Talk:Amy Coney Barrett

RV judge infobox

@KrakatoaKatie: saw you removed the judge infobox. All ok?Bjhillis (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bjhillis: Thank you for reminding me to post about that here. The article subject contacted the Oversight list about the unsourced public addition of her birthdate. Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, I've suppressed it.

You're fine to add the infobox back if that's supported by consensus, but do not add the birthdate again without multiple reliable sources, and even then we'd ask you respect the subject's wishes and concerns. Thanks. :-) Katie^talk 21:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood. No need to include a DOB given request.Bjhillis (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Confused

@KrakatoaKatie:, @Safiel:, @Bjhillis:, @Marquardtika:: Okay, I understand the logic of the suppression, but given that it's part of her public questionnaire (released by the judiciary committee and accessed by the general public); what was the specific objection? So is there not supposed to be an infobox regarding her at all? What about the other sources regarding the announcement of her nomination, why were those entries deleted?

Clarification would be helpful, thanks. Snickers2686 (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The subject of the article contacted OTRS and requested that the birth date be removed. The questionnaire to which you refer is a primary source, and per WP:DOB we suppressed the information. The issue isn't the infobox – that's a content issue that should be decided here. Katie^talk 11:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie: Given the OTRS history here, do you think this newly-added source—

• Voruganti, Harsh (June 6, 2017). "Professor Amy Coney Barrett: Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit". The Vetting Room. Archived from the original on December 16, 2017. Retrieved December 16, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

—is sufficient for citing Ms. Barrett's full birth date? Even without the OTRS background, my sense is that a (signed, copy-edited) blog post by an advocacy project isn't enough to show that someone's birth date has been "widely published by reliable sources" (BLPPRIVACY), but my interpretation of that policy may be overly strict. Rebbing 13:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The subject emailed Oversight requesting redaction of her birthdate. Please leave it out. Katie^talk 14:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; I removed it. Rebbing 16:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Mind the precedent. DOB, once published, is public information. --bender235 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Your previous attempt to have the policy removed was not successful: it's not precedent. The policy—which you are not at liberty to dismiss—is very clear in mandating that the full birth date of a subject may only be included if it has been "widely published in reliable sources" and if the subject does not object. Neither condition is met here. If you wish to change the policy, you know where to make that proposal. Rebbing 23:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The precedent was about people objecting the inclusion of their birthdate even though it has been published elsewhere already. From WP:DOB: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources." That's the policy. If DOB is published in any reliable source, Wikipedia includes it. The subject's objection is irrelevant; the "and" you emphasized is false. You cannot allow your DOB to be published in Who's Who but veto its publication on Wikipedia citing privacy concerns. That's the point I tried to make. --bender235 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You omitted the key sentence that follows: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth . . . err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." Read together, these two sentences plainly indicate: "We include the full date only when it has been widely published (or the subject published it in a way that makes clear he does not object). Even so, if the subject complains, only include the year." So your argument is contradicted by the policy. Your conclusion that, if a subject's birth date "is published in any reliable source, Wikipedia includes it" is wrong both for this reason and because BLPPRIVACY requires far more than VERIFY (published in any reliable source): it must be "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" (emphasis added). If you would like BLPPRIVACY to say something else, develop consensus for the change at WT:BLP. Rebbing 00:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Err on the side of caution" is enough for me. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:DOB was added to Wikipedia policies in 2006 unilaterally by a single user, without ever being discussed in the community. I guess it is indeed time to determine consensus on this issue. And by the way, "widely published" is one of the most moronic terms ever used in a Wikipedia policy. What is that supposed to mean in the age of the internet? "Published" means "made accessible to the public." What is the qualifier "widely" referring to? The number of mirrors a website has? The size of its audience? --bender235 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would be moronic if it didn't include the following "in reliable sources". O3000 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" has a clear and unambiguous meaning; "widely published" does not. By the way: I would appreciate everyone's comments here. --bender235 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus can be implicit. See, e.g., WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. That the policy has stood for more than a decade in a fairly prominent location speaks volumes to its authenticity. "Widely published" means published by a multitude of sources: not only in one reliable book or a single reliable newspaper article. Rebbing 20:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

