Talk:Brett Kavanaugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Devil’s Triangle Referenced as a Saloon[edit]

According to one newspaper, now archived in book format, the Devil’s Triangle is created in part by a saloon. Kavanaugh said that he thought the Devil’s Triangle was a drinking game. Any allegations of perjury or unethical conduct based on his response to the definition of Devil’s Triangle are of questionable merit.[2]

Sexual Assault Allegations[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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be investigated and no time limit should be put on this investigation.As the JESIUT said his nomination should be withdrawn these strong criminal allegations.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)

SunCrow deletions[edit]

@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)

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)
@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)
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)
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)

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)

Activist, you are entitled to your opinion. SunCrow (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed we are. It would appear that mine was well taken. Activist (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018[edit]

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

The article doesn't say otherwise. Sandstein 06:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

Confusing sentence needs grammar fix[edit]

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.

Polls[edit]

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

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)
@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)
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.[3][4][5][6][7]

References

  1. ^ The Deseret Weekly. Deseret News Company. 1891.
  2. ^ The Deseret Weekly. Deseret News Company. 1891.
  3. ^ Blanton, Dana (September 23, 2018). "Fox News Poll: Record number of voters oppose Kavanaugh nomination". Fox News.
  4. ^ Rakich, Nathaniel (July 18, 2018). "Brett Kavanaugh Is Polling Like Robert Bork And Harriet Miers". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved September 23, 2018.
  5. ^ Dinan, Stephen (September 23, 2018). "Kavanaugh support slips as public believes accuser". The Washington Times.
  6. ^ Hart, Benjamin (September 23, 2018). "Polls: Kavanaugh's Popularity Hits New Lows After Ford Accusation". New York Magazine.
  7. ^ Page, Susan (September 21, 2018). "Poll: Brett Kavanaugh faces unprecedented opposition to Supreme Court confirmation". USA Today. Retrieved September 23, 2018.


Discussion[edit]

  • 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)
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)
Those two don't apply, but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:USELESS do. -- ψλ 02:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Include, acknowledged by multiple sources including Fox News and The Washington Times. Sagecandor (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include, well-supported by the cited references, and an important facet enabling readers to better understand this nomination in historical context. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Omit as a needless amount of monitoring and work to keep up to date, unless it is clear that the poll is a snapshot for a specific date. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Include and Rewrite. Modernity is the wrong term, and means since the middle ages or since the 1900s (see Modern history, Modernity, Modernity (Britannica)). Also the source in July needs to be omitted. Harriet Miers needs to be stricken from the sentence, because the recent poll puts him even below her. What it should say instead is:

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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Documents: Law Library of Congress and National Archives[edit]

This edit [1] changed much content without explanation[edit]

The sourced Yale Law School call for an investigation was removed (I added this previously[2]). 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)

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)
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)
IMO it's vandalism. Nurg (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

UB40 fight[edit]

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

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)

I removed this bit from the BLP as irrelevant and undue - diff here. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: How is it irrelevant? It directly relates to Brett Kavanaugh. How is it undue? It received coverage in the NY Times, the Guardian, Slate magazine and far more. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Tend to agree. And what a lovely strong clear image of Mr Kavanaugh that is at Rolling Stone. A shame it's not available. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Polygraph tests[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

@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)

@Augurar: This is not about Polygraphs. Our opinions of them are not related to this article. ContentEditman (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
This page is not about Polygraphs, a wiki link to that page as QueenofBattle said is more than enough. The part I added was Kavanaugh's own ruling and this is Kavanaugh's page and a lot more relevant than your addition. ContentEditman (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@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)
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)

