sporting endeavors, and I am surprised you would conflate them. The institutional examples cited above each have a direct and substantive connection to the subject's professional field, are each well established and notable in their own right for political influence or advocacy at a national level, and exhibit robust and consistent ideological positions. Three bases of relevance should be sufficient grounds for inclusion of a fact. As noted, Wikipedia entries for 3 of the 4 institutions refer back to Prof. Eastman's entry, and it seems reasonable to think that readers interested enough to visit his article from one of those entries would prefer not find themselves at a dead end with no signpost to his other affiliations. It is of course up to the reader to weigh the significance of such factual details. Thanks for taking time to consider my admittedly wordy arguments. --Anigbrowl (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Anigbrowl, I think your time is better spent in the way MrX spent it--finding reliable sources to prove these things that you say are important. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Drmies, assembling those seems of secondary urgency, since the article was locked to editing after your large elision. In the meantime I would like to pre-empt a future argument on notability or relevance by addressing your original concerns now, rather than adding e.g. the following information (which includes both primary and secondary sources) and possibly seeing it removed again.

    Eastman is 'a top officer of the Federalist Society' and chairman of the National Organization for Marriage [2][3]; a director of the Public Interest Legal Foundation [4] and member of its Voting By Mail Task Force [5], and a director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence [6].

    Arguably, the original primary sources were sufficient and in some respects better for verification purposes. Since an argument of sufficiency for inclusion has already been made on three bases I look forward to reviewing objections thereto. You will recall that your original concern over 'suggestive innuendo in BLP territory' was shown to be moot since chair/directorships are offices with delineated powers and responsibilities, rather than mere honoraria or ordinary membership. It seems strange to exclude the bare facts official roles in national organizations that easily meet the threshold of notability in their own right.--Anigbrowl (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    • No, they were not "arguably" sufficient. And I want to note that "suggestive innuendo in BLP territory" is only a slight editorial expansion from your original "suggests influence on policy direction". But I am a little tired of you repeating the same points and I am going to bow out of talking about these matters with you. MrX, do you mind sticking in the one membership (but perhaps not in the lead, unless your source warrants that)? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The board memberships should be included in the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that a membership on the Federalist Society board is of paramount importance for the Wikipedia reader to understand the consequences of such an affiliation. It only takes a moment of searching to grasp the hold the society has on judicial nominations and confirmations. Two and a half years ago while changing the channel to see what was on C-Span's Book TV, I happened onto Republican Louisiana U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's John Neely Kennedy's questions he put to nominees to the bench. The general public would have been unaware that organizational membership has become the prime consideration effecting federal appointments. Nominees had zero trial experience and had almost no deposition practice. They had no clue as to what the Daubert standard is, nor did they understand the basics of a motion in limine. I'm not an attorney, but I knew the answers he sought. I was flabbergasted that such incompetents were being considered for lifetime appointments to the federal bench. [[7]] All three candidates subsequently withdrew. We're not talking inconsequential badminton scores here, but rather the future of the governance of the U.S. This recent piece is also worth a read: [[8]] A quote: Trump has appointed 193 federal judges, including two Supreme Court justices and 51 judges to federal appeals courts. “We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society,” he told Breitbart as a presidential candidate in 2016. According to a New York Times analysis, all but eight of these 51 judges had ties to the Federalist Society." Activist (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

LEDE

Of its current two sentences, one says he's a law professor, and the other says he's a professor of law. This is redundant information. The lede should very briefly summarize article. Further down in the article, you flesh out (with citations) whatever is relevant.

This should be in some form, fixed by active editors. It's really weak.

One suggestion:

John C. Eastman is a Chapman University law professor, Republican politician and commentator. His two petitions the U.S. Supreme Court were turned away. Eastman is also notable as a Republican politician and commentator, having sought unsuccessfully sought a U.S. congressional seat representing California, as well as separately, the office of California Attorney General.