So what. Aren't there enough privacy issues these days. If it's borderline, leave it out. Why does her exact birth date matter, other than material for astrologers. O3000 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous overkill

It was not necessary to revert back to oversight the birth date. All that had to happen was to remove the birth date and then oversight any revisions that had the birth date in it. Much productive work on this article was destroyed due to the errant manner in which this oversight was conducted. Safiel (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

In any event, I clean up the mess. Safiel (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: The sole problem was that the full birth date needed to be removed and oversighted. It should not have been done the way it was done, it could have been done with FAR less disruption. In any event, I have restored the infobox, with year of birth only, and have fixed most of the damage that was done by the massive rollback. Safiel (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Same thing happened at Kevin C. Newsom page. To avoid any issue, I removed dob from the 20 or so pages of living persons (judges, lawyers, law professors) I had infoboxed.Bjhillis (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Date addition

Hi I added the birth date of Judge Barrett a few hours ago which was initially deleted (for lack of sources), after which I added a source for that. After that, my edit was reverted, mainly due to higher privacy standards for living persons which specifies that the birth date has to be "widely published." I found another source verifying her birth date from Martindale-Hubbell an information services company that openly provides which provides background information on lawyers and law firms in the United States and other countries (link: [1]) Does this source match the "widely published criteria?" Surely if her birth date is on a open website that many people in the legal profession use on a daily basis, it could possibly be considered as being "widely published." --Daffy123 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

Hmm. My understanding of the requirement—that the birth date have been widely published in reliable sources—is that it contemplates material that's gone through some sort of formal editorial process. Cf. WP:Verifiability § What counts as a reliable source ("The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people . . . ."). It looks to me like Martindale-Hubbell's online database is built in at least in part from user submissions; are you familiar with its verification process? Does it conduct follow-up interviews, verify documentation, or confirm the identity of those submitting attorney profiles? If it doesn't, it probably runs afoul of WP:UGC ("Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable."), which would make it unsuitable for supporting any fact, not just sensitive information about a living person.

However, reliability may be a moot point here, since the policy appears to require (or does it merely encourage?) that the wishes of subjects be respected in this matter: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." As noted above, the subject complained at one point. Rebbing 16:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that the birth date (not year) has been suppressed at the subject's request, when the birth date is so readily available from public documents. In any event, should she be nominated to the US Supreme Court, any question of whether her birth date be included would certainly be over.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Relevance, and WP:OR

The appearance of the statement, at the close of the section on Education and Career, addressing the title subject's admission to the bar in Washington, D.C. but not in Indiana raises enough questions in this reader's mind—e.g., what is the relevance of the latter choice to include Indiana?—to be driven to the listed sources... only to find that this statement's appearance constitutes a clear case of original research by the editor(s) involved. This is true both in sourcing the factual statements in primary data sources rather than secondary reports, but also in the more subtle matter of relevance, wherein the WP editor (rather than published authors) chose to elevate the subject's inability to appear in just one state, and to do so without further explanation (which, absent secondary sources, one is left with no recourse to understand). Hence, despite being reasonably well placed geographically and reasonably well informed to understand, I remain flummoxed. An additional irritation is that the report of the credentials, positive and negative, appears without any "As of..." date, as if such qualification are decided once, and only once (and for all), in a career. All in all, confusing, and laughably non-encyclopedic. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:4514:62FA:9B60:4E4C (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The bar admittance stuff did seem like WP:OR, and I removed it. We would need to find a secondary source discussing where she is (or isn't) admitted to the bar. Marquardtika (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Categories

Given that her Catholic faith contributed to a defining moment in her confirmation hearing and thus her notability, who will agree that she is eligible for membership in Category:American Roman Catholics? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Feinstein made it WP:DUE when she made that rookie blunder and criticized Barrett's faith.– Lionel^(talk) 22:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 5 July 2018

• Please add Category:American Roman Catholics per WP:EGRS. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