"In 2016, Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion for a unanimous three-judge panel of his court that polygraphs were an important 'law enforcement tool.'" Why does this matter? Sure, it's ironic, but Kavanaugh's personal opinion on polygraphs has no bearing on their efficacy.Lcduke (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Kavanaugh, so his legal opinions of them are very fitting. Esp when someone adds things about polygraphs to a page that is not about Polygraphs. ContentEditman (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah comes off really weird and trying to make a point. I think it is undue and should be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That's why I agreed with QueenofBattle that we shook just have the part she, Ford, took a polygraph not anything about Polygraphs that was added after. ContentEditman (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations - revisited[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
WP:NOTFORUM, and please discuss content, not other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Maybe take it down a tick there. PackMecEng (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
To put it mildly. PackMecEng (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The lead section[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
What do you purpose? PackMecEng (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
Well, and it was added as I wrote. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Is the exact hour, minute, and second really important? I already wasted my 1RR on one edit introducing that detail. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead proposal[edit]

  • 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Surely the Thomas thing deserves at least a link in the See also section? wumbolo ^^^ 08:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
That might be a good place for it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

This was the edit in question:[3]. 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)
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)

Lead image[edit]

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

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

We'll probably soon have an official SCOTUS portrait to use. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
I think we should just wait until the official Supreme Court portrait is released. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

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

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)
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)
"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)
So - general consensus for 'Feinstein withheld the information' is a fact, otherwise not. I'll offer just follow WEIGHT and include on the basis of what has WEIGHT of coverage on the topic. I'd say put it wherever discussion of nomination is -- which I wish was only the nomination article, but needs to consider for here since this article has a lot of nomination content. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
Here are a few citations for you: [4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. *(edit, I misunderstood, sorry) 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)
Cullen328, if I am being needlessly stubborn, you can let me know. I just want an earnest response and assessment of my concerns with having this quote. I hope I've made it clear enough fundamentally where I stand and why, even when I've not been the most articulate.
You have explained your concerns quite clearly, Neuralnewt, and I believe that I have as well. I think that the quote is useful but I do not think that it is essential and do not wish to fight about it. I am more interested in hearing what other editors think about it at this point. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Neuralnewt (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Cullen328, I first apologize for misunderstanding a part of your comment about fringe, and possible other inaccuracies I have not caught. I hope I can better articulate myself below.
I consider the quote to be at the fringe of Neutral Point of View because it evokes controversy/ a critic's view where the section (Early life and education) , nor the immediate context, does not. The quote, as you said, "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 agree with this statement, I do not like the man. But this is beside the point.
The quote is controversial on not only moral grounds, but also on the grounds of it's accuracy, which is a problem in and of itself.
These are the reasons why I am concerned.
Neuralnewt (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's an interesting thought. Where would you put it? Under his testimony? --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
MelanieN, I genuinely want you to comment on my concerns. Neuralnewt (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN, I think these are the best versions of the issues I have with the quote in the present context:
1. It is not a completely accurate statement and the context does not correct for the fact that he was a legacy student. This does not help the reader.
2. The argument for including it on the basis of it being famous and controversial when a mundane and impartial Wikipedian-written explanation would do. The context within "Early life and education" makes no comment on the famousness/controversiallity of the quote when (as it has been made clear to me) it is implied
Neuralnewt (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
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)
  • User:TheLaw&Order this might be better as separate threads, but (1) think reword to make it so; (2) I'm fine with either to just say Republican in the infobox or to not say anything; (3) you're correct this 'cut short' is an interpretation not stated so maybe just state she asked the first couple as 'why' it was so is speculation of motives and yes could we move a lot of this to the confirmation article instead of his biography ? ; (4) you need cite(s) for that, and attribution - I think it's been said prominently by Kavanaugh, Mitchell, and Trump.; (5) the request part should say what was requested ... claiming that Trump cut it short may have some WEIGHT but is just a spin. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

#MeToo movement inconsistencies[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
Reminder: WP:BLP applies also to Mazie Hirono. These are counterallegations, and really not necessary for discussion on this page beyond WP:POINT. --Calthinus (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2018[edit]

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)

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)

"Rejected" the Allegations[edit]

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)

Nominator or Appointer[edit]

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)