Better than:

"John C. Eastman (born April 21, 1960)[citation needed] is an American law professor. He is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former dean at the Chapman University School of Law.[1]"

Also, I do think his affiliations may be relevant (but NOT in lede).

2600:1702:39A0:3720:E0BA:3366:CDC0:E188 (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• I worked in part of your suggestion, but not the petitions; I do not know if that is a regular thing to do for such articles. It's possible. Newyorkbrad will know. His affiliations are very likely of importance--the moment that they are properly verified. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• John C. Eastman is an American right-wing academic, legal scholar, and politician. He is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at the Chapman University School of Law, where he previously served as dean. Eastman was an unsuccessful candidate for Congress and the office of California Attorney General. KidAd (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The reference to petitions to the Supreme Court is vague. I would need to know more about what is being referred to to evaluate it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

---

It's better now, but there are two errors and in my view, could benefit from further change.

Presently the "new" Wikipedia lede:

John C. Eastman (born April 21, 1960)[citation needed] is an American academic, lawyer, and politician. He is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former dean at the Chapman University School of Law.[1] Eastman twice sought office for the Republican party, and ran for the U.S. congressional seat representing California and the office of California Attorney General.

It's an error/typo to say "THE U.S. congressional seat representing California." Also, presently, the lede says he "ran for office AND" did X, And Y. The first "and" denotes something additional to the preceding claus, which is unintended. ..... Perhaps slight improvement:

"Eastman twice unsuccessfully sought elective office as a Republican, running for a U.S. congressional seat representing California and for the office of California Attorney General."

Further, in my view, his precise and lengthy title (PLUS his former dean gig) as a law professor at Chapman University doesn't belong in lede: It's enough in this regard to say he's a LAW PROFESSOR at C. Uni. It also frees up a bit of room to BRIEFLY mention other stuff. Currently, the words of the title constitute about 40% of the material in the lede. This isn't necessary.

Redundancy is replicated in new version. He's identified as an "academic" and "lawyer" in first sentence. In second sentence he's identified as a law professor. It's a reasonable assumption (though not absolute) that a law professor is a lawyer and an academic -- thus redundancy.

The lede should make a brief reference to his role as a right-wing commentator. It's likely that this is a key claim to his "NOTABILITY" -- and therefore should be established in the lede.

Regarding US Supreme Crt: On second thought, maybe it's not lede material. Note however, that my initial proposal included only two petitions that were turned away; whereas body of article mentions (suggests?) four (I think).

Getting "turned away," having your petition refused: no feather. At least, as a "constitutional lawyer," Eastman does produce consistent results!!!

Separately, "I'm very gratified" that the relevant board affiliations are now included in the text.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:8CB4:E4F2:EF83:67F1 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is the link to the Newsweek op-ed?

Where, in this article, is the link to the Newsweek op-ed? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Redundant Redundancy

Redundant complaint regarding lede: He's identified as an "academic" and "lawyer" in first sentence. In second sentence, he's identified as a law professor. It's a reasonable assumption (though not absolute) that a law professor is both a lawyer and an academic -- thus redundancy exists in lede.

Beyond identification as a "law professor at Chaplain University," his current, formal title and whatever various other present (and former) titles and affiliations belong in the body of the article -- rather than lede. They're not at all irrelevant but a lede should succinctly summarize entire content of article using as few words as possible. It's a courtesy to reader, rather than a service to the subject.

Separate issue: his role as a right-wing commentator is a key claim to his "NOTABILITY" -- and therefore should be briefly established in the lede.

