Jump to content

Talk:Brett Kavanaugh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Surrogami (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 8 October 2018 (→Suggest removing sentence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school signed a petition vouching for his character

Most offtopic WP:NOTFORUM Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school, during the time of the alleged attack, all signed a petition saying they vouch for his character. This should be included in the headline summary along with the sexual assault allegation. I think it should also be noted that the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is a professor and a registered democrat who has donated to Bernie Sanders far-left socialist campaign. Video on YouTube 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ford's political views are irrelevant, we don't engage in such innuendo unless sources explicitly state she was politically motivated (they have not). The Fox report on these women who knew him (or claimed to) isn't really relevant either -- if it wouldn't be in the article without the Ford scandal, that is indicative it is not indepedently notable, while including it in the scandal would be too much detail for that section (if this ends up getting its own page -- maybe). --Calthinus (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ford political views should be held as relevant only insofar as it pertains to Kavanaugh's counter accusation that these allegations come as a product of a political hit. In the same area where note is made of the refution and counterclaims, so to should be made any relevant information which was used in the support of these claim. NOTE this is not to say that it is relevant or irrelevant, as this is not the business of what aims to be an objective source, rather, it should be included that it was CLAIMED to be relevant by the concerned party (Kavanaugh) and his contemporaries, and the notes regarding this should be kept exceedingly clear on exactly what CLAIMS to relevance have been made, in the interest of maintaining neutrality. --Azeranth (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::Ford's political views are irrelevant? They are supremely relevant. The 65 women signed the petition expressly because he was being accused of this assault. It's all over the internet. How do you not know this? Further, Ford can't even remember the date and place this alleged assault occurred, which conveniently precludes Kavanaugh from possibly being able to provide an alibi.2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating WP:OR. Now, I wonder what your account's name is. --Calthinus (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::Don't attack me, attack my arguments. Thanks. 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even vaguely an attack unless you're avoiding a ban. That being said, open or insinuated accusations of Ford being guilty of libel fall foul of WP:BLP. --Calthinus (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::::I would argue that ignoring the opinion of 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school is sexist and politically motivated. This is most certainly newsworthy and directly calls into question the veracity of Ford's claims. Further, Mark Judge, the man who was supposedly with the pair and stopped the assault, flatly denies the event ever took place. 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course free to "argue" that but just saying that is actually no argument. It is neither. It also does not 'call into question', directly or otherwise, well, anything. As for Judge, seeing as he's the third guy in the room that played some role in this incident - according to the allegation, he's the one who turned up the music so that her screams couldn't be heard - he's not exactly a neutral source. And oh yeah that he's written a whole book about how this period of his life was one big 'black out drunk' [1]. Or that he's written some... "controversial" (putting it politely) columns for the Daily Caller.
And oh yeah, there's also the letter from Kavanaugh's colleagues and Yale alumni, calling him "morally bankrupt",[2] but I don't think we should put that in the article either. Volunteer Marek 04:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::So clearly it is OK to question Judge's veracity, just not Ford's - Am I right? Bias much?2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, HT, it is, because Judge wrote a whole freakin' book about how this period of his life was a "black out drunk" and Ford went to a therapist, six years before now, saying the same thing, and's got notes to prove it. Volunteer Marek 04:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation against Ford
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Judge denies ever being there and so does Kavanaugh. Did it ever occur to you that Ford named Judge as the friend because she knew that, out of all of Kavanaugh's high school friends, he would be the least credible one? You can't prove a negative. Her notes never named names, and as far as we know, she never told a single soul about this until 2012. No police report. No friends. No family. No one. Just a therapist decades after the fact.2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. We will include neither. Bradv 04:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::Well that's a great call - let's just pretend none of this exists out in the public domain. This is why Wiki is considered an unreliable and biased source of information by half the population of America when it comes to political topics like this. It's not even worth trying to get headline news posted if it doesn't fit the narrative. People should see ALL of this and be allowed to judge for themselves who is telling the truth.2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of other websites that entertain nonsense like that. Here at Wikipedia, we're writing an encyclopedia. We don't have a "narrative", we have to treat all information neutrally. Casting aspersions on subjects of articles is not neutral or encyclopedic. Bradv 04:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::::What nonsense? This is headline news that you have purposefully chosen to ignore in one of the most important current topics on Wiki at the moment... because why again?2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Up to this point, that name had not been mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia as it is not reliably sourced. We have strict policies on biographies of living persons. Bradv 03:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::Here's a source:[1] It's kind of funny that I even have to make arguments about this to get it included in his wiki page. This is headline news all over the WaPo, NYT, Fox News, etc.. and I can't even get this information included in Kavanaugh's wiki article. 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, why am I even replying to this? Volunteer Marek 04:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poster case of WP:NOTHERE and a likely IP sock. I recommend disengagement.--Calthinus (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brown, Emma. "California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault", The Washington Post, 16 September 2018. Retrieved on 16 September 2018.
I have struck the block-evading IP. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not avoiding a block. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to post without an account. What evidence do you have that I'm avoiding a block?2605:E000:1213:A299:472:170D:BE01:1B17 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here, how's this? Feel better now? Michael.suede (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The person who apparently got banned and also attacked the accuser's character provided no evidence upon which to base his attacks. Fine to note something if it's a fact. But he was just spreading innuendo. -- Secondly, he put a lot of faith in that letter written by 65 of Kavanaugh's friends. But it's unsurprising that Kavanaugh would have friends and allies and that his friends and allies would support him. The letter said nothing about whether or not Kavanaugh sexually assaulted the accuser. None of the signers were present at the party where it allegedly happened, nor did any of them even attend high school with him. What would they possibly know about whether or not he committed sexual assault while drunk one night when they were not present? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.28.105 (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly we should not tell anyone about the letter signed by 65 WOMEN who knew Kavanaugh in high school during the time of this alleged attack. Instead, we should focus on allegations that have not been corroborated by anyone, with no exact date or place provided, by an accuser who refuses to testify under oath or provide a signed affidavit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.suede (talk • contribs) 15:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

++++++++++++++

"The person who apparently got banned and also attacked the accuser's character provided no evidence upon which to base his attacks}

You so realize you're talking about information in an article that attacks BK's character for which no evidence has been provided. Do you see the irony? I'm guessing you don't71.164.97.55 (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


"refuses to testify..."?? BS. She wants to testify and wants an FBI investigation. People who are lying don't want that. Kavanaugh is the one who doesn't want an FBI investigation, and the GOP want to rush the process without hearing other witnesses. Fortunately she may get a bit fairer treatment now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to Edit-war in ABA recommendation

This addition about the ABA giving the candidate the highest rating is WP:PROMO. Let Me Help 2018 has continued to try to edit-war this material in, despite warnings on his/her talk page. This needs to stop. Another editor William M. Connolley has also objected and removed this new addition. William M. Connolley's edit-note says: "The ABA "WQ" doesn't deserve such prominence. It belongs ni the nom section, if at all here. But Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination doesn't feature it prominently. also needs a cite, of course." I agree. The material does not belong in the WP:LEDE. This new editor needs to follow WP:BRD. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now it appears as if an IP editor is trying to add this information back in the lede. If it continues, semi-protection may be a good idea. In spite of the edit war, though, I believe that Brett Kavanaugh's new ABA rating of "well qualified" should belong in the article (not in the WP:PROMO way it is written right now), especially since his previous rating of "qualified" is mentioned. I propose to have a sentence somewhere under the Tenure as U.S. Circuit Judge (2006–present) section mentioning that the ABA has given him the "well qualified" rating. Potential sources could include the ABA journal or the National Review. Thoughts? Hickland (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree -- on all points. The need for page protection appears to have been taken care of with this edit. I would support further protection if more disruption occurs. The material in question is being added for selling the candidate for the confirmation process. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I have taken this to WP:AE here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add the claim of ABA recommendation is not supported by the citations that come after it. Should be removed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about the ABA rating is accurate but needs to be cited. ABA ratings are often discussed in the context of judicial nominations, but only because almost everyone who makes it far enough through the screening process to be nominated gets the highest rating. It's a big deal if you don't get rated Highly Qualified. It belongs in the article as long as there's proper citation and context. JTRH (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn’t Kavanaugh been given a unanimous ABA rating of “well qualified” (the highest possible) as of July 2018? Why reference ABA ratings dating back to 2003 and 2006? To include one but not the other ... what’s the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.69.150 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limbaugh as "RS"?

Rush Limbaugh is not a Reliable Source. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I removed the Rush Limbaugh quote and citation as it is both redundant (there is a Fox News citation as well), and Limbaugh should hardly be treated as an RS: (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=22&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro) Activist (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sexual Assault Allegations

Can someone explain why this entry doesn't describe him as an accursed serial rapist in the first paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:C001:8B24:E9CE:DCC1:8898:249B (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can someone start a new section on these Sexual Assault Allegations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The controversy is to large and important to pare down to a single, medium-sized paragraph in this Article. It should have an Article on it's own.2605:6000:6947:AB00:846:6A0F:FABC:7263 (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual assault allegations against KAVANAUGH are real.At least woman have brought these all charges should be investigated as stated by the American Bar Association all charges should be investigated and no time limit should be put on this investigation.As the JESIUT said his nomination should be withdrawn these strong criminal allegations. Kenw1960 (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see so many things wrong with this page

Why is the section titled "Law clerk hiring practices and controversy" where it is in the page? In fact, why is it relevant at all. The Guardian is a reliable source for US politics? They're in the UK! Find a better source or delete it. It's also duplicated further down the page. It looks like you're literally falling over each other to print as much dirt as you can without noticing what dirt your fellow editors already posted.

Re: international sources. Historically, international news agencies and reporters have accurately reported events that domestic sources have either not covered or presented propaganda later to be ruled false. There are numerous reputable internationally-based news sources that have accurately reported on US domestic events and individuals, to assert that is not possible for an international source to do so effectively delegitimizes any international reporting submitted by US news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWGraff (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"On September 16, 2018, Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University, alleged Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when he was a 17-year old high school student" Two errors in one sentence. 1) It was in July that she sent this letter so that is when she accused him (as is mentioned in the next paragraph where it conflicts with the 9/16 date). 2) did she specifically say he was 17? If she did, you need a source. Which brings me to my next error - the link to the redacted letter from CNN is broken. CNN removed that page for some reason which is odd.

"President Trump responded to the claims, saying that Ford would've told law enforcement when the alleged incident had actually occurred. He wrote that the claims were an "assault" made by "radical left wing politicians" intended to undermine his Presidency.[163][164]" What does this add to the page? Trump says crazy stuff every day. It looks like something you could include on just about any page in wikipedia as it just seems like an opportunity to bash Trump and not stick to the actual pupose of this page.

If you want people to put faith in wikipedia, you have to balance out your own political views. Reading this page is heavily balanced in one direction (left). If you're left-leaning in your politcal views, you may not even recognize it. But you're showing your bias here. Try to control it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkallen21 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to place {{Edit semi-protected}} request to improve the article. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that President Trump's response is not relevant to this article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Facts have a well-known liberal bias." Stephen Colbert MarkJerue (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SunCrow deletions

@SunCrow:. This sentence, "A bipartisan panel from the Judicial Committee and Ford's representatives, agreed to a hearing after September 24th," well supported by citation, has been deleted twice by SunCrow within minutes this evening. If SunCrow wants it deleted, replacing it with a less specific and less informative substitute, it should be discussed here. Activist (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Activist, I edited the sentence. I did not delete it. The sentence was awkward, contained a comma splice, and referred to the Judiciary Committee as the "Judicial Committee." I have again fixed the comma splice and the reference to the Committee. If you want to leave the rest of it as it is, fine. It's just awkwardly worded. SunCrow (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SunCrow:. Your edit changing "Judicial" to "Judiciary" Committee was correct, of course, and I thanked you for it. However you deleted critical information from the sentence...you had not just "edited" it. You've made over 20 edits to the article, most to this section, in the past few days, often eliminating well-sourced details. Activist (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Activist, I appreciate the thank you. Regarding your concern, I have reviewed my edits to this article over the past few days. It seems to me that I have deleted very little information (with the exception of one group of sentences that was irrelevant to the topic of the article and didn't belong here). My edits to this page have focused on keeping the page well-organized, clear, concise, accurate, and up-to-date. The very few details that I have removed were details that seemed unimportant (for example: Does it really matter that the counseling records Ford made public related to couples' counseling?). Wikipedia articles about hot-button topics can sometimes get so bogged down in details that they become overly long and unreadable. If you believe that I've removed something that is important to the article, I have no objection to it being re-added. SunCrow (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At one point, you eliminated redundant text from the "allegations" to the clerks section, but you also eliminated the citation that supported the text from the article. It was restored rather quickly by another editor. I think that many of your edits (especially those having to do with format, grammar, etc.) are very helpful, but certainly not all of them. Activist (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Michael Kavanaugh I think that the preponderance of professionals in the field would consider that the specificity, "couples counseling," is indeed important. Activist (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Activist, you are entitled to your opinion. SunCrow (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we are. It would appear that mine was well taken. Activist (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This is an encyclopedia and not "People Magazine". This is a Supreme Court Justice and not some itinerant muscian. This Article should be about substance, and not fluff.66.25.168.168 (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?? Faulty analysis by the Washington Post

Laughably WP:NOT suggestion by OP has been answered. Not RS. OP is advised to please read WP:V for additional information. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This needs to be deleted:

An analysis covering the period 2003–2018 found that Kavanaugh had the most or second-most conservative voting record on the D.C. Court in every policy area.[6]

Firstly, the Washington Post, really? Look at their rule-set. It's ludicrous to start with. Secondly, it's not objective, they judged it based on their own works (categorizations). Third, they have another article showing quote, unquote 'experts in the field'. These experts are split down the middle on calling Kavanaugh conservative. Also, one of them is some psychopath who makes an insanely faulty analysis of Kavanaughs famous abortion finding. I know this because I just read the ENTIRE court document. the 'expert' is on crack, and so is the Washington Post. Fourthly, they have like 180 items divided in to 10-12 categories. That gives about 15 items in each of their (decidedly ridiculous) categorizations. So.. if you made a bar chart using this data and ranked every judge on it.. The entire graph would be about 15 units high.

Please.

Just delete it, it's embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crogonint (talk • contribs) 05:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, your suggestion is embarrassing. You are not a RS, while the Post is one of the most RS. Your opinion is original research that is not published in a RS. We can't use your opinion. Keep this up and you'll have a very short career here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Irrelevance of home purchase and salary

"In early 2006, Kavanaugh and his wife bought a $1.2-million home in Chevy Chase Section Five, Maryland.[29] In 2018, Kavanaugh reported that he earned a $220,000 salary as a federal judge and $27,000 as a lecturer at Harvard Law School during the previous year."