   Done Fish+Karate 13:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Stare Decisis, Barrett, and Roe

• If Barrett is nominated to the US Supreme Court, I wanted to flag that there is likely to be a significant debate in the editing of this article regarding her views and scholarship on the legal rule of "stare decisis," i.e., following prior legal precedent. This all ties closely to Roe v. Wade (1973), because in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the constitutional right of a woman to choose an abortion (per the holding in Roe) was upheld in part because the Court (or some of the court?) believed that past precedent should not be lightly disregarded. It appears that the main focus of Barrett's legal scholarship as a professor has been exploring how stare decisis intersects with Constitutional issues -- and basically what I can discern is that she believes honoring precedent can be unconstitutional when due process concerns are raised, i.e., it can be viewed as a blueprint for how Roe can (and should, under her analysis, though not explicitly stated) be overruled.
• To date, however, I do not find mainstream news reporting that explains her scholarship in this area. So I refrained today from editing the article on this area. Advocacy groups on the left have noted some of it. But obviously we want to use mainstream news reporting whenever possible to avoid allegations of bias. It is pretty clear to me that Barrett believes it her Constitutional duty to vote to overrule Roe if the question was presented to her, but my armchair non-legal view is not encyclopedic.
• Her scholarship in this area includes:

• Stare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003) ("if a litigant demonstrates that a prior decision clearly misinterprets the statutory or constitutional provision it purports to interpret, the court should overrule the precedent")
• Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 83, No. 3, 2008 ("pausing to reflect upon the variety of ways in which nonjudicial actors have, over time, registered their disagreement with decisions of the United States Supreme Court.")
• Precedential and Jurisprudential Disagrement, 97 Texas Law Review 1711 (Volume 91, 2013) ("the public response to controversial cases like Roe reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor ...")
• Originalism and Stare Decisis, 92 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1921 (2017) ("The question whether stare decisis is compatible with originalism has occupied both originalists and their critics.")

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. There can only be a "neutrality" issue when available reliable sources are not balanced. Since by your own admission there are no sources for the issue you are raising ("I do not find mainstream news reporting") there is no POV issue. There are no grounds for the tag.– Lionel^(talk) 02:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Because Snoogans failed to start a discussion as required when tagging an article I thought this discussion was for the POV tag. – Lionel^(talk) 22:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Lionel, no problem! I would be somewhat surprised if Barrett is the nominee now. The NYTimes interviewed pro-choice Republican senator Susan Collins, and unless she chooses to be blind to it, she could not vote for Barrett based on her scholarship regarding precedent and Roe.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP and adding "Handmaid" to this article

I removed recently added text saying that Barrett is a member of a group which assigns Handmaids to members. Per sources, they were spiritual advisors assigned to some members (no indication regarding whether applies to Barrett) and it's not clear if the group currently uses the term handmaids. Seems this might be intended to confuse or perhaps even inflame readers regarding The Handmaid's Tale (TV series) and we need to be careful regarding WP:BLP. General information regarding People of Praise should be added to that page. DynaGirl (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This is sourced to the New York Times. Are you saying that the New York Times is not a WP:RS? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

No, please see above comment. That's clearly not what I'm saying. DynaGirl (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to be clearer then. You seriously can't be calling for the exclusion of reliably sourced content because some readers might confuse the religious group's use of "handmaids" (per RS) to the Handmaid's Tale? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