(Note: Fox News called his recent essay an "unfounded and widely refuted claim." His crackpot nature ought to be made clear in the lede -- but THAT's a matter of opinion. The other stuff is purely a question of writing and form.) 2600:1702:39A0:3720:D018:20B8:F909:37C7 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We would need a few sources to support "right-wing commentator". - MrX 🖋 00:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, "Republican" is perfectly descriptive. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:500A:C41F:E2F2:3EF6 (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And, And

Lede again: Having two ands in one sentence is rarely optimal use of language. It should be avoided, if possible, in good-enough writing.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:54CA:4819:90FE:D08F (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence is fine, but if you want to propose one that you believe is better, feel free to do so. - MrX 🖋 12:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

---

John C. Eastman is an American politician, and a professor of law and the former dean at the Chapman University School of Law.

Google results for "Two ands in a sentence" are endless and seem, though not very authoritative, at least in general agreement:

"No! Usage of 'and' more than once in a sentence is poor English. Correct usage is to use commas between the examples (if more than two), with the last example joined with the use of 'and'." -- from Stackexchange.com

"...should not use conjunctions like “and,” “but,” or “or” too many times in one sentence." --- from wyzant ask an expert

"It's grammatically valid, though the two "ands" in one sentence make it sound slightly awkward." -- quora

A minimal solution is...hmmmm.... remove one of the "ands???" But which one........?!?!?!

2600:1702:39A0:3720:F039:E0D6:E8FC:C1D7 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it needs a solution, with all due respect to the denizens of Stack Exchange and Quora. The current construct informs that he is (1) a politician and (2) associated with Chapman University School of Law. At Chapman University School of Law he is (a) a professor and (b) the former dean. There are several equally valid ways to write this, for example by splitting it into two sentences, but the current version benefits from concision as well as clarity. - MrX 🖋 13:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it could use changes for other reason. For one, it starts of with his position as a politician, which is of little import (ran two campaigns, the last a decade ago, never winning the position and only once even taking the primary.) May I suggest we regroup the two opening sentences thus:

John C. Eastman is an American professor of law and former dean at the Chapman University School of Law who twice sought political office. He ran unsuccessfully as a Republican for California's 34th congressional district and the office of California Attorney General.

I agree, and that looks good to me. - MrX 🖋 16:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

that version looks ok. but lede should indicate notability. Note NYT ID

"John C. Eastman, a conservative lawyer who has long argued that the United States Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship."

As one would expect, this is what he is "notable" for.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:C8C6:68F0:DAB1:70D (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That was just giving context to the most recent moment, but he's been notable enough to have had a Wikipedia page since 2007, and the birthright citizenship question was, in the version that was up a week ago, just listed as one of several things he had testified before Congress on, five years back. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he's "notable" for having "long argued" the point (see NYT) and Eastman said much the same about himself, quite recently and I'd informally paraphrase his recent quote along the lines of "and I've been saying this for a long time." 76.250.61.86 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 76.250.61.86 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"eminent"

Please remove this peacock word describing Laurence Tribe. 216.8.162.124 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

What goes in a "lede?"

One possible answer is in the Wikipedia guideline on ledes:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." (italics added.)

The WP:LEDE type-lede is, in effect a table of contents, such that it "stands on its own." If a reader sees nothing but the lede he or she can nonetheless know what is in the article.

The Wikipedia lead concept is similar to the often overlooked "nut graf" concept of journalism 101: So that the reader can quickly grasp entirely what the article will be about, the "nut graf" ideally offers a succinct and complete summary "near the top" of a story. (A newswriting "lede" contains the news, generally followed by the nut.)

The idea is to serve and respect the reader -- there's no other reason behind the concept.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:B892:FC1E:D420:FFD6 (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

1990, 2010

Facts about Eastman’s two attempts at elective office should be grouped together and presented as an element of his notability. Currently they are split and listed under separate headings.

It should be made clear that in each case his candidacy failed in California Republican primary.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:F154:B8E0:DB4F:9577 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It is simply not true that "in each case his candidacy failed in the California Republican primary." He was the nominee in 1990, losing in the general election. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

My concern is to point out weaknesses in the organization of the facts. I haven't carefully read the case details (too painful). Obviously they must be correct.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:6CA7:8A30:F18B:39AA (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)