The relevance of the cost of the home that Kavanaugh and his wife purchased and the subsequent mention of his salary twelve years later is questionable. This fact (documented as it appears to be) has no place in the article, since it is trivial and has no place in an article of this type.

What the author appears to imply is that a $247,000 income is not sufficient to purchase a $1.2 million home. Further research into other sources of income or other funds would be appropriate if such an entry remains in the article, in order to present facts and convey them objectively. mattmidi 10:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbrown1427 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comments on the inclusion on this but while ORry, I want to point your last rational is just silly. For starters as you already pointed out the income figure is many years after the home purchase so automatically anyone who thinks it has any real relevance is dumb. More to the point, even ignoring the fact that his wife's income isn't mentioned, savings etc (including of course the classic bank of mum and dad), buying a home 5x of income is considered not ideal, but hardly uncommon in some places. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. If the info belongs, there may or may not be a better way to structure it but ultimately some info is going to end up together and some idiot could jump to to silly conclusions. We should consider whether these two pieces of info belongs and if so where on their own merits, not be influenced by the fact some idiots may put two and two together and get 1 trillion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018

He is now. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kavanaugh is NOT an associate justice of the Supreme Court. He's NOMINATED to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. He has NOT been approved/appointed. 2601:44:8680:5146:88C5:5CFC:8951:3060 (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say otherwise. Sandstein 06:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bar membership not mentioned

According to this search page, Kavanaugh has been a member of the DC Bar since February 1992.

This should be mentioned somewhere, but I am not seeing where it would fit. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added this a few days ago, in the "early legal career" section. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence needs grammar fix

This sentence:

In his dissent, Linda Greenhouse says Kavanaugh criticized the majority...

Probably should read something like this:

In his dissent, according to Linda Greenhouse (a NY Times opinion writer), Kavanaugh criticized the majority...

Or better yet, maybe this Greenhouse quote is not particularly relevant. She is a journalist who made the assertion in her NT Times article. A better entry would use the Kavanaugh quote and cite the actual Kavanaugh document as support, rather than a newspaper article.

Boat incident

Agree with the removal here; seems way too soon to include this. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I re-removed the anonymous accusations. Preserving here by providing this link. I think the article can do without. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this should stay off for now. The problem is there will be some people that try and take advantage of this situation and prove to be false. Best to wait for more information to come out from more RS for now. Of course that may be a only another day, a month, or never. ContentEditman (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the people who have been removing the two latest allegations, which are completely anonymous and unvetted. I have added a hidden comment saying "No anonymous allegations; they will be removed or moved to the talk page." I think this is the appropriate approach, per BLP. And BTW, since this is a BLP issue, IMO the usual restrictions regarding edit warring/3RR would not apply - although I hope other people will step in and help K.e.coffman with the policing of the article. (I can't for the next hour or so.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate Judiciary Committee is recommending the boat incident peddler be investigated by the FBI. I think at least a sentence or two on this allegation should be included.Sy9045 (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section name: "Sexual assault..."

Should the section be: "Sexual assault and attempted rape allegations"? The third accuser does not allege that Kavanaugh raped her, but that she had been raped at a party where Kavanaugh was present. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sleyece: Could you clarify for me as to why you closed the discussion? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece: What is the BLP issue here? Why did you close the discussion? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece: I am rather perplexed as well. Please explain the WP:BLP you note or re-open the section for discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hat removed. I apologize if I overstepped a bound in this section. As a side note, a change somewhat similar to the one suggested here has recently been made to the section of the article in question. -- Sleyece (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

I restored this information; it appears to be quite relevant to me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, the material was challenged by revision before and this article is under consensus required. So re-adding it is in violation of DS. PackMecEng (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PackMecEng: I self-reverted. Are you challenging the material as well? I was removed with this edit summary: Since when are polls a reliable source?. Which is odd since the material is cited not to the polls themselves, but to the coverage of the polls in other sources.
I personally have no big opinion on the matter yet. Just giving a heads up on a busy and messy article. PackMecEng (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Polling has shown that Kavanaugh has the lowest approval rating of any Supreme Court nominee in the modern era with the exception of Harriet Miers.[1][2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ Blanton, Dana (September 23, 2018). "Fox News Poll: Record number of voters oppose Kavanaugh nomination". Fox News. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  2. ^ Rakich, Nathaniel (July 18, 2018). "Brett Kavanaugh Is Polling Like Robert Bork And Harriet Miers". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved September 23, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  3. ^ Dinan, Stephen (September 23, 2018). "Kavanaugh support slips as public believes accuser". The Washington Times. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  4. ^ Hart, Benjamin (September 23, 2018). "Polls: Kavanaugh's Popularity Hits New Lows After Ford Accusation". New York Magazine. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  5. ^ Page, Susan (September 21, 2018). "Poll: Brett Kavanaugh faces unprecedented opposition to Supreme Court confirmation". USA Today. Retrieved September 23, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)


Discussion

  • Omit The content means nothing. Polls taken from what sample of individuals? How many polls were combined to get this number? If kept in the article, do we keep updating the poll information hour to hour, day to day? Since when as a nation do we care about polls regarding SCOTUS judges and nominees - they aren't elected. Seems like a weird, trivia-ish addition. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Several reliable sources disagree with your "means nothing" assessment, so this is perhaps a good moment to recall Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those two don't apply, but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:USELESS do. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Three polls by five sponsors, three days each over four days, 2,911 respondents. You do the math. If there is math. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:24, September 28, 2018 (UTC)
I could care less for polls taken by clickbaitwebsites or news agencies. This article also has Gallup though. If you think Gallup's sample is "random", feel free to take it to WP:RSN. It is an WP:RS, so criticisms of its sampling cannot carry weight.--Calthinus (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're the first person to say "random" on this page, and the second below where you blame "some" for ignorantly sugggesting it. But since you mention it, I do think Gallup's sample is "random", because it says "Results are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of – 1,508-- national adults, aged 18+, living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, conducted September 10-16, 2018." This is no reason for any of us to complain about its specific reliability, though, just reason to generally distrust the views of about a thousand people over four days as the opinions of all Americans in all of September. Gallup also says the allegations had no meaningful effect on the numbers, so it's a bit foolish to attach the poll sentence to the allegation paragraph. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:19, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
The point I am making is that you cannot say their sampling was done in an unprofessional way-- instead, it was meticulously weighted. You should read further down in the PDF, where it elaborates: Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, non-response, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cell phone-only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2017 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the January-June 2017 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.--Calthinus (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- I confess, I misunderstood this. I don't care so much where they are in the article. I care that they are in the article at all. This has been described as an election issue.--Calthinus (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm also confused now. The elections (assuming you mean US mid-term) have their own polls, candidates and articles, no? But yeah, pseudorandom might have been a better word choice; I just relayed Gallup's short description of the whole rigamarole. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

In September 2018, Kavanaugh had the lowest polling rating of any Supreme Court nomination since such polls have been taken.

It might also include the fact that more people believe his accuser than him and that people also believe that he will still be confirmed anyway. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the above in mind, I made this bold edit to address Anachronist's concerns about it being a poll at a specific time. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that poll language I just boldly restored is listed in the WP:LEDE. It should probably go in the WP:BODY instead, or at least in both if it is to stay in the WP:LEDE. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added the material to the WP:BODY to address this concern along with another poll here, since the material in the WP:LEDE seems to be sticking. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - This is exactly the type of information that makes an encyclopedia article both informative and interesting to read. I'm not concerned about Anachronist's objection since the proposed text doesn't specify polling numbers. WP:NOTNEWS is a very poor argument usually meaning of WP:IDLI.- MrX 🖋 10:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit Every day has polls, to replace the old polls. Depending which 1,003 people you ask online, every conceivable thing is either "gaining traction" or "meeting backlash" at every point in time. Wikipedia should be more timeless, less contemporary. In the meanwhile, I've used a few real numbers, for context. Polls can always show anything, but especially so when they're relayed as foggily as they were. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:01, September 28, 2018 (UTC)
    We should summarize what the sources say, not obfuscate by including broad ranges and outlier data. Your edit did the opposite of what most editors are aiming for here.- MrX 🖋 12:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we're wary of useful data, we could start by indicating that the polls measured a high percentage of opposition, rather than a low approval rating (which is a thing presidents have). Maybe generally note most respondents think he'll win (45% to 11%), despite their feelings on him from the news on that day between the 16th and 20th. Never hurts to note nobody gave a shit about polls before 2005, otherwise sounds like this is some long-standing record he's broken. All rather misleading, as is. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, September 28, 2018 (UTC)
In the body, where vague summaries aren't so recommended, I've added real numbers for context again. Also a few names. I'll understand if someone wants to make it solely about Republicans, present 55% as a majority rather than a plurality or hide just how few nominees Gallup has ever wondered about and how just slightly worse-regarded Kavanaugh was at the time. I won't like it, but I'll understand. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • Include This is something that has been looked at for many supreme court judges. Most are not as contested as this one so the polling information is even more relevant in this case. A very strong include. ContentEditman (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit I agree with Anachronist and Winkelvi - one is a Fox News Poll, presumably other sources have reported different polls. Because of the nature of the content (statistical) under our sourcing policies Fox News would be a primary source for reporting the results of its own poll and the strong preference is to exclude sources like this, especially where they don't provide any details about methodology. Seraphim System (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include the ones done by actual polling agencies (i.e. Gallup). These are high quality encyclopedic content as per MrX, they are also very relevant regarding the impact Kavanaugh may have (widely discussed in the media-- arguments for many possible effects) on the midterms, show interesting cleavages in American society (notably the gender one among Independents) and overall are not "random" as some have quite ignorantly suggested here, but rather intentionally representative of the population (or more representative than anything else), statistically sound, and highly reliable. Some "omit" arguments have the distinct smell of WP:IDLI. --Calthinus (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gallup explicity calls its sample random, and nobody had previously implied that. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:26, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
It also explicitly says: {{Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, non-response, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cell phone- only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2017 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the January June 2017 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.}}. Professionally done. Attacks on Gallup's ability to be representative of the larger[ population certainly would not stand in WP:RSN so they should hold zero weight here.--Calthinus (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include The content is well-sourced. If there were valid concerns about the reliability of the sources I would oppose the inclusion. The statistical nature of the content does not justify the removal. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fleeting nature justifies it (from the lead, at least). What do we do if the next poll comes out showing a slight decrease in opposition? Do we continue highlighting the outdated (but extreme) numbers of these four September days, or replace them with current (though relatively unremarkable) ones? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:26, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • Omit Polling seems to be irrelevant trivia, and so per WP:NOTEVERYTHING Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. -Obsidi (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMIT - Exaggerated portrayal that provides no data, is unclear and seems intentionally misleading. It means “since 2005” which really does not mean much, only that one was lower then four were higher ... Of course this one has been accused of something and Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan we’re not so it’s hardly an informative factoid. Does not give numbers or make this clear. I would say it is more accurately stated “since2005” or “since Harriett Miers” and attribute to and name the Gallup poll, but suspect that folks are just needing a reminder of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SENSATION — that WP should not convey sensationalized trivia or clickbait lead phrasing’s, esp. for BLP. He (while accused) polls low is not worth mentioning. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMIT - That poll is a statement about the level of control the mass-media has over the opinions of the American People, and has nothing to do with Kavanaugh.2605:6000:6947:AB00:492F:506F:FA3D:BC6C (talk) 09:57, 7 October 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]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2018

Brett Kavanaugh is an alleged rapist. 193.203.64.82 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Already mentioned in the article. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 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) 09:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See here.[9]2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 14:15, 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) 12:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

completely outdated picture

Kavanaugh's picture is at least 20 years old. --Espoo (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tis a 9 year old picture Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. But we will have a new one to use after he's confirmed to sit on the SCOTUS. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know it's from 2009? --Espoo (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Espoo: The Metadata table at the bottom of the file page says the image was created in 2009. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean the date info on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judge_Brett_Kavanaugh.jpg How do we know that's correct? --Espoo (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's clearly younger in that picture than in this one from 2006: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/09/626164904/who-is-brett-kavanaugh-president-trumps-pick-for-the-supreme-court --Espoo (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that that's just the difference between makeup and non-makeup. Here's another PD image that could be used. Regards SoWhy 18:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motion for Subpoena of Mark Judge was removed from article

Motion for Subpoena of Mark Judge was removed from article.

Relevant info was removed. [10]

Cited to multiple sources.

Should be added back.

Sagecandor (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal. This is a very minor incident in the hearings, having no effect on the outcome (since it was defeated) and not important enough to include in this biography. It could be added to the article on his nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Swetnick allegations

In this edit, Mr Ernie removed the entirety of what she alleged Kavanaugh to have done; I don't see how the text is a BLP violation; and while one may want to change the wording or trim the text down, I don't see any valid reason to completely exclude her allegations. Would including something like this text, which removes redundancy, be acceptable to people:

On September 26, Avenatti revealed the woman to be Julie Swetnick, who declared in a sworn statement that "I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh." Swetnick further stated that while attending a party, she was once drugged and raped while Kavanaugh and Judge were present. Kavanaugh has characterized her allegations as "ridiculous"

