Talk:Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

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

The lead[edit]

Kavanaugh has not pre-emptively recused himself from a number of potential issues. Why are Trump or Mueller related items highlighted in the lead? Seems like this should be removed, as it seems to go against BLP to highlight such a specific issue. I do understand this is a current event and likely changing rapidly. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


How many anarchists have been arrested so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

At least 277, according to the NPR source (article already updated with info as of a few days ago thanks to User:Leaky.Solar). DirkDouse (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Secret Feinstein document[edit]

There is an intriguing story emerging about a secret document related to Kavanaugh. This may need to be covered pretty soon as it seem like it's pretty serious.

- MrX 🖋 18:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:GRAPEVINE stories about a letter which nobody has seen which supposedly says some unspecified allegations that happened during high school and has supposedly been referred to justice. This is about as WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPCRIME as you could possibly get. If he is charged with something or the letter is ultimately released and derails the nomination, then that obviously changes things, but right now its just rumors and posturing. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
We'll see. Who said anything about a crime? - MrX 🖋 19:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Why else would something be referred to the Justice Dept?ResultingConstant (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Because the FBI does background checks. The allegation is covered in more detail here: A Sexual-Misconduct Allegation Against the Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Stirs Tension Among Democrats in Congress - MrX 🖋 15:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
don't forget that feinstein had this letter before the hearings and could have asked him about it עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. The two policies you reference (two of your three policies reference the same policy) clearly do not apply. The matter is quite reliably sourced to the likes of The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and Politico. The allegations have since been specified throughout much of the mainstream media. So WP:BLPREMOVE does not apply. Furthermore, as a judge, let alone one now nominated for the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh is certainly a public figure. So WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. This matter will surely end up in the article in some capacity or other. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed a lot of this out of the article. It runs against BLP and WEIGHT to have such prominence on these details in this article. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Prevalence of fake news/conspiracy theories surrounding the hearing[edit]

These two topics have received an incredible amount of media coverage and are certainly notable enough to warrant inclusion in the main article. Might flesh out at some point. In the meantime, dropping some sources on to the talk page here.

White supremacy hand signal coverage[edit]

"Abortion inducing drugs"/Kamela Harris[edit]

DirkDouse (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A number of these sources are not reliable and must be excluded. (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the sources being of marginal reliability, these two stories were a flash in the pan. Every maneuver and machination of each side (and each side's media) arguing and spinning can't be covered. ResultingConstant (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
how is cnn and the wapo unreliable and they can hardly be called the republicans side media עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
These were major stories that received coverage and discussion from media outlets on all sides of the political spectrum. The subject of general hysteria surrounding the hearing is more than noteworthy; one of the main subjects of the hearing. As עם ישראל חי pointed out, even major left-wing outlets were criticizing inaccurate coverage of false stories that were being circulated by a substantial number of media outlets (which is why I titled this section "fake news/conspiracy theories" rather than something like "criticism of media coverage"). If there are specific sources there that seem questionable, there are plenty of other sources that can be pulled in instead. DirkDouse (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In case of a 50-50 tie[edit]

Since Senators can abstain from voting shouldn't this article simply say "in case of a tie" as the vote could theoretically be 48-48 (unless 50-50 refers to percentages rather than number of votes)? Emperor001 (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

50-50 also refers to 50%.- MrX 🖋 15:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, I couldn't tell if the previous author meant 50% or 50 votes. Emperor001 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
changed it 50 50 tie when talking about the senate implies votes not percent and also all ties are 50% 50% so it would still be redundant עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Misc. Kavanaugh Images[edit]

Mostly from meetings with senators.

Had been hoping to find something usable for a photo of the hearings themselves, but didn't turn up anything useful with the appropriate licensing/copyright. DirkDouse (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't CSPAN be free? Volunteer Marek 18:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Breaking news / BLP concerns[edit]

There is currently one source (WaPo) with a new update regarding the allegations against Kavanaugh. We need to take extreme care in updating this article with respect to BLP and NOTNEWS about this information. Use this talk page before adding contentious material. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I added {current} tag to the article. KalHolmann (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed about the importance of BLP and NOTNEWS in general. But when it comes to the material that Mr Ernie has tried to delete most recently [1][2], this comment is mischaracterizing the situation. The fact that Ford had told her therapist and husband about the matter years before Kavanaugh's nomination makes the accusations much more credible and less likely to be a politically motivated atttack. Which is why numerous reliable sources (not just WaPo, but also e.g. USA Today, CNN and besides that also Fox News) are reporting it. It falls under none of the four criteria of WP:BLPREMOVE, by a long shot. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@HaeB: Each of the three sources you cite (USA Today, CNN, Fox News) merely rehashes the WaPo report. Mr Ernie's statement, "There is currently one source with a new update regarding the allegations…," remains in full force, and we must stay cautious about putting all our eggs in one basket. KalHolmann (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
"much more credible"? Only if you believe her story - this could just as easily be some sort of confused fantasy, or a lingering grudge that for whatever reasons she brought out in 2012. Let's stay NPOV here. (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: Each of these three sources have independently made the call to treat the WaPo report as reliable and notable enough to rely the information to their own readers, which is a very common situation in news reporting (also for a lot of other information cited in this article). I think the above comments are conflating this kind of situation with the problem that we encounter as Wikipedians in a case where only one particular news medium has reported a particular allegation and all others have stayed away from it giving it credence.
(There is an all-eggs-in-one-basked situation one need to be wary of, described at Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Syndicated stories, but it doesn't apply here - USA Today, CNN and Fox are all independent of WaPo.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Kavanaugh and the other witness there have denied this story. The accuser herself can’t remember where the party was, how she got there, or how she got home (and her therapist got the story wrong too). Can we not just be cautious with allegations against people? Let’s follow the model that we did over at Sarah Jeong. There’s currently one original source reporting this stuff, so let’s please have some patience. It’s the least we can do. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This kind of personal theorizing and assessing of the credibility of Ford risks into veering into original research.
I think including Kavanaugh's denial may be warranted though.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it "risks veering into OR". It *IS* OR. Volunteer Marek 00:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This comes right out of the WaPo article. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to the assessment, not to what professor Ford and her therapist said or wrote (obviously I didn't assume you were doing first-hand reporting there).
Also I don't think the WP:OTHER suggestion is helpful here. Supreme Court nominations are regularly considered among the most important and most scrutinized personnel decisions in the United States, and a couple of tweets criticized as racist are not the same as an alleged sexual assault or rape attempt. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Merging sexual assault content to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination[edit]