According to National Review [2] and other news outlets [3] the NYT article was a politically motivated "hit piece" and we need to assess whether or not it is WP:DUE for a BLP article. Not everything that is printed is suitable for a WP article.– Lionel^(talk) 22:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Two op-eds criticize the NY Times article without identifying any inaccuracies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the RS noticeboard[4]. Perhaps this discussion will clarify whether an obscure rag called the New York Times is a reliable source or not.[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Well the NTY article is getting some coverage now [6], [7], [8], [9].Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the paucity of material on the subject, the fact that she is now in a bright spotlight, the implications of strongly held religious beliefs in the SCOTUS, and the fact that this was an article in the NYT that is garnering attention; I don’t see how this can be considered UNDUE. And, we can’t omit words from an encyclopedia because they were also used in some TV series. O3000 (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Add to the People of Praise article absent any source that Amy Coney Barrett personally had an advisor termed a handmaid. Currently there's no mention of handmaids on their wiki page. Sources aren't even clear on if People of Praise still uses that term for anyone but tend to agree that clarification of use and history of that term for that religious group is encyclopedic. DynaGirl (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No-one has argued NYTimes isn't a reliable source so it doesn't really make sense to bring it to the reliable source notice board. The issue is BLP. There's currently no source that says Barrett had a spiritual advisor called a "Handmaid" and sources aren't even clear on if People of Praise still uses that term for anyone. Of the four new sources linked above, one doesn't mention Handmaids at all. Two describe People of Praise using the term in the past and one calls the NYTimes piece a "politically motivated hit piece". DynaGirl (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(1) It's already been pointed out to you that the text at no point said that Barrett had a handmaid. Stop misrepresenting the disputed text. (2) You can't claim that "No-one has argued NYTimes isn't a reliable source" while in the same comment arguing that the NYTimes piece is a "politically motivated hit piece". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you wish to convince that you are not arguing the NYT is not RS, then you should probably stop using the term “politically motivated hit-piece” which suggests otherwise. The fact that one of five sources doesn’t mention handmaids would seem to mean that four do. Doesn’t that argue for DUE? The article didn’t say she had a handmaid. It said she was a member of an organization that swore an oath to have one. I think we’ve all agreed that this came from a reliable source. I simply don’t see a not DUE argument. Now, if you wish to add some balance in addition to the NYT piece, then that’s another matter that could be discussed. O3000 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen zero editors arguing NYTimes isn't a reliable source. One of the reliable sources linked above did argue that one specific NYT article was politically motivated and a "hit piece". This is clearly a BLP issue not a RS issues. An editor is attempting to add "handmaids" which is currently a very charged term to Barretts BLP. If the content is in regards to People of Praise, not Barrett specifically as seems to be the argument above, why not add it to People of Praise's page instead of this BLP? That page currently doesn't mention handmaids at all. DynaGirl (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Both you and Lionelt have characterized the NY Times article as "a politically motivated hit piece" (i.e. an unreliable source). Marquardtika claimed that the NY Times article contained "unsupported insinuation". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I won't speak for Lionelt but I've just pointed out that one of the reliable sources recently linked above by Slatersteven describes that particular NYT article as politically motivated and a hit peace. I've repeatedly stated this is a BLP issue not a RS issue. DynaGirl (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's an op-ed in the National Review. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Basically what you are saying is that no one is arguing that the NYT is not RS, but we can’t use this article because it’s a politically motivated hit piece, which is to say the source is not RS. An opinion piece opined that this article was a hit-piece. That doesn’t make it unusable. The argument that the term is also used in a piece of fiction on Hulu and that could cause confusion is mighty weak. The term is defined in the text and we can’t hold the hands of all the readers. If the term should also be added to another article, that’s a matter for editors at that article. O3000 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That's clearly not what I'm saying. I've stated this clearly already but I guess I'll repeat it again. This is a BLP issue not a RS issue. There's no reliable source saying Barrett specifically had an advisor termed a "Handmaid" so there's no reason supported by WP:BLP to add that negatively charged term to her BLP. The sources aren't even clear if People of Praise still uses that term for anyone, but it seems the use, history, and evolution of that term for that group would be interesting and encyclopedic on the People of Praise wiki page. DynaGirl (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP requires that a source be high-quality (it is) and if it’s challenged, that it is supported by an inline citation (it is, but in the preceding paragraph). This material is not titillating or tabloid in nature and is relevant to her position. In an abundance of caution, I think we can repeat the inline citation, change handmaid to woman leader as this sect has done so, and add testimony from the subject.