([11]) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anomalocaris I noticed you've restored the edit; while I don't disagree with the restoral obviously, note that edit was in fact a violation of discretionary sanctions restrictions (which is why I posted here for a consensus) per "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Accusations of this nature, alleging someone to have participated in multiple gang rapes over a multi year period, without any evidence is a BLP violation. Thanks for bringing the discussion here. I see I've been reverted again (courtesy ping Anomalocaris) so I won't remove it myself anymore, but I view it to run afoul of our policy - Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. No RS seems to have taken Swetnick's allegation seriously, they've only reported what she claims to have witnessed. To give this uncorroborated claim credibility is to suggest that in 1980s suburban DC there was a crime ring of teenage boys running a drugging and raping scheme so heinous that multiple women were abused multiple times over multiple years, but that absolutely no word of this was reported until now. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Galobtter Of the claims, the New York Times writes "None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview." in this article. If the claims have consensus to stay, a heavy disclaimer should be added per the NYT story. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've redacted a bit of your comment. Please be mindful that Julie Swetnick is also a living person with WP:BLP protection, and keep your own speculation about the credibility of the accusation (which has absolutely no bearing here) to yourself. I don't see that WP:RS have or haven't taken her allegation seriously; all I see is that numerous WP:RS have reported on it, and I haven't seen them view the allegations as being not credible in a manner that would want warrant exclusion here; I don't see how the NYT comment says anything other than that though they are reporting the allegations, they are not saying they are true; which is standard for when it isn't their own reporting that is revealing an allegation Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit my comments. My comment was about her claim. Claims are not living people and have no BLP protection. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was problematic for the same reason that saying that someone's statement is a lie is problematic even though statements are not living people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wild is a very accurate definition of those claims. I could have also gone with shocking. If I said false I would agree with you but I did not. Regardless I changed my description to uncorroborated. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Ernie, above you use hyperbolic shock language: "a crime ring of teenage boys running a drugging and raping scheme so heinous that multiple women were abused multiple times over multiple years," I don't know how old you are. I'm 67 and grew up in the '60s and '70s when "sex, drugs & rock 'n' Roll" were a very real and common lifestyle. If you weren't into that kind of thing, you were a nerd and considered uncool and abnormal. Sex between very intoxicated partners was common and generally not seen as "rape". That word was reserved for sex under violent duress. Sex with multiple partners was common, and I knew several girls who experienced screwing many or every guy at a party. I know two who did it willingly, but also one who felt pressured to "just continue". She felt pretty lousy afterwards, but didn't consider herself to have been "raped". Now we are more enlightened and see any sex without consent has highly improper. A drunk person cannot give consent.
I am not saying this to excuse bad behavior, but to put things in context. These boys may well have gotten girls drunk, but they did not see themselves as rapists, and neither did many of their peers. Only if violence was involved would the "rape" word be used. These boys did not see themselves as part of a "crime ring" either. This type of thing was very spontaneous. Hey, a girl was willing, or at least not protesting, so things happened. Yes, it was inappropriate as hell, but it happened often. I feel sorry for all the girls who felt taken advantage of. The context of the times was not on their side. Some could hide those memories, and others not. Fortunately society is moving in the right direction, but with Trump's "war against political correctness", we're regressing back toward those times when women were treated as objects with few rights. I just don't understand how any woman can vote for these men. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the lurid portion of her allegations - drugging and gang rape - are the things that Reliable Sources have focused on. If we take our clue from Reliable Sources, that is what we should report, and using a direct quote from her as in the suggested text above makes it clear that these are allegations and not facts. But if people feel that BLP requires us not to allow such lurid accusations on our pages, we could use a toned-down summary, for example ...who declared in a sworn statement that she went to high school parties involving Judge and Kavanaugh, and that it was common at such parties for boys to prey on girls, sometimes by spiking or drugging the drinks so that the girls could not resist. Would it be OK with people if I add this while we discuss it? or if someone adds it? It makes no sense for us to do what we currently do in the article, i.e., give no indication at all what kind of "credible information" she claims to have. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, Galobtter, Awilley: I certainly wish to comply with Wikipedia policies, including discretionary sanctions. I did see where it says in the edit window, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." At the request of other editors, and in the spirit of cooperation, I have reverted my edit. However, I do not believe my previous edit restoring the deleted section was incorrect. I did reinstate text that another editor (Mr Ernie) deleted, but the text that Mr Ernie deleted was not deleted via reversion. Mr Ernie's edit summary said, "Julie Swetnick: BLP violation, removed", not "Undid revision nnnnnn by so-and-so (talk) ... ". So, I don't see the violation, but in cooperation, I won't do anything further with this section until there is consensus. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anomalocaris, people recently (obviously, since the allegations were only revealed a few days ago) inserted the text that Mr. Ernie removed, and so his edit was a reversion of their edits - reversions are reversions whether done literally with the undo button or not Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - thanks for coming to the talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok by me, but I suggest to add that there is no evidence or corroboration in support of the claims. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anamalocaris, I was treating the BLP challenge as a reversion in the sense that it was removing material added in the last couple of days. @MelanieN, I don't see any problem with putting that in to make it work for now. ~Awilley (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added it. This is a compromise/watered down description of the allegations; we can continue to discuss here whether to use the actual quotes from her. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is now more information about the Swetnick allegations in the intro than in her section. That can't be right.--Pharos (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more. I trimmed most of the detail about the allegations from the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, you quoted from BLP, but you need to recognize that BLP describes when and how we are supposed to include these types of allegations. Done properly, we are required by NPOV to do it. Don't just yell "BLP" whenever you see negative content of this nature. Learn the proper way to include it, without censorship or neutering, both of which violate NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the allegations is key here, which is why they're explicitly described in all the reliable sources. We are censoring ourselves way more than most reputable media out there. "Prey" is WP:WEASEL in this context. The original text should be restored and there's no use in trying to hide behind fallacious interpretations of BLP or the same Uber-Gamable discretionary sanctions. Volunteer Marek 06:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking purely as an editor, I would actually agree with restoring the more specific quote that is under debate here. I inserted the compromise or "weasel" text just so that the article would have SOMETHING while we debate it. Note that we have not yet reached consensus on whether to include the more specific language and we must not restore it unless/until we do. --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has too many paragraphs

The lead currently has six paragraphs, even though Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Lead section says that the lead's "length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs". That guideline page linked to this supplement to the Manual of Style, which says, "The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs" and includes this graph that indicates that the lead of an article should have, at most, three or four paragraphs. This article has about 124,000 bytes of content. For comparison, I randomly chose a few other articles that I assumed would be very lengthy, Michael Jackson and the September 11 attacks, to see how many paragraphs are in their leads. Both those articles have over 100,000 more bytes than this article, yet only have four paragraphs in the lead. Based on all this, I feel that someone should condense the lead of this article to three or four paragraphs. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was five paragraphs when I came across this comment, with the first being a single sentence. I combined them. It's four paragraphs now.
The lead in my opinion, is a bit too long, including details unnecessary for the lead, such as which fraternity he belonged to. It could use some pruning. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. MelanieN changed it from six paragraphs to five immediately after I posted my comment. However, a new problem was created after your (Anachronist's) edits: The opening paragraph is now way too long because you merged the first and second paragraphs. The Manual of Style says, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific" (my bolding). That opening paragraph was perfect before you made your edits and should therefore be changed back to how it was originally, with the second paragraph beginning with "Kavanaugh graduated from Yale College..." Also, I definitely agree with you that the lead needs pruning. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you and I edit-conflicted while we were both working on the lede. I trimmed some detail, combined some material, and as a result it's now just three paragraphs. I agree that the first paragraph should be split back into two per usual Wikipedia style. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please split the first paragraph back to the way it was and we're all set. Thanks for the quick help on this issue! 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do people feel about images of documents in the text?

Maybe this is a matter of style. But I really dislike the pasting of images of documents into the article, unless they add significantly to the understanding of the situation. Right now we have four in the article, and IMO they are just clutter which could be better treated by paraphrasing or quoting their contents in text. In the Public Hearing section we have two press releases: the two-sentence request from Kavanaugh asking for an investigation, and the two-sentence announcement of Trump’s order. In the Allegations sections we have Feinstein’s letter asking for postponement, and one of Kavanaugh’s letters to Grassley denying the accusations. The two press releases are particularly ugly because they are right across from each other on the page, causing a narrowing of the text. How do others feel about this practice? Pinging User:Sagecandor because I know this is something you like to do. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you in terms of both substance and style. Unless documents are truly famous, historic, or significantly meaningful to the topic, they're completely unnecessary. And, yes, they just add clutter. Text would be much better and more appropriate. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with MelanieN. Although the matter is important, these are routine documents and seeing images of them adds nothing for the reader. It is nothing like seeing a handwritten draft of the Gettysburg Address annotated by Lincoln's hand. We can use brief, relevant quotes and add references to articles that discuss these documents. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I think we should also remove the photo of the tweet from Sarah Sanders. Seraphim System (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd prefer we not remove all of them, but it'd be okay for some pruning, if it's judicious. Sagecandor (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why you feel any of them should remain? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are certainly historic, encyclopedic, and have already been widely cited in secondary sources, including the order by the US President of a 2nd FBI Investigation. Sagecandor (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Josve05a for this edit [12]. Sagecandor (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: So far we have four people who want to remove them all. You want to save some. So let’s take an inventory of the documents in question. I’ll include my comments; other people feel free to add theirs. BTW the fact that something is historic or has been widely cited is an argument for including its CONTENT in the article; it is not an argument for adding an image of the actual tweet or letter. We need to know what value you think the IMAGE brings to the article, as opposed to simply reporting about it. And keep in mind that this is a biography article; we can talk about the Nomination article later. My own opinion is that we should remove all four of them. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images of documents currently in this Brett Kavanaugh article:

  • In the Hearings section, a copy of Sarah Sanders’ tweet giving the statement from Trump ordering the FBI investigation. Not a document, just a tweet. Adds nothing to the information in the article; we already summarize everything it says in the text.
  • In the Hearings section, two sentences from the Judiciary Committee, dated September 28, requesting a supplemental FBI investigation. Not even a document, just the date and the two sentences. We already report the fact that they asked for it.
  • In the Christine Blasey Ford section, a copy of a September 23 letter from Feinstein asking for proceedings to be postponed and an FBI investigation opened. This was one of several such requests. Since the request was not acted on, this letter has no historical importance and is just clutter. The fact that the Democrats made this request multiple times can be summarized in a sentence.
  • Also in the Ford section, a copy of one of Kavanaugh’s letters to Grassley, dated September 24, denying the allegations. One of several such letters, of no historical importance; the text can and does summarize that he repeatedly denied the allegations. We could, if we want, add a sentence quote from this or one of the other letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs)
Reply: Suggest we remove all those, only keeping model by Josve05a for this edit [13]. Sagecandor (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can't full-page documents be transcribed on Wikisource and a {{Wikisource}} box be added or something, and only keep the tweet in it's templated form (link above)? (t) Josve05a (c) 17:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of Melanie's assessments and recommendations. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with MelanieN's recommendations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with MelanieN style point, that images of documents in general are poor idea. (More than just this article or these items.) Unless it is supported by a special consensus for whatever reason. In this case, remove all seems an improvement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have consensus to remove them all, and I will do so. --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! After all this debate, it turns out that Sagecandor who was so eager to add these things is a blocked sock. I guess we can now uncontroversially remove them from the Nomination article as well. I'll ask about it at that article's talk page tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cite errors

Can someone fix the 8 ugly, red cite errors? They're all the same type of error ("The named reference (ref name) was invoked but never defined"). 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are turning up because people are trimming and deleting material from the article. Fixing them would require searching through the history to find out where the source reference was, before it was deleted. I took a quick look but haven't found them yet. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's currently down to two errors. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like it's all fixed now. Thank you, whoever did this! --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2018 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School signed a letter

Request dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FROM:

Over 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school.<ref>{{cite new|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/the-latest-mccaskill-says-shell-vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/09/19/be3564a0-bc7e-11e8-8243-f3ae9c99658a_story.html|title=Ford's fellow alumnae sign letter supporting her|date=September 20, 2018|access-date=September 21, 2018}}</ref>

TO:

Over 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School, including Republican United States Senator from West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito and actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school.

Over 1,000 alumnae of [[Holton-Arms School]], including [[Republican]] [[United States Senator]] from [[West Virginia]], [[Shelley Moore Capito]]<ref> {{cite magazine | author =<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> | title = News and Noted | url = https://www.holton-arms.edu/community/campus-news-publications/doorways | magazine = Doorways: Holton-Arms School Magazine | volume = Summer 2018 | location = Bethesda, MD | publisher = Holton-Arms School | page = 5 | access-date= September 27, 2018}}</ref> and [[actress]] [[Julia Louis-Dreyfus]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.holton-arms.edu/news/article/~post/julia-louis-dreyfus-79-wins-9th-emmy-20160919|title=Article - Holton-Arms|author=|date=|website=www.holton-arms.edu|accessdate=29 September 2018}}</ref> signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school.<ref>{{cite new|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/the-latest-mccaskill-says-shell-vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/09/19/be3564a0-bc7e-11e8-8243-f3ae9c99658a_story.html|title=Ford's fellow alumnae sign letter supporting her|date=September 20, 2018|access-date=September 21, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/407096-julia-louis-dreyfus-joins-alumnae-of-kavanaugh-accusers-high|title=Julia Louis-Dreyfus joins alumnae of Kavanaugh accuser's high school supporting her|first=Tristan|last=Lejeune|date=17 September 2018|website=thehill.com|accessdate=29 September 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/09/julia-louis-dreyfus-christine-blasey-ford-letter|title=Julia Louis-Dreyfus Signed an Open Letter Defending Brett Kavanaugh’s Accuser|first=Katey|last=Rich|date=|website=vanityfair.com|accessdate=29 September 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/julia-louis-dreyfus-alumnae-support-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-letter-1144256|title=Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Former Classmates Support Brett Kavanaugh Accuser in Letter|author=|date=|website=hollywoodreporter.com|accessdate=29 September 2018}}</ref>

69.181.23.220 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected The RS seem to say the letter was delivered to Shelley Moore Capito, not that she signed it (at least as far as I can tell). -Obsidi (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2018 alumnae delivered the letter personally to alumna

Request has been dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC); MelanieN, atop "template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators" -- Sleyece (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FROM:

Over 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school.<ref>{{cite new|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/the-latest-mccaskill-says-shell-vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/09/19/be3564a0-bc7e-11e8-8243-f3ae9c99658a_story.html|title=Ford's fellow alumnae sign letter supporting her|date=September 20, 2018|access-date=September 21, 2018}}</ref>

TO:

Over 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School, including actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school; some alumnae delivered the letter personally to Holton-Arms School alumna and Republican United States Senator from West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito.

Over 1,000 alumnae of [[Holton-Arms School]], including [[actress]] [[Julia Louis-Dreyfus]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.holton-arms.edu/news/article/~post/julia-louis-dreyfus-79-wins-9th-emmy-20160919|title=Julia Louis-Dreyfus '79 Wins Her 9th Emmy!|author=|date=|website=holton-arms.edu|accessdate=29 September 2018}}</ref> signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school; some alumnae delivered<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fabiola-santiago/article218724250.html|title=Conservatives are vilifying Christine Blasey Ford. Here’s why you should believe her.|author=Fabiola Santiago|date=September 20, 2018|quote=Alumni of Holton-Arms School, Karen Bralove, class of 1963, left, Sarah Burgess, class of 2005, and Alexis Goldstein, class of 1999, speak to members of the media about a letter they delivered to the office of Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., who is also an alumni of the school, Thursday, Sept. 20, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington. The letter, which the group wants Capito to sign, calls for an independent investigation of accusations by Christine Blasey Ford, a 1984 alumni of the school, against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Jacquelyn Martin AP |website=miamiherald.com|accessdate=29 September 2018}}</ref> the letter personally to [[Holton-Arms School]] alumna and [[Republican]] [[United States Senator]] from [[West Virginia]], [[Shelley Moore Capito]].<ref>{{cite magazine | author =<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> | title = News and Noted | url = https://www.holton-arms.edu/community/campus-news-publications/doorways | magazine = Doorways: Holton-Arms School Magazine | volume = Summer 2018 | location = Bethesda, MD | publisher = Holton-Arms School | page = 5 | access-date= September 27, 2018<!-- Shelley Moore Capito -->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/the-latest-mccaskill-says-shell-vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/09/19/be3564a0-bc7e-11e8-8243-f3ae9c99658a_story.html|title=The Latest: Ford’s fellow alumnae sign letter supporting her|author=Associated Press|date=20 September 2018|website=Washington Post|accessdate=29 September 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/407096-julia-louis-dreyfus-joins-alumnae-of-kavanaugh-accusers-high|title=Julia Louis-Dreyfus joins alumnae of Kavanaugh accuser's high school supporting her|first=Tristan|last=Lejeune|date=17 September 2018|website=thehill.com|accessdate=29 September 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/09/julia-louis-dreyfus-christine-blasey-ford-letter|title=Julia Louis-Dreyfus Signed an Open Letter Defending Brett Kavanaugh’s Accuser|first=Katey|last=Rich|date=|website=vanityfair.com|accessdate=29 September 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/julia-louis-dreyfus-alumnae-support-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-letter-1144256|title=Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Former Classmates Support Brett Kavanaugh Accuser in Letter|author=|date=|website=hollywoodreporter.com|accessdate=29 September 2018}}</ref>

69.181.23.220 (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is interesting. I'll try to find a better source for the Capito information; the item from the Miami Herald is an opinion piece so not ideal.--MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found one! [14] I'm going to leave out Julia Louis-Dreyfus as name-dropping, but the information about them delivering it to Capito is interesting. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the information to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Picture

Kavanaugh with President George W. Bush and other White House staffers in 2001. Kavanaugh is seated directly to the left of Bush.