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

  • 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)
  • 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)
My reason for prefer 'deletion', is due to the separation of powers in the US government. In this situation, Judicial branch & Executive branch. However, I've no problems with accepting the usage Appointer. Perhaps, we can use Nominator for those who have been nominated but not yet confirmed/rejected by the US Senate. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I support appointer per Safiel (talk · contribs). The act of nominating a judge is not as significant as the appointment itself. Robert Bork and Merrick Garland were both nominated to the Supreme Court, but they never sat on it because they never were confirmed by the Senate and then appointed (i.e. received a commission from the President and took the oaths of office). Meanwhile, recess appointments such as those of Bill Pryor also require the appointer parameter, as if he was never confirmed he only would have sat on the 11th Circuit due to receiving a temporary commission (or appointment) from the President. The vast majority of lower court judge Wikipedia pages have the appointer parameter, and I support its continued use. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 00:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Biased description of "alleged witnesses" in the lede[edit]

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)

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

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."[5] --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage Texts[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)


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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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)

Tip Line - confirmation process?[edit]

@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)

Republican nuclear option[edit]

@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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Suggest removing sentence[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

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)
Seems like a rather petty detail. Is it really necessary in this biography? --MelanieN (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
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)

Proposed redirect from "Kavanaugh" → "Brett Kavanaugh", & hatnote[edit]

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)

Just in Michigan we had two Michigan Supreme Court Justices named KavanaghThomas 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
LOL, I love "Kavana(u)gh". Little double meaning there for some people! --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would support redirecting Kavanaugh here, but not Kavanagh. The latter should still go to the Kavanagh page, and people could navigate from there, via a hatnote, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a fairly common name among those of ethnic Irish descent, and this Kavanaugh is referred to in the media as "Brett Kavanaugh" enough that most people know to search his first name. Most Anglophones will know the name is common, I think, and will search using the forename. Unfortunately non-Irish Anglophones, myself included, inevitably struggle with the spelling of Gaelic names, so searches of Kavanaugh for Kavanaghs is going to happen (also, Kavanogh, Kavanog, the hypercorrect Kabhanagh I'm sure...). He is not the only major figure with the name, it has also been born by a king, a Eurovision winner, several members of national governments including several past multiple US senators... --Calthinus (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

President Trump apologizes to Kavanaugh on "behalf of our nation"[edit]

Here is some additional info regarding the Supreme Court nomination:

  • Trump apologizes to Kavanaugh on 'behalf of our nation,' says judge 'proven innocent'. In October 2018, President Trump stated during the White House ceremonial swearing-in for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, "On behalf of our nation, I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure," and added that the confirmation process was based on "lies and deception." He further stated "You, sir, under historic scrutiny, were proven innocent." Trump offered this "unusual apology" to the Kavanaugh and his family due to his experience during the confirmation process.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-apologizes-behalf-nation-kavanaugh-says-he-was-proven-innocent-n917956

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/president-trump-apologizes-to-brett-kavanaugh-and-his-family-at-ceremonial-swearing-in-as-supreme-court-justice

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-kavanaugh-20181008-story.html

