Talk:James Robart

Should there be detail about the travel ban case, or not?

I had added a couple of sentences to the paragraph about the travel ban case with followup. I said that the State Department and Homeland Security were obeying the ban, that the Trump administration plans an appeal, and I quoted Trump's tweet which was specifically about this judge. My additions were removed by User:Sundayclose. I'd like people's opinions: should we include information about the current case? (It's the only reason people will be coming to this article; page views before yesterday were in the 1-to-2-per day range.) At a previous heavily-watched article I was involved with, about Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, information about the status and progress of the trial was included, as were the widely reported comments by Trump about the judge. This is a different case and need not be treated the same way, but IMO we do a service to our readers if we keep the information about the current case up to date. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thanks for raising the issue here. I certainly also would welcome and respect other opinions. My reason for removing some of the travel ban information is that it covered about one-forth of the entire article, which to me clearly is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. I also considered WP:RECENT; right now Robart is on the news because he's the one who started the process of what may be a continuing battle over this issue. After the dust settles, Robart may be one of several players in the judicial process. Executive Order 13769 is pipelinked for those who want more detail. If Robart plays a larger role in the days ahead it might be appropriate to expand the section. But this article is about Robart as a whole, and the executive order and the Trump administration shouldn't overshadow everything else unless he becomes more involved. Sundayclose (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I thanked Sundayclose for the edit and I endorse his/her comments here. The rationale is sound. – S. Rich (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

---

FYI: I added some content to the article—mostly unrelated to the travel ban, but also added a single additional sentence about Trump's reaction. I feel that Trump's response is significant, as reflected in the sources (see, e.g., New York Times: 'So-Called' Judge Criticized by Trump Is Known as a Mainstream Republican). I think it's historically significant, as the Associated Press article says: "While presidents have publicly disagreed with court rulings before, personal criticism of a judge is rare. The independence of the judiciary is enshrined through the Constitution's separation of powers, and judges are supposed to have freedom to decide cases impartially and without political pressure."

I don't think this will be super controversial (in light of the fact that it's one sentence, and because the rest of the article has grown in size too so proportionality/weight concerns are mitigated). But I wanted to explain my thought process at talk. Happy of course to discuss. Neutrality^talk 07:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

+1 to MelanieN. And +1 for User:Neutrality: adding one sentence shouldn't be super controversial. --Neun-x (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Neun-x: Why did you add to the section after you were informed about this discussion and asked to discuss here first? Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I confess: seeing that information about the 9th Circuit Court decision had been added, I rewrote it to make it clearer. Should I take it out? We actually seem to be evenly split here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thanks for asking. No, I think your clarification was an improvement. I'm more concerned with Neun-x's behavior in adding the same material twice and then deciding to come here and discuss after the fact. Sundayclose (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry. I had finished my edit and had just started checking it for typos and vocabulary (I'm not a Native speaker (German)) when the bell rang and a neighbo(u)r came to see me. After his visit I clicked the 'save'-Button, and after that I got that 'red bell' signal ('Special:Notifications') at the top of the page. --Neun-x (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Neun-x: "Don't worry" linked to your activity on the German Wikipedia???? And what was the reason you refused to revert your edit after I asked you twice? Another neighbor? Sundayclose (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Please don't badger the guy. He has explained that he wrote his edit before seeing the notification even though he submitted it later in time. This happens to me not infrequently. I suggest you drop it. It doesn't have anything to do with improving the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

thank you very much @MelanieN ! @Sundayclose: 'Don't worry links to a list that also shows 1,577 edits in EN.wp. I don't know in which time zone you live - I live in Germany; my edit shown above as "21:11" was 23:11 local time - overdue bed time. Until today I had guessed the discussion rules in DE.wp and EN.wp were quite the same - maybe they aren't . I still believe that my edit isn't/wasn't an expansion. This is an article about a living person; and articles about living persons need to be up to date,isn't it? Look: there was a short time when the change of the entry rules was only "Robart's work" (and he was the only one blamed by Trump) - since the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit it's the decision of those two judges; and Robart ist 'out of the cutting edge'. (bzw: In DE.wp, it is usual to ask for a 3rd opinion in those cases). In DE.wp, it is totally unusual to ask another wikipedian to revert his edit oneself - seems like a token gesture of self subjection to me. - Have you ever asked yourself what 'John Q. Public' would be interested in to read (i.e. in case he has been on a holiday for on eor two weeks and wants to update his/her knowledge) ? --Neun-x (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The detail you need for the travel ban is that he is and or has been a repeated foster parent of SE Asian children. Ideologically this is the key here. Enough detail here will provide the info you need to show that he is ideologically opposed to the POTUS John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@John5Russell3Finley : Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject . --Neun-x (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Doe v. Amherst College