This picture, in the article, is in my opinion not useful. First I focussed on the wrong person, sitting to the left of G.W. Bush from my point of view. Then I understood which person was in fact meant, and noticed that you can't see the man's face. In my opinion it would be a good idea to delete the picture from this article. Bob.v.R (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK. It's the only illustration we have for his time in the Bush administration. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's the only image available from Kavanaugh's years working in the GWB administration, it's a valuable addition to the article. To prevent confusion about Kavanaugh's location in the photo, perhaps the caption could be changed from "Kavanaugh is seated directly to the left of Bush" to "Kavanaugh is seated directly to Bush's left". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I have changed the caption accordingly. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob.v.R:
Kavanaugh with President George W. Bush and other White House staffers. Kavanaugh is second from the left.
Kavanaugh with President Bill Clinton on Air Force One.
69.181.23.220 (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photo provided by 69.181.23.220 of Kavanaugh in the Bush meeting is obviously better than the one currently being used, which has Kavanaugh turned away from the camera. The one with Clinton is great, too. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully agree with the remarks about these two pictures. So the picture on the left could replace the current picture with G.W. Bush. Bob.v.R (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018

On Friday, Heather Gerken, the dean of that law school (Yale Law, Kavanaugh's Alma Matter), echoed the ABA’s letter in a statement issued through the university.

“I join the American Bar Association in calling for an additional investigation into allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh,” Gerken said. “Proceeding with the confirmation process without further investigation is not in the best interest of the Court or our profession.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-calls-for-fbi-investigation-into-kavanaugh-allegations-delay-in-confirmation-votes/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4513c66a412c 187.131.190.195 (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the template explains, edit requests "must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. 'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018 reference improvements

improve:

with

replace

with (as this is a more detailed article)

and include (as they describe the evolution of the document) :

69.181.23.220 (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I have expanded the “Latest news” reference. I did not replace the Fox 5 reference with the CBC reference you suggest, because the Fox 5 item relates more directly to the material it is cited for. I did not add the Vanity Fair and Hollywood Reporter references, as they are more of a fluff or entertainment type of publication rather than hard news. I did not add a mention of Julia Louis-Dreyfus, as I regard that as basically name-dropping unrelated to the thrust of the issue. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Documents: Law Library of Congress and National Archives

Two men claiming to be the ones involved in Ford's encounter

I found this article with information that I think should be added to the section about Christine Blasey Ford's accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBZE (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have little doubt that most editors actively involved in editing this article are well aware of the fact that both of these still unnamed men are saying they could have been (not are) the boy who allegedly assaulted the woman. This not only has been widely reported, but Ford was asked about it at the September 27 hearing. So, all we have at this point is not one, but two unidentified guys who are not making any definitive claims, but merely saying, "Hey, it could have been me, not Kavanaugh." 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was reported that the Judiciary committee investigated the claims, but made no mention of them in the hearings, my belief is that this is not notable information and need not be included in this article. Ward20 (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as I said, they absolutely did mention the claims at the September 27 hearing. Ford was asked directly about it. She said she was certain it was Kavanaugh. But I agree, the claims do not belong in the article per my explanation above. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Think it does not belong as it does not have enough WEIGHT to mention. Widely mentioned in this case does not mean enough WEIGHT relative to how much coverage other parts of the topic have. At most it would be a 1 line mention of existing. I feel the same way about an anonymous letter additional accusation ... a number mention it exists, but it just is not a significant portion or having any impact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of daughters

I actually cringed when I saw the photo of Kavanaugh's two very young daughters in the Personal life section. They are not even named in the text (only referred to as "two daughters"), yet we're including a photo of them? I actually think including their names would be fine if they're mentioned in reliable sources since it's standard content in bios of notable parents, but these little girls are private individuals, not child celebrities choosing to be in the spotlight. Therefore, I feel it's quite inappropriate to include their photo in their father's encylopedia article, especially since he's such a hugely polarizing figure. Do others agree with me that it should be removed? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of a series of "photos from Judge Kavanaugh’s remarkable career of public service" published by the WH upon K.'s nomination to the SC. The wife wasn't available for the photo op? I support removal. The Kavanaughs don't seem to have a problem with publishing their children's photos but there's one of the whole family in the "Nomination to the Supreme Court" section already. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. While Kavanaugh may not have a problem with providing photos of their daughters to the White House of the president who nominated him, that of course does not mean that we as encylopedia editors shouldn't have a problem with it. So I'm glad you support my suggestion. And, yes, there's already one of the whole family in the article (with Trump at the nomination announcement), so although I don't think the photos of very young children who aren't public figures should ever be in a bio of their famous parent, at least the full family photo has legitimate significance. I don't like having it in the article either and think it should be replaced with one of just Kavanaugh and Trump, or just the couple and Trump, but I won't fight for its removal since it has encyclopedic value. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include photos is appropriate. This is his BLP, and children are a major item in a persons life. Photos are appropriate, and something separate from the nomination event would be desirable. Obviously he has daughters regardless of any nomination so a picture of them outside of that seems a good idea. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Our BLP policy states that we should not use names, birthdates, or other identifying information on non-notable minor children in articles - part of it is a privacy thing, part of it is a safety thing. Further, the image adds nothing to the article that enhances the reader's understanding of the article subject. But, bottom line, when it comes to privacy and the safety of children, we can't be careful enough. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either remove from all articles, or remove from no articles. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I see no compelling reason to include photographs of his daughters. The subject of this article is Brett Kavanaugh. We don't need pictures of anyone else, particularly of children who are not named and don't need to be named. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. No good reason to have more than one picture of his daughters. wumbolo ^^^ 22:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed it a week ago and now removed it again. It was reinstated in a big, as yet unexplained revert - see This edit [25] changed much_content without explanation.

Neutral language (allegation - accusation)

At his point, Kavanaugh's denials are no more proof of his innocence than the assertions of the women who accused Kavanaugh of various wrongdoings are of his guilt. Both are assertions without proof or before proving, i.e., allegations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any reasonable editor would disagree with your statement. The section regarding all the claims is titled "Sexual assault allegations" (bolding added). "Allegation" and "accusation" are synonyms. So are you requesting something? If so, please be specific. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My above edit was an additional explanation for my edits to the lead. One of the sentences has since been removed by another editor which is fine by me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus violation

Landivisiau I challenged your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kavanaugh&oldid=861838966 via reversion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kavanaugh&oldid=861867935. If I interprete required consensus correctly, you should have taken the issue to the Talk page instead of reverting again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kavanaugh&oldid=861871402. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions are basically correct, for what it's worth. Bob Carlson personally wrote the letter, but clearly on behalf of the ABA (referring to "we" and whatnot). Just say both things and you'll both be happier, no topic ban or block required. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
It’s not about making editors happy or not. We stick to the facts and sources, and we adhere to Wikipedia’s rules. The sources say that the ABA called on/urged etc. Their current president signed the letter - so what? Someone had to sign it. It wasn’t him requesting the committee to delay the vote as our text currently claims, making it sound as if he was doing this on his own while the ABA was endorsing Kavanaugh. It wasn’t an endorsement, either; they rate the nominees, and they rated him "well-qualified" based on the information they had at the time. As for the rules, I think this one applies: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, someone had to write and sign it. Best to note who, as a simple sourced fact, while also simply noting he sent it on behalf of his group. Don't pretend Carlson was "going maverick", of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018

I'm requesting that the fact that he sexually assaulted Dr. Ford, or at least that he is under investigation for sexual assault be added to this fage int eh first 3 sentences so that when anybody good=gel him, they'll see that and know Llollla (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The location of the allegations content in the lead is appropriate per MOS:LEAD and MOS:BEGIN and has been reviewed extensively by numerous experienced editors. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this category belong here?

The category "Sexual harassment in the United States" has been added. I am dubious about whether it belongs here. At most what we have here is sexual harassment ALLEGATIONS in the United States. I note that we do not include this category in articles like Donald Trump or Al Franken or Bill Clinton, where there have been merely allegations. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it doesn't belong! It should be removed immediately. Right now, we have allegations. The category Sexual misconduct allegations is included in the Clinton and Trump articles; that is the category that should be in this article. I also found List of federal political sex scandals in the United States, which includes a listing for Kavanaugh. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When I reverted some vandalism and then reinstated subsequent edits (see next section), I did not reinstate this category. Nurg (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't and I have removed it. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well now I think there's an issue with the DS on the page. Radiohist added the category in this diff [15], and it was reverted by Vdjj1960} in this diff [16]. It was then added again by Radiohist in this diff [17], violating the WP:CRP provision. I removed it again here per the initial consensus. I need some help to understand if I also have violated the provision. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mr Ernie - I think sexual misconduct allegations belongs, and not sexual harassment. But it seems something editors struggle with or mismark elsewhere too — I see Justice Thomas got harassment in October 2017. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [18] changed much content without explanation

The sourced Yale Law School call for an investigation was removed (I added this previously[19]). The switch at mid hearing from Republican committee members using the prosecutor to question Kavanaugh appears to have been removed. The quote, "on behalf of the Clintons" was changed to "Clinton machine". I recall reading "on behalf of the Clintons" was correct. I don't know about some of the other changes, but would urge editors to look over this change for accuracy. Ward20 (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was my edit changing "Clinton machine" to "on behalf of the Clintons" because that's what all three sources say. I don't have the time right now to review that lengthy, unexplained edit in detail. Looks to me like the editor restored an older version or a large chunk of an older version of the page and that the change may contain text that was previously challenged. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC) On the positive side, though, as far as I am concerned, the change also reverted another change that I previously called out as a consensus violation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what was up with that edit, it just looks haphazard to me. I don't want to revert anything yet because I did delete italics on some text today on this article. It would probably not have me challenged with the 1 revert rule, but dealing with sensitive articles you just never know. Ward20 (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it's vandalism. Nurg (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the edit in question and then reinstated most of the edits that were done after it. Feel free to check what I have done and remedy issues, if any. Nurg (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It almost looks like it was reverted to this version, probably by accident. The only differences are a removed period and an added space, see difference between revisions. I don't think it was vandalism. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though the edit was vandalism, after all, since the editor who made it (Vdjj) never explained. I just reinstated a couple of edits Nurg didn't catch. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kavanaugh perjury accusation

Not only has this been widely reported on:

http://time.com/5398191/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-senators/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaughs-unlikely-story-about-democrats-stolen-documents/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2ik6OPG3M8
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimony-supreme-court.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html

US Senators have even come out and accused him of perjury over it:

https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1038164002998607872
https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1038824719989055488

I don't see any way to deny this is notable enough to include in the article.

None of these sources qualify as neutral or reliable sources. Per BLP we don't report negative information, or allegations, unless they are well sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it is important to note that the question under oath which Kavanaugh was questioned about were qualified "To the best of your knowledge" and while it may be possible that he did perjure himself, there has not been a provision of sufficient evidence to eliminate a belief for plausible deniability due to the feasibility that he did not at any point study the particular memos in enough detail to notice that they appeared to be drafted by democrats, or that he recalled that information at the time of the hearing. --Azeranth (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? Time Magazine and the Washington Post don't qualify as neutral or reliable sources? This is very much well-sourced information. 207.98.196.125 (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is confident enough to press perjury charges, that'd be the clear line between notable accusation and routine mudslinging, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

ABA

The current article says the "American Bar Association (which had rated Kavanaugh as well-qualified) requested that the Senate Judiciary Committee halt the confirmation vote." (Here is the original letter by the ABA President) But it wasn't the ABA leadership (under the control of the ABA President) who rated Kavanaugh as "well-qualified." That was the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. They have written a letter to the Senate saying that they were not consulted by the ABA president and continue to rate Kavanaugh as well-qualified [20]. Specifically that The correspondence by Robert Carlson, President of the American Bar Association, of September 27, 2018, was not received by the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary prior to its issuance. The ABA’s rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. Carlson’s letter. and The Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary acts independently of ABA leadership. Given this, I think we need to clarify this part of the article. This was discussed in several RS [21] [22] [23]