The deleted text:

Members of this religious group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and commit to be accountable to a personal advisor (either referred to as a "head" or a "handmaid"). The heads and handmaids instruct the member on important life decisions.[9] Some legal scholars claim such an oath raises legitimate questions about the ability to serve as an independent and impartial judge.[9] Previously, in a scholarly article in 1998, Barrett said that Catholic judges should recuse themselves in the sentencing phase of death penalty cases.

Suggested text:

The New York Times further reported that members of this religious group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and commit to be accountable to a personal advisor (either referred to as a "head" or a "woman leader"). The heads and woman leaders instruct the member on important life decisions.[9] Some legal scholars claim such an oath raises legitimate questions about the ability to serve as an independent and impartial judge.[9] Previously, in a scholarly article in 1998, Barrett said that Catholic judges should recuse themselves in the sentencing phase of death penalty cases. In hearings after her nomination to an appellate court, Ms. Barrett told senators that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge.

O3000 (talk)

A couple thoughts on the conversation above:

1. Whether or not a publication is a reliable source - with regards to specific facts - is a separate matter from whether or not an individual article is a "hit piece." A hit-piece can consist completely of factually accurate information, but selectively present and spin it in such a way is to be very one-sided, and sometimes even misleading.

2. Some of the commenters above seem to be intentionally missing the distinction between the RS and the BLP issue. With BLPs it's important that undue weight not be given to something which is only tangentially related to the main subject of the article.

The fact that a group which Coney Barrett has been associated with has had (and possibly still has) people with a role known as "handmaids" isn't particularly relevant to a biography of Coney Barrett, even if it is sourced to a RS. As discussed above, there's no evidence that Barrett had anything to do with the system of "handmaids," we don't know if this group even still uses that term, and their use of the term was apparently completely different than the use of "handmaid" in Atwood's "Handmaid's Tale" and subsequent derivative works.

To make an analogy here, the inclusion of the bit about "handmaids" would be like if the biography of Arnold Schwarzenegger were to say something like "Arnold Schwarzenegger comes from Austria, which is also the homeland of Adolf Hitler." This is factually accurate, and can be easily be supported by RS citations, but the problem is that the inclusion of such inflammatory tangential information goes against BLP. (The fact that Hitler grew up in Austria though is relevant, and does fit, in the Austria article.) -2003:CA:83D0:1C00:4185:4622:5E1:7DF1 (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but being born in Austria and choosing to join and maintain membership in an organization are completely different. And incidentally, the article on Arnold Schwarzenegger does say that his father was a member of the Nazi Party. Also, the point made by the article is not just that handmaids exist, but that members take an oath to use them. This is a very brief article for a short-listed SCOTUS aspirant, and like it or not, her religiosity appears to be a major factor in her background related to this position. Further, my suggested change removes the word handmaid and replaces it with the currently used term. O3000 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The overwhelming use of anti-Feinstein op-eds makes one section non-neutral

Half the 'Federal judicial service' section is currently devoted to editorials that criticize Dianne Feinstein. That's undue. I'm therefore adding a neutrality tag and I'm encouraging editors to improve the section with more balanced content. That one editor just removed content sourced to the NY Times under a weak BLP claim does not help. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Senator Feinstein's statement to Barrett during judicial confirmation hearing of "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's a concern", received abundant reliable source coverage and generated a lot of reaction regarding religion and screening judicial nominees. Seems this constituted the vast majority of reliable source coverage regarding Barrett, so seems in accordance with wp:due. I disagree with tagging this section. DynaGirl (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans please be specific about what changes you are recommending. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The solution here is to add RS content on the episode in question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

But there is no RS sourcing on this in the article. The sourcing is exclusively anti-Feinstein editorials. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the current section, it appears solidly sourced. Which source(s) are you arguing are unreliable? DynaGirl (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources 14-18 are anti-Feinstein editorials and take up almost half of the text in the section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

