Talk:Ketanji Brown Jackson

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ketanji Brown Jackson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States courts and judges B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

African diaspora B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: District of Columbia B‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia.

Law B‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

H2rty (talk · contribs)
LawPeloMom (talk · contribs)

Turn on Semi-Protection?

This individual is a possible candidate for nomination to the United States Supreme Court. I know now might be early, as the definite candidate has not been announced, but I believe it may be a good idea to semi protect even now. - Samuuurai (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Former clerk rewrites SCOTUS contenders’ Wikipedia bios

A former law clerk for a potential Supreme Court nominee embarked on a Wikipedia editing spree over the past week, bolstering the page of his former boss while altering the pages of her competitors in an apparent attempt to invite liberal skepticism, according to a statement from his fellow clerks.

(Redacted)

soibangla (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted the above link under the same rationale as given here -- TNT (talk • she/her) 23:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TNT: That rationale seems to have been removed. -Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dervorguilla: For reference, the diff content was I have redacted the above link per OSPOL#1—connecting an account to an undisclosed identity contravenes our policy on OUTING. Please do not reinstate the removed content -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime, there is also the "Press" template on this talkpage and an editsummary with the Politico articles url at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And of course at least 3 citations in the article atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. What is the WP:OUTING position on citing something like the Politico article, not including a name based on it of course, but without including a link/url in the cite? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think of the Tenebrae example where he was allegedly able to hide under the WP:OUTING policy until a press article wrote about it.[2] Was there any attempt in the Politico article to link the edits to specific accounts? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it stated "this WP-user=this person." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a banner noting the COI I would provide the Politico link but it seems it has been redacted. Horsemanofdeath (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) -Dervorguilla (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC) 07:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I've added {{press}} as usual and then saw this discussion. I would the say the cat is out of the bag, it's now well-known public information so there's nothing to out. Nemo 07:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be easily searchable public information at this point, that a former clerk has been rewriting this and other SCOTUS contenders' bios on Wikipedia. Tony Tan · talk 07:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's on Daily Mail now too, but afaik, WP:OUTING makes no allowance for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPE tag

@Mhawk10: Why is a COI tag insufficient for cleanup purposes? I've used both COI and UPE tags multiple times (as you alluded in your edit summary), but never used both of them at the same time – they strike me as overkill together. I'm unable to link to the RS that led to the both of us making our different decisions for good reason, but we both know the nature of the relationship between the subject and the editor's alleged identity. We both know that the source did not mention paid editing. We do know that the source stated that there was a conflict of interest. So why is the UPE tag necessary? Sdrqaz (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of convincing evidence that this editor was paid for their Wikipedia work. In the spirit of not overtagging high visibility articles about indisputably notable people, I have removed the UPE tag. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even see the need for a COI tag here. As is usual with "current topics", the article is overblown and excessively detailed (every ruling that's verified is notable?), but that is unavoidable. There was one editor with a clear COI, and I blocked them--their edits no longer stand. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I've reviewed all of the edits this user made to both this page and those of other judges. To the extent any content he introduced on this page was more favorable or flattering than is compliant with WP:NPOV (something I am not especially convinced is true), it's already been removed. All of his other remaining edits are appropriate, and so I was about to remove the COI tag from the article (which another editor did while I was editing). I've also restored the substance of his edit here. He was correct that the WaPo article, which summarizes the confirmation hearing, does not contain any mention of questioning regarding reversed decisions. ÷seresin 23:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@seresin: That WaPo article does mention that a senator (Tillis) asked about

Jackson’s 2019 decision requiring former Trump counsel Donald McGahn to respond to a subpoena from House Democrats ... Jackson’s ruling in the McGahn case was twice reversed by an appeals court panel ...

–Dervorguilla (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read it that way--the senator was asking about MSNBC reporting on that decision, which the article suggests was part of his attempt to link the decision to "the addition of her name to a shortlist of Supreme Court nominees compiled by the advocacy group Demand Justice." There's no indication that the fact that the opinion was reversed was an element of the questioning--it's just additional context added by the article about the decision. This distinction is important because, as noted in an earlier edit by that user, ahead of the hearing "[c]onservative activists [we]re pointing to decisions Jackson has made as a federal trial court judge that were reversed on appeal as a potential blemish on her record." I did not restore that edit because, at least based on the WaPo article, the prediction that the reversals (as such) would be an element of questioning did not come to pass, and so it seemed unnecessary to mention. (Even if you disagree with the line I am drawing, the article before his edit was inaccurate, as it suggested different reversed decisions were the subject of questioning, something the WaPo article certainly does not support.) ÷seresin 06:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through WP:UPE again, I think you're right. It was my understanding that UPE occurs whenever someone who is paid by an employer makes edits to the page of that employer. This doesn't actually appear to be the case; UPE seems to require that the person is being paid to edit rather than simply being paid for Wikipedia-unrelated work by an entity whose page they are puffing up. My apologies for the inconvenience. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]