I would also note that there is substantial question if the ABA President can speak on behalf of the ABA, as, according to the ABA that power is given to the Board of Governors. -Obsidi (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)-Obsidi (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to change? The ABA Standing Committee already downgraded him to 'qualified' according to the Washington Post(Strike that. I guess they changed it again [24]). Do you want to say that his 'well qualified' status hasn't changed because of the ABA President's letter? I would wait until the Board of Directors states the ABA President can't speak on behalf of the ABA before changing that separate issue. Ward20 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point is two-fold. (1) The ABA President (nor anyone under his authority) did not say Kavanaugh was well-qualified. Implying that (as the text currently does) makes it seem like even those who supported Kavanaugh in the past are doing this. (2) It implies that the previous rating has changed given the past tense (which it clearly hasn't). The ABA has never changed their rating during this confirmation process (he was downgraded during his nomination to the D.C. Circuit a long time ago leading to controversy). -Obsidi (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking something like the following would be more correct (not including the citations to sources):
The day of the hearing, the American Bar Association President(which had rated Kavanaugh as well-qualified) requested that the Senate Judiciary Committee halt the confirmation vote, saying it should not move forward until an FBI investigation into the sexual assault and suspected intent of rape allegations can be completed. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary continues to rate Kavanaugh as "well-qualified."
-Obsidi (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't received coverage in reliable sources; if it does, we can discuss it. Two of your three sources are biased (Washington Examiner and National Review); the third source is about the ABA's Sep 27 letter, not about the Standing Committee's letter. The current text of the article doesn't state that the rating was withdrawn. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIASEDSOURCES reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.. Saying they are biased does not mean they are not RS. The third source links to the letter and says Late Friday, the ABA’s standing committee on the judiciary said it had not seen Carlson’s letter before it was sent to the Senate. “The Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary acts independently of ABA leadership,” Paul Moxley wrote, the committee chairman, said in a letter to Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the judiciary committee. The current text of the article puts the rating in the past tense. -Obsidi (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the Senate Judiciary Committee itself as commented on this [25] -Obsidi (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also we discuss the ABA rating in 2003 (which was downgraded), but other than this one side note, the article never discusses the ABA rating for current nomination. Is it any wonder that someone like Ward20, on this very thread, was confused as to the current ABA rating? -Obsidi (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what the WSJ Editorial Board said: Mr. Carlson is not a member of that committee, and he is not supposed to speak for the ABA unless the legal group has made a policy decision. In this case he is trying to sandbag his own ABA colleagues. Paul Moxley, the Utah lawyer who chairs the ABA’s judicial committee, made that clear on Friday when he wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Carlson’s letter “was not received” by his ABA committee “prior to its issuance.” Mr. Moxley added: “The ABA’s rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. Carlson’s letter.” [26]
The ABA rating for the current nomination probably should be discussed. The WSJ article is opinion. On the other part I would keep it simple. How about, "American Bar Association (which still rates Kavanaugh as well-qualified[27]) requested that the Senate Judiciary Committee halt the confirmation vote." Ward20 (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion satisfies my point #2 (the past tense part), but doesn't differentiate from the ABA President's statements from the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. I know the WSJ article is an editorial (it is written by the editorial board after all), but it is clearly a RS as to its own opinion, and it is a very prominent opinion. So, if used, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV we could write something like The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has questioned if the ABA President speaks for the ABA rather than the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.. That would properly attribute the opinion to a prominent source and let the reader know that there is a distinction. -Obsidi (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the WSJ's question, of whether the president is speaking for the ABA, is simply speculation by the WSJ's editorial board. I don't believe that is notable. My position would change if the board isssued a policy statement saying the president was not speaking for the ABA, of course. Ward20 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I had seen this on Wikipedia somewhere: it is covered (both the "well qualified" rating and the ABA president's letter) at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. That's where it belongs. There are sections at that article about who supported his nomination and who opposed it. I don't think we should say anything about it here. This would be TMI for this biography article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we already discuss his 2003 ABA rating, and the ABA asking to delay for an FBI investigation. How are those more relevant? -Obsidi (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose removing the entire paragraph about the ABA president's letter (which is the request for a delay while the FBI investigates) and the similar request from Yale. Such requests were coming from dozens of people at that point. In the section about the Judiciary Committee hearing, it is overkill and cherry-picking to single out these two IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're correct. The notable issue is that they are doing a supplemental investigation. Readers who want more detail can go to the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination article. Ward20 (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would solve both of my issues. -Obsidi (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. It's notable for his bio that numerous institutions and people called for postponing the vote, including the dean of Yale Law School (Kavanaugh's alma mater) and the ABA. Unanimous "well-qualified" ratings for Supreme Court nominees aren't all that noteworthy, they are the rule (Merrick Garland got one, too); it would be noteworthy if he hadn't gotten it. Ward20: You deleted the paragraph saying "reader can go to" the nomination article but I don't see the information on that page. Where on the page did you add it? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ABA information has been on that page for several days. It is at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination#Support. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have looked for the ABA's letter - being characterized as their president's letter - under "Support", and while one Yale law professor is quoted directly twice there is no mention that Yale Law School's Dean Heather Gerken also issued a statement supporting the ABA's call for a postponement of the vote. Oh well - as long as, for example, the long paragraph with Trump quotes in the Christine Blasey Ford section isn’t "bogging down consensus" … Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it is the "rule" the ABA gave Justice Thomas a majority "Qualified" and a minority "not-qualified." -Obsidi (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant rule as in "usually valid generalization." The NY Times wrote in 1987 that the committee has given unanimous approval to the professional credentials of the vast majority of Supreme Court nominees in the past three decades, and that still holds true. There were only a few exceptions, Clement Haynsworth in 1969, Bork in 1987, and Thomas in 1991. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see three-to-one for removal of that paragraph. I will do so. Discussion about including it can continue here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Ward20 has already removed it. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Chua

The section "Law clerk hiring practices" needs to be updated. See [28]. Amy Chua has called allegations against her "outrageous" and "100% false." 66.188.103.126 (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article says Responding to the report, Chua denied that Kavanaugh's hiring decisions were affected by female applicants' attractiveness, stating, "Judge Kavanaugh's first and only litmus test in hiring has been excellence." What about this is wrong, or needs to be expanded? -Obsidi (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No change. The situation is covered adequately in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Particularities in separation of claims, allegations, speculations, and evidences

I would suggest that greater clarifications be made both for the sake of modern onlookers as well as consistency for posterity. Specifically, in noting how claims which are only partially correct or consistent be explicitly noted in their differences. This is to avoid and confusion or conflation as to where partially correct claims begin and end in their factualness.

Two important relevant examples I think, include specifying that when: "Ford stated that in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, one of Kavanaugh's friends from Georgetown Prep School, corralled her in a bedroom at a house party in Maryland and turned up the music that was playing in the room." that note is made that there was no particular date, time, or location offered regarding to where these events supposedly took place. This is to distinguish from the normal practice of stating when events occur where their particular time and place are not encyclopedicaly relevant (an example is that Albert Einstein studied between these years, but we don't specify frivolous details like the exact dates of semesters and every professor he studied with). Clarifying that no given date and place exists is key in preventing confusion or conflation between common linguistic practice, and avoiding inaccurate assumptions.

The other is regarding to the distinction between "no memory of the events" and "these events did not happen". Clarifying the particulars of who denied the allegations directly, and those who refused to, or felt that they could not offer comment. This has become a particular point of contention regarding current conversation regarding the events, and special effort in establishing a precise and clear record of these distinctions is essential to maintaining objectivity, accuracy, and avoid confusion or erroneous assumptions

--Azeranth (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corroboration to Ramirez's claim

The article should mention that two students told the New Yorker they heard about an incident matching Ramirez's description at the time, and one of them is "100 percent sure" he was told the perpetrator was Kavanaugh. Currently it makes it seem like her story is uncorroborated which is untrue. This is important supporting detail.

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.136.231 (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An unnamed anonymous individual and Richard Oh. Richard Oh says he overheard a female student, whose identity he can’t recall, telling another student about such an incident but with no reference to Kavanaugh. Wikipedia is not rumor. -Obsidi (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is not solid enough or widely-enough reported to go here. This is a biography, it's not blow-by-blow coverage of his nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UB40 fight

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/brett-kavanaugh-bar-fight-ub40-concert-731781/ Victor Grigas (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some reports about this, and various people alleging it happened - there is even supposedly a police report - but I don't think the coverage is mature enough for the article yet. BTW sources are referring to it as a bar fight, not an UB40 fight. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert this OR[29]

I would do it but I just changed some text. Ward20 (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Nicknames"?

I do not believe the inclusion of supposed "nicknames" are made in good faith and is meant to give credence to conspiracies concerning his supposed drinking habits in high school. More generally, I don't believe that those who know themselves to be biased against Kavanaugh ought to be making significant edits on his biography. 

JKRichard (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)JKRichard[reply]

Polygraph tests

Inclusion of polygraph test without qualifying that their efficacy in determining truthfulness is highly disputed is ostensible enough to warrant excluding it from the allegations page, I think. JKRichard (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not for us/Wikipedia to add "qualifying" statements, that would violate WP:OR. We go by what reliable sources say and what is written is what they say on that. I don't see any need to change it. ContentEditman (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of sources cover the unreliability of these things, in this context. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, October 3, 2018 (UTC)
Some of your links are opinion pieces and one even shows that Kavanaugh "Said They Can Be Useful". So you want to add that Kavanaugh "Said They Can Be Useful"? ContentEditman (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to add anything. I just Wikilinked "polygraph test". Pretty sure the OP would prefer the relevant bits, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:15, October 3, 2018 (UTC)
I added a sentence explaining that polygraph tests aren't supported by scientific evidence. This is pretty important context so it would be misleading/factually inaccurate to omit that information. This was noted by Time magazine and backed up by an official position statement of the APA, so it's not just opinion. Augurar (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ContentEditman: Please stop your removal of factual information that is well-sourced and supported by talk page consensus. Removing important context also violates WP:NPOV by presenting a factually inaccurate viewpoint. Whether or not you personally believe Ford's allegations, polygraph tests are known to be pseudoscience. Augurar (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Augurar: This is not about Polygraphs. Our opinions of them are not related to this article. ContentEditman (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that's why we need to set aside our personal opinions and political views and stop removing sourced information from the article. Unless you think you personally know better than the American Psychological Association? Augurar (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you also added some related material from 2016 to "prove your point". Unfortunately this is considered improper synthesis since the source made no connection to the content discussed in the article. Augurar (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it’s worth, can we just let the link to the page on polygraphs stay without the bit about their reliability? It’s really not appropriate in a BLP to get into the reliability of polygraphs. She took one and that’s been widely reported. Let’s leave it at that. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@QueenofBattle: I agree and would not have a problem with that if you like to make that edit. ContentEditman (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the case a reliable source (Time magazine) published an article about the unreliability of polygraph tests in relation to this specific incident so it seems relevant. It also seems to violate WP:DUE to mention the polygraph test without giving adequate context -- this would be like mentioning Andrew Wakefield's vaccine-autism study without mentioning that the study was retracted due to falsified data. Augurar (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Augurar: You are now in violation of the 1RR by reverting contested content and reverting other content. Please self-revert or you could be blocked. ContentEditman (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this qualifies as a 1RR violation or not but I'll revert my edit and add a tag for the improper synthesis instead. Augurar (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

400 law professors -- unintended revert?

Clear consensus for inclusion ~Awilley (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I made this edit, adding:

In October 2018, approximately 400 law school professors signed a letter that "decries Kavanaugh's 'Lack of Judicial Temperament'".[1]
  1. ^ "Letter Signed by Nearly 400 Law Professors Decries Kavanaugh's 'Lack of Judicial Temperament'". WSJ. Retrieved 2018-10-03.

GünniX deleted it with the edit comment "double http". Was that an accidental deletion? Can you restore it? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you used was a live feed so it is not stable. I have added the information using a better reference and in a better location. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the number of professors is now close to 1000 according to non-quite-reliable-enough sources. I put in "more than 500" which was the most recent I could find in the usual sources. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @David, It looks like the material was deleted in this edit by User:JKRichard, not the edit you linked above by GunniX. JKRichard removed the material again here. It looks like it's time to seek a consensus on whether to include the sentence. ~Awilley (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand... It was promptly removed by User:JKRichard with the edit summary Unless you plan to include every collection of persons who have come out against and in favor of him, I don't see the sense in including this letter. There are >1.2 million people with law degrees in America. This is also a biography page and not a "pile on anything that sounds remotely bad" page. Let's talk about it. The edit I added, immediately following our reporting of his testimony, was:

In response to his testimony, more than 500 law professors signed a letter saying that the Senate should not confirm him because "he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land."[1]
Sources

  1. ^ Ferner, Matt (October 2, 2018). "More Than 500 Law Professors Condemn Kavanaugh For 'Lack Of Judicial Temperament'". Huffington Post. Retrieved 4 October 2018.

This is not about a "person with a law degree"; this is about hundreds of professors at law schools including Yale and Harvard. The number who signed it is approaching 1000 - far more than several other letters of support and opposition that we already mention in the "Sexual allegations" section. The letter was in direct response to his Judiciary Committee testimony so I put it in that section. There is already a fair amount of coverage about it; there will be a lot more tomorrow when the letter is delivered to the Senate. I am willing to wait until then, because by then we will have an actual number of signatures as well as more widespread coverage. But at that point I think it should be added. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that User:Tvoz has restored it. Tvoz, we are discussing it here. I take it you feel the material should be included. --MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it should be included, as long as it's properly sourced and neutrally worded, as it is.Tvoz/talk 02:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MelanieN. Your restoration and other proposed versions all sound good to me. The arguments you made in favor of its inclusion outweigh those against. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So consensus required is not in effect on this article anymore? PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvoz: I removed the material until consensus is established here per the DS in effect on the article. PackMecEng (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this can be called a "nomination detail". It's a rare and notable fact for a biography if more than thousand highly credentialed members of the subject's academic field publish a statement in the New York Times asserting that the person in question is unfit for their job (current and intended - "disqualifying for any court"). It would be hard to find comparable examples, even among other politically controversial judges.
The letter should be mentioned both in the nomination article and (with less detail) in this one, as relevant event in Kavanaugh's life. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I would agree with Markbassett here but HaeB raises a good point: These professors don't just oppose his SC confirmation but also oppose him being a Federal Judge which he currently is, so the SC nomination subarticle would be the wrong article for it. The SC nomination might have been the the reason for them to become active but they are not limiting their criticism to that. So yes, it should go into the biography article since it is noteworthy if 1,000+ professors in your field think you are unfit for your current job. Regards SoWhy 07:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HaeB and SoWhy's reasons to include it in this article. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:SoWhy That is stating an WP:OR assertion of it being 'important' instead of addressing it being WP:OFFTOPIC as not belonging in this WP:BLP about his life. Various petitions for/against and protests/supports seem things he's not shown as even aware of or of having been an important direct effect to his life. So - details to the other article, not something here.
- This brings up a second aspect -- it seems projecting a WP:SPECULATION of significance. We should be WP:NOTNEWS and not be guessing about the future instead of using actual WP:WEIGHT of an event and definite info such as number that will not be seen until Thursday, and perhaps having seen whatever actual durability and effect it has in events, if any. NPOV would also require including remarks against it and context - such as this is perhaps 1500 out of about 18,000 such professors, and it is an online petition. (If this does *not* have coverage against it and context explaining it, that would show it is not recognized as significant.)
Again, this is details for the nomination article and have a bit of restraint that by next week it may be much clearer what (if anything) should be said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah looking at it more, it is an online petition. That has no impact or bearing on anything at this point. It only came up in relation to his nomination and in response to things said at the nomination hearing. To say this could have a lasting impact on his life as a whole is just absurd and uninformed on the face of it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's our job here to reflect what RS say, not to speculate whether they should say it. Stuff like "it's only 1500 out of 18000" (which still is 8.3% of all law professors in the country) is truly OR because the sources don't say that (feel free to cite RS that do though). But they do say "professors in this guy's field think he is not qualified to have his current job or the one he wants". Links to WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTNEWS are misplaced as well. The proposal is not to include any speculation or anything that is routine coverage (which is what NOTNEWS is about). We're not saying "this will cost him his job!" or something like that (it most likely won't), just that this is something that is noteworthy because it usually does not happen and has thus received the media coverage that rare events receive. I'm not against including it in the nomination article instead though, because I see the point that the "unfit for the current job" part is only of subsidiary importance for those who signed the letter. Regards SoWhy 14:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What SoWhy said. Except that it does belong in this article, because this is a review of his competence by an enormous number of people who are qualified to judge that. And my proposed sentence should be revised to say 1,700 and use the NYT reference. BTW it is ridiculous to claim that this biography can only contain stuff that has a lasting impact on his life. If we applied that standard to all BLPs, most of them would be about two paragraphs long. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, instead of listing important things about a person's life we should just list every news story that hits. That would certainly make for a much better article... But seriously, yes that is what a BLP should be. Important parts of a person's life that have lasting impact. This is a online poll essentially that came about solely in relation to his nomination, that is also unlikely to have any effect on anything at all. So why push the WP:NOTNEWS? PackMecEng (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An open letter is not the same thing as an online poll. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So where do we stand - re consensus?