And it's worth noting that you yourself removed RS content on legal scholars arguing that Barrett's membership of that religious group raises legit questions about her independence and impartiality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to add "pro-Feinstein" reliably sourced editorials regarding her statements to Barrett during judiciary hearing if you can find them. I recall the coverage being largely critical at the time. But please don't again insert "Handmaids" into the article because at this point there is no source saying Barrett specifically had an advisor termed a handmaid, it is not clear if People of Praise still uses that term, and general information regarding People of Praise belongs in that article not Barrett's BLP. I also didn't remove the NYTimes source. It's still referenced in the article. DynaGirl (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You haven't presented a single coherent reason why the reliably sourced content on 'handmaids' is false or should be doubted. If you dispute the facts in the NY Times article, you should take your complaint to the RS noticeboard. And no, I will not add any editorials to this article, because that's not really my thing. I add RS content - RS content like the one you deleted without reason. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This seems disingenuous. Seems you're calling reliable sources such as Chicago Tribute etc non-reliable if they are critical or questioning of Senator Feinstein. Also, I've provided multiple coherent arguments regarding not adding "Handmaids" to Barrett's BLP. Here they are again. The sources don't say Barrett specifically had an advisor termed "Handmaid". It's not clear if People of Praise still uses that terminology, and general information regarding People of Praise belongs in that article not this BLP. DynaGirl (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(1) Please familiarize yourself with the difference between op-eds and reporting. (2) The text in the Wikipedia article at no point said that Barrett had a handmaid, so you're arguing against a version of text that never existed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Feinstein was lambasted for criticizing Barrett's faith and trying to implement an unconstitutional religious test. The section accurately describes the pivotal moment in her hearing. It is the reason why people know who she is. Due to Feinstein's behavior, it is neutral as it's ever going to be.

We have consensus to remove the tag. – Lionel^(talk) 22:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The claim that the section "is neutral as it's ever going to be" was totally false. There were plenty of pro-Feinstein op-eds at the time (as shown by a quick Google Search and my recent edit[10]), which is precisely what my complaint was. Perhaps you should assume good faith, and try to listen to fellow editors and edit collaboratively. This is not the first time where you make completely erroneous statements in a content dispute. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

In a surprising edit, Marquardtika removed any and all op-eds which do not hold a pro-Barrett stance, which is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. If this article is to contain op-ed garbage, it better include op-eds published in legit outlets on both sides. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Trimmed pro-Feinstein addition per WP:BLOATED. – Lionel^(talk) 10:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure op-ed content is appropriate unless the positions of the op-ed represent positions articulated in mainstream news coverage. I.e., the news is covering the various opinion writers as the camps surrounding her potential nomination. E.g., [this Ramesh Ponnuru (Bloomberg) op-ed calling for Barrett to be nominated is probably not notable by itself. The Feinstein stuff is interesting. The quote appears to have derived from Barrett's 2003 article which directly articulates for when, in the view of the authors (she was a co-author), a judge who is Catholic must alter what he does because of his religion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

dupe ref

Last reference in current version is a dupe of #10, and missing title: "Some Worry About Judicial Nominee’s Ties to a Religious Group".198.58.163.19 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Changed. O3000 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Restored reliable sources

I restored the reliable sources for the personal life section regarding adopted children. Being religiously affiliated does not make National Catholic Register or Clarion Herald unreliable. There is no reason to remove these two reliable sources and then mark the content citation needed. DynaGirl (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with religious affiliation. One is identified as a blog and the other is identified as an opinion. These do not fit the definition of reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to. Neither source describes their children as "an opinion" and neither source is being used to reference any opinions. Both are reliable sources for the personal life section regarding number or children/adopted children. The National Catholic Register is the oldest national Catholic newspaper in the U.S. and the Clarion Herald is the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of New Orleans.DynaGirl (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The age and status of the sources aren't the problem. We avoid using opinion pieces in the NYTimes as well. Further, the opinions stated are highly biased. Please self-revert and look for a better source than an opinion piece pushing a POV. O3000 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the sources for the content they are being used to reference. We're not adding any opinions from these religiously affiliated reliable sources to this BLP. We're citing objective neutral information such as number of children. These sources are appropriate for the content they are being used to reference. DynaGirl (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Barrett also testified at her last confirmation hearing about her children. Using an op-ed cite to confirm a fact can be done when its the best available sourcing and the claim is not disputed. When I looked recently, those pieces were the best we have.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Difficult to believe there isn't a better source. Both of these cites are opinion pieces using the children as part of an argument to push a biased view. I'm not comfortable with the concept of using this as fact. O3000 (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Not crazy about these two cites, although they are accepted, but I think they are better as they aren't using the children as part of an argument and blatantly pushing a POV: [11] [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs)