~ Bought the farm (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Notable yes. Important no. --Calthinus (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Noted into the article ~ Bought the farm (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I've challenged that section, as it makes it seem like Kavanaugh was "proven innocent", which is patently false. I suggest drafting a more balanced statement here and gaining consensus before placing it in the article. Bradv 19:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah...the bit about being proven innocent makes no sense. There hasn't been a trial, so he is presumed innocent. It seems silly to include at least that bit even as an attributed quote when it's not even just wrong, it makes no sense. GMGtalk 19:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
If this was not clear, I think this addition was rather silly and pointless and support its removal. We do not need to record everytime Trump says something grandiose. --Calthinus (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yet we are compelled to do so. GMGtalk 22:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Brad, GMG, Calthinus, So are you're saying that when the president of the US makes a statement directly to the person that this article is about [ie: Brett Kavanaugh] is "silly and pointless" but the inclusion of accusations that are nothing more than partisan attacks should be included in a BLP? If Trumps' remarks during the swearing-in are not noteworthy in the article, how can unproven accusations by unreliable random women be? where is the balance? are we then to presume that he's guilty? ~ Bought the farm (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
He is presumed innocent under US law, and as the source points out in the very next sentence, the proceedings related to the confirmation were unrelated to a judgement of guilt or innocence. Would you like we should follow the source then, quote the president, and then immediately point out that what the president said makes patently no sense? Or would you rather omit the bit? GMGtalk 13:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
President Trumps' empathy for this man is worth note. Negative bias editing on Wikipedia is deplorable. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
To include a quote about innocence is misleading without the clarifying additions in the source. To include the quote about innocence, only turn around and immediately point out that it makes no sense seems to me to be a more biased presentation than omitting it all together. GMGtalk 13:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
So we can edit it to not include that statement. As the links state, it was unusual for this apology 'on behalf of our nation' to be done.
  • On October 8 2018, President Trump stated during the White House ceremonial swearing-in for Supreme Court Justice, "On behalf of our nation, I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure," and added that the confirmation process was based on "lies and deception." Trump offered this "unusual apology" to Kavanaugh and his family due to what they experienced during the confirmation process. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on the remainder either way really. GMGtalk 13:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I do. Oppose. I think this is a superfluous addition that does nothing to enhance the quality of the article. Trump said something that was 100% predictable and unsurprising. How is that relevant to a biography about someone who is not Trump? It probably wouldn't even qualify for inclusion in our article about Trump. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Anachronist. Leave it out. Maybe include it in the "nomination" article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Tke Wiki article, which includes the Allegations of Sexual Allegations is very slanted and misleading to this man's BLP. OK, I'll propose Trump's apology to Kavanaugh on "behalf of our nation" on the nominations page. Let's just to move forward. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable bias[edit]

Wikipedia's definition of "Neutral Point of View" is "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

This article cites well over 80 sources from biased media publications which are written as opinion, but cited as fact, with editorial bias appearing in the Wikipedia article. 11 are from CNN, 9 from NBC, 3 from CNBC, 26 from The Washington Post, 3 from the Huffington Post, 30 from The New York Times, 1 from The Los Angeles Times, 1 from BBC. This article is devoid of a Neutral Point of View as Wikipedia defines. Wikipedia's guidelines on this issue are "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Wikipedia defines editorial sources as follows:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).[6]

-When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8] -Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. -Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. With regard to biomedical articles, see also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). -The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. -Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.[notes 3] -Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. -Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source. -Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies. -Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.

This article needs to be completely re-written with unbiased sources by authors who can objectively describe the events of the Supreme Court Nomination. Shame on Wikipedia for letting it get this bad. Absolute SHAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2445:9800:40D8:C5BE:9D7E:BC4C (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Among the many problems with this rant, your definition of "neutral" clearly disagrees with Wikipedia's. Bradv 01:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It was copy and pasted From Wikipedia's own pages on the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, so you're wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2445:9800:40D8:C5BE:9D7E:BC4C (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could point out specific instances of NPOV violations so we can address them. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018[edit]

Brett Kavanaugh was very famous in 2018 for a rape case 115.113.36.169 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done. It is not clear what is to be changed or added, and where. Please formulate a request in the form "change X to Y" or "add this sentence X after Y" and cite reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Federalist Society[edit]

Not sure whether moving the sentence back into its own section is a violation - can someone take a look and let me know on this Talk page? Self-reverted to avoid possibility. Anyway, Kavanaugh's life-long (speaking about his professional life) membership is not miscellaneous facts and/or trivia, especially considering the fact that now five of the nine judges are members. Comments, opinions? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