  • People who think it should be included: David Tornheim, MelanieN, Tvoz, HaeB, SoWhy, ContentEditman, Seraphim System
  • People who think it should not be included: JKRichard, Markbassett, PackMecEng,

We should wait a little longer (I’d say 24 hours) for people to chime in, but at this point consensus is leaning toward include. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:MelanieN - up to you, but re using the NYT cite, that’s an opinion column w/o analysis. Might be better to cite secondary item. The Washington Post Grade Point article might do. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lied under oath

<redacted for copyright reasons GMGtalk 17:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)>[reply]

unquote--2604:2000:1382:40D0:484C:417D:323D:C4DC (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, you cannot post entire news stories on Wikipedia, even on talk pages, as this constitutes a copyright violation. GMGtalk 17:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual assault allegations - revisited

Isn't it about time to reduce this section: Sexual assault allegations in the article? Isn't all this a BLP violation? These recorded allegations are horrible and biased against Kavanaugh. latest Media reports that the follow-up FBI investigation corroborated none of these alleged allegations. Time for senior wiki editors to clean this article up and stop the slanderous documentation. Bought the farm (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that much of that content should be better on Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination rather than here. 1,000+ words on a topic for which we already have a main article is a bit much, especially a contentious topic on a BLP. GMGtalk 17:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is left should be finalized by whatever the findings are by the last FBI investigation once those are released t the public.--MONGO (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which they reportedly never will be. We may have to rely on whatever the senators choose (from their own particular viewpoints) to tell us. I do think we should wait until we find out what the report says (to the extent we do find out), and then I agree we could trim a good deal of the detail in that section. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This describes the situation well: “We searched everywhere except where lawyers for the accused told us not to look. We didn’t find anything where we were allowed to look. So that proves there was nothing there.”

As far as "reducing" goes, read WP:PUBLICFIGURE. There is no BLP violation. We document history here. We don't hide it or whitewash it. Otherwise, moving may be in order, but not deletion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think keep the nomination, hearing, and whatever results are significant life events. Also PUBLICFIGURE says mention it, but one does not need to not have this much. And User:BullRangifer seems wrong, it may be considered BLP violation. I.E. at the overall ‘BLPs must be written conservatively’ and “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not Wikipedia’s job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be joking. What you're saying only applies to trivial, one night, tabloid mention. This was and is super notable and covered by literally ALL RS for months. It will have consequences for a lot of people for the rest of their lives, and that content should also be added if it's dealt with in RS. It will neither be forgiven nor forgotten. It deserves its own article, but likely won't get it. We don't bury history here. We preserve it. You've been around here long enough to know that your suggestion would violate multiple policies. I agree that keeping all of it in this article might not be best, but reducing it to a shorter section here and leaving a hatnote pointing to a better location where it all gets moved, such as the nomination article, would be satisfactory. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM, and please discuss content, not other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This guy is more likely a survivor of attempted character assassination and the title of this section Sexual assault allegations should reflect that. This section could not only include the allegations but also include examples of the bias media coverage and their character assassination attempts. Documentation of the protestations by women who are survivors of some sexual attack in their past that are targeting Judge Kavanaugh - just to get even. Democrats and Left wing anti-Trump and paid activists, who are more than likely, motivated to negatively attempt to affect the Trump Administrations' Legacy. We've got to edit this blatant documentation of alleged past indiscretion, that remains uncorroborated and present it accurately here in Wikipedia. I propose a re-titling of this section to Character Assassination during the Supreme Court confirmation process and a full documentation of the events for posterity. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bought the farm, please save your partisan rants for social media. ("assassination attempts"? "paid activists"? Please!) This is an encyclopedia and we report what reliable sources say. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I get the point. I didn't think this to be a rant. I have read and heard exactly these things being reported - the weaponizing of the #MeToo movement into an anti-Kavanaugh mob. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't "read and heard exactly these things being reported" in RS, only fringe and unreliable sources, the ones which are against women's rights. You need to either stop reading unreliable sources, or stop editing these subjects at Wikipedia. If you keep doing both, you'll continue to run afoul of our policies and continue to create disruption. You just keep doing it. That will get you a topic ban, which might be a good idea anyway, since you aren't getting the point. If you can't vet sources and understand which ones are reliable, you fail the most basic skill for editing here, because we base our content on RS. You have a serious competency problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe take it down a tick there. PackMecEng (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The comment on the weaponizing of the #MeToo movement into an anti-Kavanaugh mob... is pretty out there. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To put it mildly. PackMecEng (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2018.

The article misleads readers into believing Feinstein did not hide the information for nearly 90 days. 104.129.196.109 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Assessment of Suitability as a Supreme Court Justice

On October 3, 2018, an open letter signed by over 1,700 US law professors advocating Judge Brett Kavanaugh not be confirmed based on their assessment that the Judge did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest US court was published in The New York Times. This letter was presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWGraff (talk • contribs)

[1]

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html
This is being discussed above, in the section "400 Law Professors". --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why was correction of timeline reverted?

@Volunteer Marek:What is the reason for this reversion? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kavanaugh&type=revision&diff=862559310&oldid=862550970 Legbracesarecool (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the wiki-jargon in the edit summary, WP:OR (AKA "No original research") ~Awilley (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the reference and what was added is not OR, its pretty clearly stated. "She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly." I see no issue adding it back and would include it. ContentEditman (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legbracesarecool, Awilley, and ContentEditman: I support reversing User:Volunteer_Marek's edit. I'm fine with the content as it was added. WaPo is an acceptable source for the timeline and this doesn't really seem to be "ORish", let alone full-blown OR. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley, ContentEditman, Cymru.lass, and Volunteer Marek:Thank you for the feedback and for pointing out the WP:OR thing. Looking at it again, it does seem kinda wordy, or like it could create the impression it's an original chain of logic. Maybe adding it back without the "before his name was announced publicly" would mitigate that. Legbracesarecool (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again, I think the original sentence you added is fine. My apologies. Volunteer Marek 16:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legbracesarecool and Volunteer Marek: reinstated text! Happy editing cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cymru.lass and Volunteer Marek:Much appreciated Legbracesarecool (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kavanaugh was a LEGACY student at Yale because his paternal grandfather was an Alumni.

When Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said he had no connections at Yale, that he got in because he busted his tail. How does someone forget that their grandfather was a Yale Alumni? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abstractist (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed already. His comment about "busting his tail" was in reference to Yale Law School, which his grandfather did NOT attend. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Of course "I had no connections there" is disingenuous, since he had attended Yale as an undergraduate which certainly gave him a "connection" to Yale Law School. Still, not something that needs pointing out in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section

According to WP:LEAD, "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".

There is no doubt that the sexual misconduct/rape allegations are Kavanaugh's primary claim to fame as judged by Wikipedia standards, namely coverage in reliable sources. They have been extremely well covered by reliable sources around the globe and made him a household name not only in his own country, but in large parts of the world. In contrast, until recently, he was an obscure, relatively low-level judge nobody had heard about, certainly not internationally. Probably way more than 90% of all coverage of him in reliable sources globally is related to the sexual misconduct issue.

However the lead section doesn't adequately summarize the controversy relating to his primary claim to fame. It mentions that Christine Blasey Ford contacted a tipline and then it abruptly stops, failing to mention what has unfolded since. The material also seems somewhat buried in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sexual misconduct allegations are not his "primary claim to fame," and he was not obscure or "relatively low level" before them. He was already a nominee for the Supreme Court. And before that he was a federal judge on the DC Appeals Court, one of the most important courts in the land. So the coverage of the allegations is appropriately weighted. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here on Wikipedia, notability (including weight issues) is measured by the coverage in third-party reliable sources. There is no question that his primary claim to fame, as measured by coverage in third-party reliable sources, is the sexual misconduct controversy, since the vast majority of all coverage of him relates to that. In an international perspective, he was indeed fairly obscure before compared to his notoriety today. He wasn't a household name in all of Europe, probably not even in his own country. Anything below supreme court justice would be considered relatively low-level for a judge in an international perspective; do many people in the US know the names of regional judges from, say, Germany, Russia or China, all large and important countries in world affairs? Due to his global notoriety, the perception in the US isn't the only thing that matters for an international encyclopedia either. --Tataral (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People knowing his name in other countries has nothing to do with his prior notability. He was notable before this and the WP:RECENT news cycle will not change that. Now of course these allegations from his confirmation hearing are notable and the question is if they are the most notable thing about him or his career. They most decidedly are not. PackMecEng (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you purpose? PackMecEng (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime today - probably within hours - it will almost certainly get fleshed out, by adding "Supreme Court Justice" and former judge on the DC appeals court. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and it was added as I wrote. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of that changes the fact that probably more than 90% of all coverage of him in reliable sources is related to rape/sexual misconduct allegations widely perceived as credible, and as about as notable as the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. Hence, the rape/sexual misconduct allegations remain his primary claim to fame according to Wikipedia content policy and guidelines and ought to feature prominently in the lead section, which must properly account for the drama surrounding the hearing, Ford's testimony and the worldwide attention it received. If he died tomorrow or in the near future, this is his legacy; of course we cannot predict the future (WP:CRYSTAL) and it's not possible to say how he will be perceived in 10 or 20 years, and the article and lead must be based on the sources that exist today. --Tataral (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that most of the coverage is related to that. But we have a duty to ignore that per WP:Recentism and instead consider the topic in the historical context of what someone from 10 years from now would think is relevant regardless of the current media environment. No doubt some of the allegations will be a part of that, but we cannot let that become overblown due to recent events. -Obsidi (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any danger of this issue becoming overblown in this article; at the moment it is rather minimized/downplayed. It isn't really an issue of recentism either, not anymore than the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, because the Kavanaugh controversy is clearly seen as historically significant already now, and certainly not as something trivial that will be forgotten. In fact Weinstein was an extremely well known personality before the Weinstein controversy, while Kavanaugh went from being a virtual unknown (certainly in a national and international perspective) to a household name on a global scale solely in connection with the confirmation hearing and the accusations against him (most RS presented it in this context: Trump, the white supremacist president, wants to appoint a man accused of rape to the supreme court). In the historical context it will no doubt be an important part of his legacy. If he does something extraordinary as judge in the future it will also be part of his legacy, but we cannot speculate on that and will deal with developments as they arise. Right now reliable sources tend to view him as an accused rapist who was appointed to the supreme court by a far-right president who spouts white supremacist rhetoric. --Tataral (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tataral, it is simply not true that 90% of the material written about him is about the allegations. Simply not. He has a long judicial career behind him; he has been in the news many times; even the recent coverage (past few months) is about his nomination, with the allegations being a two-week blip on that nomination. Maybe the allegations have been the only thing in the news in Europe, but there has been plenty of other news about him in the U.S. Our inclusion and our WEIGHT determination are based on what Reliable Sources say, generally. Something or someone doesn't have to be covered in the worldwide media for it to count. I am sure there are many articles in this encyclopedia about Americans that are unknown in France but have significant news coverage in America. I am sure there are many Frenchmen in this encyclopedia that are unknown in America but have significant news coverage in France. Your claim that he would not be notable except for the allegations, or that they are his primary claim to fame, is simply untenable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. after edit conflict: There is NO neutral reliable source in the U.S. that frames the issue as "Trump, the white supremacist president, wants to appoint a man accused of rape to the supreme court". None. I haven't heard it framed that way even in the most partisan sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said anywhere that he "would not be notable" (which as a Wikipedia term means "worthy of a biography") without the allegations. Last year he was someone who met the notability criteria on Wikipedia without any problems, like tons of people that most people have never heard of. In terms of notability he was comparable to Nicholas Mostyn. Today he's a guy that most people in the world with access to newspapers or the Internet know about. Hence his notability is greatly (as in hundreds or thousands of times) enhanced. More than 90% of that is related to the allegations against him and what transpired in the senate (especially during Ford's testimony), when we consider all coverage in RS on a global scale. When someone is a figure of global interest and recognition, internal US perceptions are not the only concerns when considering WP:WEIGHT issues. The global perception in reliable sources must also be considered. But even within his own country, he was comparatively obscure last year compared to his notoriety now. You couldn't honestly say that every person in the US knew who he was a year ago.
Of course, even if the Kavanaugh affair is the most notable aspect of his biography, it doesn't have to dominate the article. There is plenty of room for his career before and after today. But there isn't any reason to minimize the affair, not today and not anytime soon. This will certainly remain a very important part of his legacy and notability in the foreseeable future. --Tataral (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead proposal

  • Current: President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh on July 9, 2018, to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States. When it became apparent that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of nominees but before his name was announced publicly, Christine Blasey Ford contacted a Washington Post tip-line with allegations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s, while the two of them were in high school.[8][9][10] Two other women accused him of sexual misconduct.[11][12] This drew several parallels to the allegations during the Clarence Thomas nomination to the Supreme Court.[13] Kavanaugh denied the allegations, commenting that Ford's alleged witnesses either contradicted her statements or said they did not recall such an event.[14][15][16] Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate on October 6 by a vote of 50–48, mostly along party lines, and was sworn in that evening.[17][18]

Working off the current, expanded version:

  • Suggested: President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh on July 9, 2018, to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States. When it became apparent that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of nominees, Christine Blasey Ford contacted the Washington Post and her congresswoman's office with allegations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s, while the two of them were in high school. After allegations leaked to the press, Ford came forward with her story in an article on September 16, 2018. Two other women accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Ford and Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 27. This drew several parallels to the allegations during the Clarence Thomas nomination to the Supreme Court and resulted in widespread national and international media coverage, along with protests in the US capital and across the country. Kavanaugh denied the allegations, while the FBI conducted a 5-day supplementary background investigation, the results of which were made available only to senators. Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate on October 6 by a vote of 50–48, mostly along party lines, and was sworn in that evening.