The matter of the alleged sexual assault is currently covered in three places at about the same level of detail: Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.

It appears likely that this matter will generate more coverage and therefore more content. Maintaining this in three places at once without contradictions is a WP:BLP challenge. I therefore propose that the matter is covered in the main at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, because this is the political context in which the matter arose and is discussed. The other two articles should each have a one-paragraph summary with a {{main}} link to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. Sandstein 06:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There would seem to be a similar model at Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination, Clarence Thomas, and Anita Hill -- where the subject matter appears to be covered in-depth in all three pages at the same time. Sagecandor (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
At least for now, readers looking for NPOV content about these allegations are almost certain to come first to Brett Kavanaugh, and that is where the detailed content should be. We should not expect readers to have to find the proper section and then have to go to another article to get the encyclopedic content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
At this hour, Wikipedia's Christine Blasey Ford BLP devotes only two paragraphs to the sexual assault allegation. As one of the top 10 editors of that page, I am confident it will not be onerous for us to accommodate subsequent developments without unduly weighting the article. Certainly we don't have to go into depth in covering Professor Ford's expected testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee—that is more properly a matter for Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination.
But I balk at Sandstein's proposal that the professor's page should be restricted to a one-paragraph summary with a {main} link. It is much too early to box ourselves into such an inflexible approach. I request that editors hold off on limiting in advance how the professor's page treats this important topic. Please, let's wait to see what transpires. KalHolmann (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, although it may be hard to implement in practice. I would also support from the standpoint of not having possibly divergent narratives in this fast-paced environment. To direct readers to the info on the controversy, this could be perhaps dealt with via a hatnote on both BIO pages, such as:
I do agree with Cullen that most people would be googling "Brett Kavanaugh" and going to the BIO pages; just look at the page view stats, the BIO pages vs this page: [3]. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, provided that we maintain a meaningful summary in the biographies.- MrX 🖋 11:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the content is large enough to crowd out other content and relavent to mulple articles, that says you need another article to me. I would support Brett Kavanaugh attempted rape allegation.Casprings (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this is going to be extremely difficult to implement. The information as it relates to the senate investigation should be at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, which can be identified as the main article, but it's going to be very difficult to remove from the other two articles, especially as it's also mentioned in both of the ledes. I also oppose creating a fourth article about this, as that will only exacerbate the problem. Bradv 13:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If there is to be a Wikipedia article for Ford (I am not convinced there should be due to WP:BLP1E, but willing to let it ride as we are close to her testimony), then this needs to be covered in some detail because (despite what some editors say) this is the only thing she is notable (form a WP standpoint) for. She wouldn't have an article if she were not involved in the Kavanaugh confirmation story. So this deserves coverage here and there. I do think the Bret Kavanaugh article probably should have a more abbreviated version of these events as it a smaller part of his overall story - though still relevant to him (and moreso if it derails his confirmation). Rikster2 (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - as the content grows then I think it will naturally get split up according to the sub-topic. No compelling reason to force it right now though. Volunteer Marek 14:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above recommendation for an article on Brett Kavanaugh attempted rape allegation. Sagecandor (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh are two separate people. I oppose consigning one individual's concerns to a subset of another individual's biography. As Casprings points out it may be necessary to create an article with a possible title of Brett Kavanaugh attempted rape allegation. But we will address the details of doing that if and when it arises. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for the time being at least. It's difficult to write an encyclopedia article for an ongoing event. Keep the other two articles as they are for now with a link to this one, add all new edits to this article, and then after the final confirmation vote we can go back and add to the other two articles. Emperor001 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As per usual, We cover this in detail - on the MAIN page for the topic, Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, and link form a paragraph here. Just as Sandstein suggests above. Reminding everyone that as Nina Totenberg just reminded me on NPR, at this point all we have is a he-said, she-said situation. And a BLP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When I commented on this thread earlier, I thought Sandstein's proposal, while premature with respect to Christine Blasey Ford, might nevertheless be appropriate for Brett Kavanaugh. However, since then two editors have backed an alternative article Brett Kavanaugh attempted rape allegation. I believe that would be more useful because it eliminates the middleman Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination and sends visitors directly to the sexual assault. KalHolmann (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Judge[edit]

Have started page Mark Judge (writer). E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Should not Mark Judge be mentioned in this article? According to Professor Blasey, there were three people in the room: Blasey, Kavanaugh, and Judge. Both Kavanaugh and Judge deny that this incident ever occurred. Should not this be mentioned in this article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
He should be linked from this article. But but to his career of a modestly notable journalist and author of 2 books that attracted some attention (they are about his alcoholism as a young man, and his recovery,) I thought it a better idea to start a page. User:Joseph A. Spadaro, feel free to go ahead and link it where you think it appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ford May Testify Either In Public or In Private[edit]

See here [4]2601:447:4101:41F9:9C29:D3:7532:FBA5, here [5] and here [6]. (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)