For reference they are refering to this and I moved it out of it's own section and combined it into the personal section here. There is no reason to have a one sentence section on something like that. It does not have to be in the personal section, but certainly not on it's own. That gives way to much weight to something like that. Side note, when you tried to fix it you duplicated the information here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's worth including in the article, but not in its own section. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
something like that? Please explain. They're not the Rotary Club or the PTSA, they're a professional organization with - currently - a firm grip on putting judges on all federal courts, including the SC with 5 Federalist Society judges. That's not "personal" life at all. It does not have to be in the personal section, but certainly not on it's own. If not one or the other, where? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Something like that could be almost anything, one sentence sections are generally a waste, promote something that is generally undue, and bad form. If you feel it could go somewhere other than personal that is fine, but personal was best fit I saw since there is no info on what he did for the federalist society and it fits with his register as republican stuff. It could also maybe goto early life and education section as well if you like. PackMecEng (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Early life and education from the age of 23 to 53? Shade.png This was reported in the last 24 hours: Kavanaugh’s fellow Federalist, SC Chief Justice Roberts, today referred the ethics complaints against Kavanaugh to another fellow Federalist, Chief Circuit Judge [Timothy Tymkovich] of the Tenth Circuit. I'm signing off for today. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The early life section goes all the way to 1990, and he joined the federalist society in 1988 according to the source. So why not? PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would put this in the section Brett_Kavanaugh#Early_legal_career_(1990–2006), as it's much more relevant to his legal career rather than personal life. I.e.: Kavanaugh joined the Federalist Society in 1988 and has been a member since..." or something like that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah but he was still in school at the time. Before his career started. PackMecEng (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Kavanaugh’s been a member ever since. In the Bush administration, "he held a key position that involved judicial appointments," which included the appointments of Federalist Society members iRoberts and Alito to the Supreme Court as well as about half of the judges appointed to the courts of appeals (Slate - see link below).
The Federalist Society developed from an organization for conservative law students to a nationwide organization of conservative lawyers "funded by a number of powerful, wealthy conservative organizations, which eventually included foundations associated with John Olin, Lynde and Harry Bradley, Richard Scaife, and the Koch brothers," including the Mercer Family Foundation with - for example - a whopping $2.5 million in 2014 that wasn’t publicly disclosed but, of course, the Mercers had to disclose it on their 990-PF, as published by the NY Times. According to the Alliance of Justice they are "engaged in identifying and recruiting for judges candidates who are ultra-conservatives—who are opposed to our rights and liberties across the board, whether it’s women, the environment, consumer protections, worker protections." Their exutive vice-president Leonard Leo says they’re "…not a club, we’re a movement." New Yorker All of the judges on Trump’s short list were picked by the Federalist Society for being Federal Society loyalists Slate.
Running marathons or church activities are his private life, Kavanaugh's engagement in and for this "movement" is not. I moved the sentence from the "Personal life" section into "Legal Career" (I removed the "Early" in a prior edit - 16 years of early legal career until age 41, including several years as associate counsel at the WH, is his entire legal career before he got appointed to the judiciary), added the bit about his work in the Bush administration, and made it a subsection. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No proof is necessary to accuse somebody[edit]

This is not a forum, and Tucker Carlson is not a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In October 2018, ABC's The View broadcasts a new opinion regarding sexual assault allegations: No proof is necessary to accuse somebody of Sexual assault. "More often women are correct." While in court - jurists are still obliged to assume innocence. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC) citation: Tucker Carlson | Fox News broadcast, October 11, 2018

Bought the farm, can we focus on things related to the life and career of Brett Kavanaugh? I see no reason to bring this up here. Bradv 00:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe not here, but notable for what the broadcast media is now proposing. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Bradv 00:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Looked at it. Thanks! If the justice is presumed innocent of the allegations, by law, why is wiki publishing allegations on a BLP? If all jurists are obliged to assume innocence, why does this article contain all the horrible allegations? Where is the balance????? a WHITEWASH ?? I suggest a deplorable BIAS regarding this man here on Wikipedia.... ~ Bought the farm (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The allagations were on national and international news organizations for days. It's notable. If you want more balance, maybe start a Brett Kavanauge header in the "Sexual assault allegations" section that contains his POV. He held an interview, had a hearing, and released several statements proclaiming his innocence that were covered by the media also. Ward20 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, it's just time to fix this wiki article, that is propagating a really horrible representation of a "highly qualified man." Documenting un-corroborated accusations should not be the standard. Many wiki RS are BIASED against the Trump agenda and Justice Kavanaugh. MelanieN, do you have an opinion?? ~ Bought the farm (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)