Any thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the lead section I believe the material should be discussed in a single paragraph rather than two, so it may be a little too long, for example in its description of how Ford proceeded with making her story known. However, the "resulted in widespread national and international media coverage, along with protests in the US capital and across the country" part is a very good addition and more or less what I thought was missing when I started this discussion. --Tataral (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened a bit and converted back to one paragraph. Pinging @Wumbolo, MelanieN, PackMecEng, and Obsidi: who have previously participated on this thread. Please feel free to tweak further. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to bad, two things come to mind though. I like mentioning the FBI investigation but several firmilar with the results have commented at this point. I think it should also mention that he has been confirmed in some fashion similar to the original wording. Though I was never a fan of the along party lines part. PackMecEng (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest cutting a lot of the dates and timeline that I don't think is important enough for WP:LEAD and try to summarize the most important parts, here would be my suggestion:

After President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Christine Blasey Ford publicly alleged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her while the two of them were in high school. Two other women accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Ford and Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This drew several parallels to the allegations during the Clarence Thomas nomination to the Supreme Court and resulted in widespread national and international media coverage, along with protests in the US capital and across the country. Kavanaugh denied the allegations. Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 50–48, mostly along party lines, and was sworn in that evening.

-Obsidi (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. This hits the key points without going into unnecessary detail. My additions in bold:

After President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Christine Blasey Ford publicly alleged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her while the two of them were in high school. Two other women accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Ford and Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee; the vote on Kavanaugh's nomination was postponed to allow for a reopening of the FBI background investigation. The controversy drew several parallels to the allegations during the Clarence Thomas nomination to the Supreme Court and resulted in widespread national and international media coverage, along with protests in the US capital and across the country. Kavanaugh denied the allegations. On October 6, 2018, he was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 50–48, mostly along party lines, and was sworn in that evening.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without researching the history, I note that the paragraph currently in the article does not contain a mention of Clarence Thomas. That's good; I would have suggested dropping it. Just say "The controversy resulted in widespread...." And I would say "Two other women later accused him..." --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That wording looks fine. It should be added to the lead (currently all mention of the accusations against him have apparently been removed from the lead without consensus, which is of course unacceptable). --Tataral (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good place for it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it - right now the lede contains nothing at all about the allegations, or about any controversy over his nomination. I don't know who took it out but it clearly was not the consensus here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was the edit in question:[30]. It was done without any consensus and can just be reverted, but I believe we have consensus for a new and improved wording here now. I actually feared someone might attempt to remove all mention of the accusations, which is one of the reasons I started this discussion on the need to retain this material in the lead and address it adequately. --Tataral (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found it and reverted it. We can certainly reword or trim the allegations section, but it would be encyclopedic malpractice not to mention it at all. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Statement in the First Paragraph

The first paragraph says that "many witnesses" denied Ford's story. This is completely wrong. One witness, alleged co-attacker Mark Judge, denies. Two others say they can't remember the party in question, not surprising since it's more than three decades ago. Please make the change. I am new and don't want to screw up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BugsyBeaver (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But Leland Keyser said she doesn't know Kavanaugh at all. PJ also said he had no KNOWLEDGE - that that he had no recollection. McDonaldsGuy (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

Currently the lead image is a photo from 2009. Wikimedia Commons has a pretty good photo from 2018.

  • May 2009
    May 2009
  • July 2018
    July 2018

Should we switch to the more recent image? Augurar (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'll probably soon have an official SCOTUS portrait to use. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't add a caption that dates the 2009 image, then yes we should certainly switch. This is not his personal fan site. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just wait until the official Supreme Court portrait is released. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Rreagan007|talk]]) 21:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Lets wait till his new official image is released as the latest member of the Supreme Court.--MONGO (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a more recent photo of him robed as a judge that could be used temporarily until the official SCOTUS photo is made available. The 2009 photo is dated even if the date did not appear because his image is well known due to the exposure he has recently received and the color of his hair, sans grey hairs, in and of itself, dates the 2009 photo.Pr4ever (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having a lead image that's from 2009 is a big deal, so let's just wait until the official Supreme Court portrait is released soon. I will note that Hillary Clinton's lead image is from 2009 also, and without an image caption stating that fact. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2018

change October 9, 2018 to October 6, 2018 on the swearing in section 65.190.34.101 (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

checkYDone. --Malerooster (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main photo

The 2009 robed photo should be replaced by a more recent robed photo until his official photo as Associate Justice is made available. Pr4ever (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mention the FACT that Dianne Feinstein withheld the information from the senate for over two months

Mention the FACT that Dianne Feinstein withheld the information from the senate for over two months. Stop the B.S. left leaning article and put the facts in here.

Please don't post your political opinions here, per WP:NOTFORUM. The paragraph in the article already makes it clear that she first approached her congresswoman in July and Feinstein forwarded it to the FBI in September. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not (his?) point. As I understand it, Feinstein, as Head of the Judiciary Committee, had the ability to include those allegations as part of the Committee's standard process and instead of doing that, she waited until until that part of the process was ended before making those allegations known to the committee. Whether she forwarded them to the FBI or not is irrelevant. There was already a process set in place for that committee to deal with those types of allegations and Feinstein chose to not make use of it. That's his point. Forwarding them to "the FBI" is not the same as including them in the information for the Committee to consider. Also, please stop accusing others of having a "political bias" when they make constructive suggestions like this. That's YOUR "political bias" talking right there, and not (his?).2605:6000:6947:AB00:492F:506F:FA3D:BC6C (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Mention the fact" is a constructive suggestion. "Stop the B.S. left leaning article" is political opinion.
Meanwhile, Feinstein is not "Head of the Judiciary Committee". She is the ranking Democrat, and as such essentially powerless. All decisions about what to do were made by the Grassley and the Republican majority. Yes, she could have called it to the committee's attention. She did not do so in July because the person making the allegation wanted to remain anonymous, and the committee would quite properly make short work of an anonymous allegation. Anyhow, if this level of detail about the process is wanted, it might be appropriate for the nomination article. It's too much (and IMO we already have too much) about the allegations. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2018

Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed, this needs to be updated. Theultimategoogler (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article already states that he has been confirmed and sworn in. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Kavanaugh quote- keep or not, rationale, Question for MelanieN

Hey, MelanieN I had my edit reverted, where I deleted the following sentence:

In his testimony, Kavanaugh said, he "got into Yale Law School. That's the number-one law school in the country. I had no connections there. I got there by busting my tail in college".

I disagree with your decision to restore it on the grounds of it being a long-standing, famous and controversial quote. The context of the quote did not imply that the quote was famous, nor controversial. This was the first time I read/heard that quote, and I believe it is out of place, requiring context you are assuming of the casual reader. In addition, one of the reasons I deleted it was because it was unsourced.

For these reasons, I believe it is best to delete the quote.

[edit: Is this something we need a poll for consensus for? thanks]

Neuralnewt (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice it was unsourced; I will source it. The comment became controversial in part because, in boasting about how he got there on his own, he ignored the fact that his grandfather had attended Yale, as well as that having attended Yale as an undergrad certainly gives one a "connection" to Yale Law School. No, I don't think we need a formal poll, let's just see what others say. --MelanieN (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few citations for you: [31] They include the Washington Post, Newsweek, etc. I found the full quote at The Atlantic, and will add that as a source while we discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with MelanieN that the quote is well-referenced and discussed. It illustrates his critic's view that he has a sense of entitlement and lacks self-awareness of the privileged position he had since birth. I think that it is an appropriate quote for the article, if placed in context. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, please let us expand on the "if placed in context" part you your comment. This is one of my main reasons for deleting the quote.
Another, more significant, concern I have is that I wholeheartedly disagree that the quote's controversiality is a reason to keep it, especially since you both say the reason to keep it is because it illustrates Kavanaugh speaking in a foolish matter (boasting, ignoring information, entitlement, lacks self-awareness of his privileged position).
I am not as concerned with the quote being unsourced as what it is being used to illustrate about Kavanaugh. The quote compels the reader to look between the lines and consider a statement Kavanaugh made, for the apparent purpose of putting him in a negative light. Neuralnewt (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, I am also concerned with another part of you statement. Is it Wikipedia's place to illustrate Kavanaugh's "critic's views"? If so, then fine, I agree with you it should be moved to a different context. If not, then I think it should just be deleted since it seems to lie at the fringes of Neutral Point of View, at best (particularly in the current context). Neuralnewt (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neuralnewt, the Neutral point of view requires that we explain why this person (or anyone else) is controversial, and it is difficult for me to understand how someone's own accurately quoted and representative words can be considered "fringe". Readers can take his words at face value, and I do not see that any unusual "reading between the lines" is required here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, It has been stated that (and I have learned) that his words should not be taken at face value because they have been demonstrated to be dishonest and possibly deceptive.
The quote is not fringe and I never considered it to be. I don't know a lot about controversies and I am not very political. My issue is that it is out of place, especially from the perspective of someone reading it for the first time. I also have an issue with how it is being used to demonstrate an aspect of his character without it being overtly stated.Neuralnewt (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, my primary concern was not that the quote was uncited. Now that this citation has been added though, I am more inclined to believe that the quote is out of place/ serving a purpose that its context does not align with (perhaps better. The quote, in in any context, shouldn't "make sense" to a reader (like me who lives under a rock) after explained to me.
See my other comments.
I appreciate this discussion. Neuralnewt (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason for citing it is not because it led to controversy - not exactly. We cite it because it was widely quoted. It happens that the reason it was widely quoted was because many sources singled it out to criticize it. If he had said something that was widely quoted for other reasons, we would still include it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, I agree that the quote itself is notable, however I do not believe that this "Early life and education" section is the ideal place for it. I think it can more reasonably be relocated to a section about the controversy itself (edit: particularly because it is the nature of the source itself). As I have learned, the truthfulness of the quote is in question, so it likely should not be taken at face value. The context in which the quote is embedded should reflect that. Neuralnewt (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, I now believe the quote itself is important and worth having in this article, but not in this segment. I do not like how a clearly controversial (and critical, and dishonest, etc...) quote has found itself in a context where none of which is implied. Neuralnewt (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting thought. Where would you put it? Under his testimony? --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, Okay sure, maybe this part wasn't too thought out but do you get my drift in regards to my other concerns? Neuralnewt (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Article appeared overtly skewed. I think the following should be given consideration in the Article

1. Brett Kavanaugh was added to the potential Supreme Court Justices on 17 November 2017 and many legal commentators commented at the time that Kavanuagh was likely to be the next pick. One example can be seen from this link https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/trump-adds-five-names-list-potential-supreme-court-justices/875983001/

The information in point 1 is important to be added as it gives an objective view compared to the following paragraph in the Article:

"When it became apparent that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of nominees but before his name was announced publicly, Christine Blasey Ford contacted a Washington Post tip-line with allegations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s, while the two of them were in high school."

2. The Article (right side summary) stated that Brett Kavanaugh is a member of the Republican Party. I believe such statement must be supported with real evidence and not just a report.

3. Rachel Mitchell was principally instructed on behalf of the Republican Senators in the Judiciary Committee to question Blasey Ford given what happened to Anita Hill and not for her to act on behalf of all the Republican Senators to question Kavanaugh. So the statement in the Article: "Her questioning of Kavanaugh was cut short by Grassley, after which the Republican members of the committee questioned him themselves" does not appear to be absolutely correct and should be removed or edited to demonstrate the facts.

4. The Article ought to state that Blasey Ford did not remember the venue of the house, did not remember how she came to the house and she did not know how she got back home given the detail provided about her testimony.

5. The Article failed to state that the limited scope by FBI which must be completed within one week from "current credible allegations" was made by Senator Flake which was thereafter affirmed by the Judicial Committee to the President of the USA. It was grossly misleading the way the Article reported it as if President Trump limited the scope and timeframe. A link to the matter can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/sep/28/kavanaugh-senate-committee-vote-live --TheLaw&Order (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for sourcing that Kavanaugh is a Republican, but his testimony made it pretty obvious ("this is a plot against me by the Democrats"). And his confirmation to his earlier position was held up for three years because of concerns that he was too partisan. As for the details about Ford's testimony and the investigation, they belong in the confirmation article, not here in his biography. As for Mitchell, she fully intended to question Kavanaugh and did so for the first several questions, after which the Republicans abruptly stopped giving up their time. I think Lindsey Graham was the first to keep his time and use it to make a speech defending Kavanaugh instead of questioning him. I will look for the source where I read all this but I actually saw television coverage of her first few questions to Kavanaugh. Apparently the Republicans didn't like the way things were going so they cut her off and left her sitting there looking useless for the rest of the session. --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC) P.S. Sources: she asked only two rounds of questions of Kavanaugh and then was effectively yanked by Republican senators who chose not to cede more of their time to her. Mitchell started off asking questions of Kavanaugh when he appeared before the committee, but not long after, Republicans on the panel jumped in with questions and comments of their own. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The points 1, 3, 4 and 5 above have not been given positive consideration. Under point 1, it should be included in the Article the date of 17 November 2017 when Brett Kavanaugh name was listed as a potential Supreme Court justice so that what the Article reported should be read with that in mind. Under point 3, the Article cannot state categorically what contract was made with Rachel Mitchell for the Republican Senators (by way of example the Article reported that the Blasey Ford lawyers paid for the polygraph whereas that information was only partly correct as the lawyers stated in addition "as per routine" meaning that Blasey Ford would have to repay the money hence the follow up question of her how would she repay the money already paid for her by her lawyers for the polygraph). Point 4 should be provided in the Article so that the readership would know the crucial missing information in her case. Under point 5 it should be clearly stated that the Senator restricted the scope and time of the investigation and not President Trump. TheLaw&Order (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

#MeToo movement inconsistencies

Maybe we here can on Wiki discuss this:

Are wee [wikipedia] caught between the moon and NYC? ~ 04:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)~ Bought the farm (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Bought the farm (talk • contribs)[reply]

Has anyone else picked up on this line of thought, or reported on Kellman's column? We base our coverage on the WP:WEIGHT of coverage by reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are few others that covered the Kellman article. It seems to be widely published... ~ Bought the farm (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Moment: Kavanaugh fury and tears show #MeToo flip side. "I am innocent of this charge," Kavanaugh testified during his confirmation hearing, as several friends and family in the audience wept. At one moment, tears streamed down his face. As Kavanaugh paused to compose himself, the crowded hearing room went silent except for the sound of journalists' cameras and keyboards.

https://apnews.com/a90a60840ddd47aaa4ea97c68fad5706

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2018-09-28/the-moment-kavanaugh-fury-and-tears-show-metoo-flip-side

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/the-moment-kavanaughs-cry-from-the-flip-side-of-metoo

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/09/28/brett-kavanaugh-metoo/

https://www.lmtonline.com/news/politics/article/The-Moment-Kavanaugh-fury-and-tears-show-MeToo-13265087.php

https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/article/The-Moment-Kavanaugh-s-cry-from-the-flip-side-of-13264422.php

many more examples, but maybe not considered a Wikipedia RS.. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are reliable sources all right, but they are not "covering" or reporting on the column; they are simply publishing it, as is normal with AP material. (The AP is not a publication in itself; it is a news agency that supplies material for newspapers to print.) It's still just all the one column. What I was wondering was if anyone ELSE has commented on the column or expanded on it. If not, it is a one-off, just one person's opinion, not particularly taken note of by anyone else. Beyond that issue, I see that we do not include in this article any of the widespread commentary about Ford's testimony or her emotions, or any mention of MeToo - so a single article exploring Kavanaugh's emotions and the "flip side of MeToo" may be out of place. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I notice, too, that we have a whole paragraph of Trump's comments praising Kavanaugh and dismissing Ford. We do not have a comparable paragraph about anyone supporting or praising Ford. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this; the article is about Kavanaugh, and Trump is the president. I'm just noting that the pro-Kavanaugh point of view already is well represented in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2018

In the section "=== Senate Action ===" please correct the time of the confirmation vote. It currently appears as: "On October 6, the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court with a 50–48 vote at 04:01:09 PM EST local time" This is inconsistent and confusing. Standard time was not in effect, so either change "EST" to "ET" and remove "local time", or change "EST" to "EDT" and remove "local time", or simply remove "EST", whichever is more consistent with time stamps in Wikipedia. 107.10.74.124 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually favor just leaving out the time. It's not important from an encyclopedia standpoint. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Rejected" the Allegations

Last paragraph in the lede:

"Kavanaugh rejected the allegations."