Those sources seem inferior to the ones currently in the article. Heavy.com says the Barretts adopted 2 children from Haiti but does not clarify the other 5 are their biological children and the Slate one links to the Clarion Herald article already referenced as their reliable source of information. DynaGirl (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Two out of seven adopted means five biological. Why are you insisting on highly biased opinion columns pushing a POV? O3000 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Heavy.com says " they have seven children together. Two of their children were born in Haiti". That's not clear. Just from this source the others could be adopted as well just not from Haiti. Seems we should go with the best, most detailed sources available. The POV of the Clarion Herald and National Catholic Register sources aren't of issue here because they are not being used to reference any text related to any POV. They are only being used to reference information in the personal life section regarding number of children/adopted children. DynaGirl (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Then leave it out. If she wants it known, she can say something herself. Why are you insisting on highly biased opinion columns pushing a POV? O3000 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The resistance to these sources runs counter to policy. WP:BIASED specifically permits these very sources in this particular case. The language of the policy is clear and unambiguous: " reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs."

Clearly--let me repeat--clearly these sources are suitable for the article.– Lionel^(talk) 09:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, this is not about attributed opinions. Clearly biasedd sources can be used in that case. O3000 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2018

CHANGE Feinstein's line of questioning was criticized by some observers and legal experts while defended by others. During her hearing, Barrett said: "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."

TO Feinstein's line of questioning was criticized by some observers and legal experts while defended by others ; nevertheless, any discrimination of an applicant based on religion is well settled law and illegal under 42 USC 2000e-2. In defense, during her hearing, Barrett said: "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law." Wiki Start 12-30-17 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: This would be original research. It's also more than a stretch. O3000 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

References

semi-protected edit typo

Under heading "Federal judicial service" 2nd paragraph this line:

"The controversy focused on whether lines of questioning violated the the U.S. Constitution's No Religious Test Clause."

There are two "the" words, only one is necessary. I would recommend it be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0a0x0e0 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC+5.5) (UTC)

 Done — LeoFrank  ^Talk 06:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

`

Neutrality violated by quotes

New here, so I didn't edit it. This sentence is a non-neutral opinion interjected as a factual quote. The opinion is debatable since many feel that recusal is exactly the response to provide an unbiased hearing before a court when the judge feels it is necessary. If the judge were to say "I have deeply held beliefs that may bias my judgement, but I will not recuse." then many others would object. It is irrelevant to the article what someone else's opinion of it is. Leaving it biases the article. Removing it eliminates an opinion; the very definition of evidence of a biased POV.

Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said Barrett's law review article's contention that judges could simply recuse themselves from a case if they have a religious concern constitutes, “...the very definition of putting faith ahead of one’s duties as a judge.”[16]

Empty section

To date, there is no information in the article on Barretts tenure on the Court of Appeals. I have created a subsection on her tenure and tagged it as empty. SunCrow (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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:

• Amy Coney Barrett.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Viewpoint -- Notable Cases -- Alvarenga-Flores v. Sessions

The last sentence in the subsection discussing the dissent in Alvarenga-Flores v. Sessions includes the phrase "by brushing aside the inconsistent testimony and unbelievable evidence" to describe the legal reasoning of District Court Judge Durken. Such phrasing is non-neutral and should be revised. Additionally, the sentence is long and could be clearer by splitting it into two sentences. Magdalena Tecumseh (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Magdalena Tecumseh

I suggest semi-protecting this page

This page is about to become an all-out battleground from POV pushers, considering current events. Let's get out ahead of things for once. Jtrainor (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)