One does not "reject" allegations. "Deny" or similar is a better word choice. One "rejects" offers, proposals, propositions, etc...2605:6000:6947:AB00:846:6A0F:FABC:7263 (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator or Appointer

About 2 or 3 years ago, on a related WikiProject page (I can't exactly remember which), it was agreed to use Nominator, rather then Appointer in the infoboxes of justices & judges, for what the president's role was in the person getting on to a court seat. Though I've just noticed that over the last little while, 'someone' had been gradually changing 'nominator' to appointer' for the lower court judges? the Supreme Court chief justices & associate justices continued to use 'nominator', until today (concerning the most recent & current). Therefore, for consistency sake, can we again come to a consensus on which terminology to use for all these bios? GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation? We should delete the Nominator/Appointer field entirely. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been using appointer in the approximately 7 years that I have edited Justice/Judge articles. I have been engaged in a massive cleanup of federal judge articles since January of 2017. Where the infobox already existed, appointer was the predominant usage. I have changed usages of nominator to appointer and have used appointer when I added missing infoboxes to articles. I have processed all Article III lower court appointees from Lyndon B. Johnson through Obama and am currently on John F. Kennedy. So most likely 2,000 Federal Judge articles now use what I believe to be the proper usage of appointer. In rare cases where the nominator and appointer are different, both fields are used. My rationale is thus: Under the appointments clause, a President both nominates and appoints. He initially nominates and when he gets the advice and consent of the Senate, he appoints. Of the two actions, appointment is obviously more significant. For example, Obama nominated many nominees that due to Senate intransigence were never appointed. Also, our list articles are titled List of federal judges appointed by so and so, not List of federal judges nominated by so and so. I recommend using appointer (or nominator/appointer in those rare instances where it applies). Safiel (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer Appointer. This is the formal, Constitutional term. I'd only use "Nominator" if the outcome is uncertain or the nomination failed. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  13:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biased description of "alleged witnesses" in the lede

Mark Judge did not deny the assault in his sworn testimony; he said he didn't recall. (His denial was to the press, in sworn testimony he just says he doesn't remember.) The other two witnesses say the same. We need to fix this to say that "Kavanaugh noted that the three witnesses Ford cited sworn under oath that they did not recall such an event." Current version is very biased. BugsyBeaver (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the fourth witness was Kavanaugh. BugsyBeaver (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he semi-denied it: in a statement issued through his lawyer, he said he does "not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today. I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."[32] --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are kinda saying the same thing he is. That is not a denial it did not happen, just he does not recall it. ContentEditman (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the second sentence of his statement. That could be taken as a denial. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll have to look at what the secondary sources interpret it as; the cbsnews source says Judge was "denying any recollection" Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that commenting that Ford's alleged witnesses either contradicted her statements or said they did not recall such an event which is the version currently in the lead is WP:DUE; if we're including that then I'd reckon a sentence on the numerous alleged falsehoods/inconsistencies in Kavanaugh's testimony, which received far more IMO, but at-least as much coverage as that, should be included - I don't see that the other witnesses contradicting/not recalling thing has really been covered enough in relation to the allegations to be included in the lead. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can put the witnesses in the lede but we should specify that they say they don't remember. That's literally what each of them said, including Judge. BugsyBeaver (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should not put the witnesses in the lede. That's what the text is for. Galobtter makes a good point that we should go with what the sources say, not how we interpret his words. Of course Kavanaugh, and the White House, say the witnesses contradicted her. So if we are quoting them we can say it, attributed to them. In Wikipedia's voice (which I don't think is what we were using in the lede) we should say they said they had no recollection of any such thing.
Wait a minute - what happened? The article right now does not make any mention at all of the allegations, or anything about any controversy over his nomination. In fact the lede currently contains more information about his confirmation to the DC Circuit than about his confirmation to SCOTUS. That has got to be fixed. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Fixed. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage Texts

Deborah Ramirez and Brett Kavanaugh's Yale classmate, Kerry Berchem exchanged text messages with Kavanaugh's ex-college girlfriend, Karen Yarasavage before the publication of the September 23rd New Yorker article about Ramirez's allegations. [1] The texts indicate Kavanaugh had prior knowledge of Ramirez's story, earlier than he stated under oath, as early as July.[2] Kerry Berchem made multiple, unsuccessful attempts to submit the text message exchange to the FBI.[3] In one text exchange, Yarasavage wrote: "Yes, and Brett asked me to go on record and now New Yorker aren’t answering their phones!"[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historymajor1999 (talk • contribs)


Sources

  1. ^ Przybyla, Heidi; Caldwell, Leigh Ann. "Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public". nbcnews.com. NBC News. Retrieved 2 October 2018.
  2. ^ MYSTAL, ELIE. "Akin Gump Partner Is The Woman Who Has Texts That Suggest Kavanaugh Was Trying To Discredit Ramirez Story, Prior To Publication". abovethelaw.com. Breaking News Media. Retrieved 2 October 2018.
  3. ^ Simmons, Christine. "With Partners Coming Forward, Law Firms Walk Fine Line in Kavanaugh Controversy". law.com. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  4. ^ Liptak, Kevin; Devine, Curt. "How Kavanaugh maneuvered to win his confirmation fight". cnn.com. CNN. Retrieved 6 October 2018.

Please Add Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage Text to Brett Kavanaugh's Page

Can you please add the following to the newest Associate Justice's page, maybe in the "Deborah Ramirez" section?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historymajor1999 (talk • contribs)

Unlikely. Not unless it becomes a much bigger story. We follow the WP:WEIGHT of coverage by Reliable Sources. Right now these two women are still in the "who?" category. Maybe, if his actions and his later testimony on the subject become the subject of some future investigation, it will make it to this page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tip Line - confirmation process?

@GixxerSteve: You removed the piece about the timeline of her contacting the Tip line saying it was "under the subsection on the confirmation process". But there is no subsection of "confirmation process" in this page. Are you sure you have the right page or are you moving it to a new section called "confirmation process"? There is only a small piece about tip line under Ford but you removed more. Did you mean to move/expand there to condense the other part? ContentEditman (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Republican nuclear option

@QueenofBattle: regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kavanaugh&action=edit&undoafter=862952537&undo=862953015

It is not a POV that Republicans invoked the nuclear option in April 2017 specifically to enable the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations to advance to a vote, nor is it relevant that in 2013 Democrats invoked a limited nuclear option that specifically excluded SCOTUS nominees. The Dems didn't "start it." They were acting specifically to overcome Republican efforts to block Obama's federal judges from being confirmed, while acknowledging the importance of maintaining the supermajority needed to advance SCOTUS nominees. By contrast, Republicans went nuclear specifically with respect to SCOTUS nominees.

The edit should be restored to include "pursuant to a rule change made by the Senate Republican majority in April 2017." soibangla (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article already describes the nuclear option, in the "Senate action" section. The fact that the Republicans made that particular rule change (enlarging on an earlier precedent set by the Democrats) is TMI. Maybe in the nomination article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not TMI. The GOP made that change specifically to enable SCOTUS confirmations, and mentioning the April 2017 change without that context is TLI. soibangla (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they did. Just as the Dems earlier made the change to remove the filibuster option for all other nominees. IMO this does not need to be clarified in this biography. Let's see what others say. --MelanieN (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m with MelanieN. If it’s OK for Democrats to apply a political maneuver to circumvent a historical norm, but not OK for Republicans to apply the same political maneuver to circumvent a historical norm, I think that’s the very definition of a particular POV. Additionally, this is a BLP, so the various forks to the reliability of polygraph tests and exercising the nuclear option don’t belong here. QueenofBattle (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the Democrat invocation of the nuclear option has any relevance here in discussion of WP:WEIGHT etc; the insertion makes no judgements that I see to the validity or whether it was "ok" for the republicans to do it; it only clarifies what happened in April 2017 by adding that the change was "pursuant to a rule change made by the Senate Republican majority in"; no POV there that I see.
I think a reasonable case could be made for the inclusion, but it isn't mentioned too often in the sources (there are a number though, and they usually mention that it was done by the GOP); but I think if we're including when the change happened (April 2017) we should also include what happened then. This fact should definitely be mentioned in Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support it being in the Supreme Court nomination article, just seems to be too forky and not really relevant in the BLP. And, technically it was a bipartisan vote if one democrat voted for it, so the part about the Republican majority really isn’t ‘’technically’’ correct. I’m just struggling to see how it’s really relevant to the BLP of his entire life. I even see ‘’slightly’’ more relevance to the Gorsuch article since that was the first time it happened and since that’s what the RS refers to. That the Democrats did it for super political reasons for everyone but the SCOTUS, and then the Republicans applied it to the SCOTUS for super political reasons is making the gnat’s feet sore from dancing on the pinhead. His confirmation article, maybe I can see the relevance there, and the politics of the nuclear option article, absolutely see the relevance there, but how does it inform the reader about his life in a meaningful way? QueenofBattle (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing sentence

At the end of the 4th paragraph in the "Christine Blasey Ford" section, there's a sentence:

"In her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford said she could not remember whether she gave the therapist's notes to The Washington Post or merely summarized them for the reporter."

To me the only reason to include this detail would be if there were genuinely an open question on this point; otherwise it seems misleading. And as it says at the start of that same paragraph, the Washington Post reported that they reviewed notes, including specific quotes, that the notes say four boys perpetrated the assault while Ford says there were four boys at the gathering but two weren't in the room, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legbracesarecool (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Post reported that they reviewed the notes, but Ford later stated that she could not remember if she had given actual notes to the Post or only summarized them. So it's unclear whether the Post was reporting on the actual notes or on Ford's description of them. Augurar (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a rather petty detail. Is it really necessary in this biography? --MelanieN (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think portraying this as unclear implies something beyond what is known at face value here. On its face, Ford saying she doesn't remember means she doesn't remember. It doesn't mean that it's not really clear whether the reporting of a credible newspaper on a topic it described in some depth is false. I mean sure, on some level anything is possible -- maybe the article specifically states that they reviewed therapist notes, and also quotes directly from the notes, and also describes a discrepancy between direct quotes from the notes and Ford's story... but somehow it turns out that the Post didn't actually review any notes. Hey, you never know, right? But this seems like theorizing that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. To me this detail isn't necessary at all, but especially the way it's phrased + placement at the end of the paragraph, it comes across as implying doubt about whether the preceding sentences are "merely" based on summarizing, reads as not neutral.Legbracesarecool (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed redirect from "Kavanaugh" → "Brett Kavanaugh", & hatnote

I propose changing the redirect on Kavanaugh (with "u") to Brett Kavanaugh and putting the hatnote on "Brett Kavanaugh" {{Redirect|Kavanaugh||Kavanagh}} similar to the way Putin is a redirect to Vladimir Putin. There are only a handful of "Kavanaughs" (with "u") on Kavanagh (surname), all of which receive negligible traffic compared to "Brett Kavanaugh". If this is too bold, then I'd suggest adding a direct link to "Brett Kavanaugh" from the page "Kavanagh", similar to the way the disambig page on Snowden is set up. (I am posting this here to ensure enough people see this before I make any changes.) I welcome feedback.-Ich (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in Michigan we had two Michigan Supreme Court Justices named Kavanagh — Thomas M. Kavanagh and Thomas G. Kavanagh. A redirect of Kavanaugh to this Supreme Court Justice seems to be overdone. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind, I corrected the spelling of their last names; you had Kavanaugh. Just goes to prove my point, below, that most people don't really notice the presence or absence of the "U". --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Thanks for asking. I checked the last name of each of the other eight Supreme Court justices. For Roberts, Thomas, Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor the last name redirects to a surname DAB page. Alito and Gorsuch redirect to the justice. In Alito’s case, we have no other article about anyone named Alito. In the Gorsuch case, Gorsuch used to be a DAB page, but was made into a redirect to Neil Gorsuch in April 2017 following a move discussion. The Gorsuch DAB page lists only six people; none of the others are current or well known. The redirect page Kavanaugh goes to the DAB page Kavanagh, which then points you to Kavanagh (surname). That page lists 80 or 90 people named Kavanagh or Kavanaugh, including half a dozen spelled with the U. There is even a DAB page for the three people listed under Justice Kavanagh. I wouldn’t mind making Brett the primary topic for that redirect, but not Kavanagh or Kavanaugh. (I don't think most people are that tuned in to the presence or absence of the U; he probably gets misspelled all the time.) For the move you propose I think there would have to be a formal move proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The move discussion you linked to on Gorsuch was informative. I will consider a formal move request but based on your assertion that the U is largely immaterial, the solution on "Snowden" seems more reasonable. (I didn't check traffic statistics on all 80 Kavana(u)ghs, just on the ones with "u".) I agree with you about "Justice Kavanagh", which I find to be the most defensible proposal out of this discussion.-Ich (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I love "Kavana(u)gh". Little double meaning there for some people! --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh&oldid=863098485"