I think notability of the Doe v. Amherst College decision requires further attention. I posted a cite to a reason.com article on the case. Reason.com describes itself as an alternative to left-wing and right-wing viewpoints. If we are going to find it biased, the same can be said of the Washington Post and New York Times. Athoughtforyou (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You should also note that the first "notable" decision in this entry only cites the decision. I cite the decision and coverage on reason.com. Another editor found a Boston Globe story on the case which didn't mention the judge's name, but nevertheless covered a decision notwithstanding the fact that the courthouse was all the way across the country. I contend this decision belongs among the notable decisions. Athoughtforyou (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been disputing this with Athoughtforyou. We are bringing it here for discussion. This is the item under consideration:

In January 2017, Judge Robart blocked an Amherst student's request to subpoena text messages from a person who accused him of rape because it would "would impose emotional and psychological trauma" on the victim. The Amherst student's request was part of effort to disprove the allegations made by his accuser. Those allegations lead to him being expelled from Amherst University in 2012.Court decision [1]

I have deleted it, twice now, on the grounds of lack of sourcing (so that it fails both notability and verifiability). One of the sources provided is the case report of the judge's actual decision; that is a primary source, and while it can establish facts it does nothing to suggest that the decision is notable or noteworthy. After all, every case ends in a decision. The other source provided is from the Reason Magazine blog and it does talk about the judge's decision. But I question whether this can be regarded as a Reliable Source. While Reason Magazine may itself have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (I'm not that familiar with it), the blog is not subject to editorial control and has no such reputation. In fact the item is an op-ed piece rather than a news item, arguing just one side of the case, and quoting an "expert" whose bias is evident from the title of the book he wrote. I did some independent searching for sources before I deleted the item: [2] I did find two reports on the case from mainstream sources: the Boston Globe and MassLive. Both are about the case itself, the student vs. the college, but neither one mentions Judge Robart or his ruling. There is nothing in those stories to suggest that a ruling on access to the text messages was even made, much less that it had any effect on the case or on jurisprudence at large. I concluded that while the case itself has a tiny bit of notability, his ruling does not, and so I deleted it as not benig a notable ruling. I would be glad to hear other editors' opinions on this matter. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued input. The case has been pending for about a year-and-a-half, and has garnered reporting in the Boston Globe. The main case is pending in the District Court of Massachusetts. This case was filed in Washington because it involves a non-party--the accuser--who moved there. Nevertheless, the case itself has been newsworthy and notable. (The fact that the main case is in Massachusetts may explain why Judge Robart was not mentioned in the Globe article you found. In fact, the matter pending before Judge Robart was short-lived.) As to your characterization of Reason, I think there is more oversight of the blog than you are aware of. The author of this particular feature is, in fact, an associate editor there. This ruling was also discussed on TheCollegeFix [3], which describes itself as a higher-education news website, run by the Student Free Press Association [4]. But, beyond that, doesn't notability for this purpose differ from notability for a Wikipedia entry? I've had entire articles deleted because the subject was considered not notable. Fine. I disagree, but that's a ruling made by someone else. Do you suggest that the same definition of noteworthiness applies to the sub-heading of an entry about a judge's notable cases? I would suggest that notable in this case is not subject to the same standard for whether an article merits its own Wikipedia entry. [5] Do you have any support for otherwise? Athoughtforyou (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

True, it doesn't have to meet WP:Notability because it is not the subject of an article, just a section. But it DOES have to meet some kind of, let's call it a noteworthiness standard, to be included in a list of "notable cases". I agree that it does not have to meet the strict standard of WP:GNG, but it does have to have received SOME coverage by independent reliable sources - enough to make it seem like more than just a routine ruling. As you now admit, the case before Judge Robart was short-lived. And based on the things that DID get covered by independent reliable sources, it does not appear to have been a notable particularly important ruling - except in the eyes of a few bloggers. --MelanieN (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)--MelanieN (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's what is a little frustrating. First of all, I didn't write the original insert about this decision. Someone else did, and another editor deleted it as unsourced. I put it back in, adding a source, albeit a primary one, and didn't support the notion that it "made headlines." You deleted it, saying that the only "reliable source" you could find didn't mention the judge. I then re-inserted it, removing the statement that the case "made headlines," thinking I was addressing your concern. You again deleted it, this time because of the primary source issue, so I then added the citation to the Reason Magazine analysis. Another editor again deleted the insert "for the same reason" as you did, not addressing the fact that I had added a secondary source. Now, you claim that the view of a few bloggers is insufficient to make the case notable. By continuing to delete the material, others don't know to come to the talk page, so it is hard to achieve a consensus. And, it's hard to fill out a sense of what makes something includable within an article. As we agree, notability for a stand-alone entry isn't applicable. The policy WP:Notability expressly says so, "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." So, we are left with some space between, for example, coverage in a traditional newspaper and coverage by, as you put it, a "few bloggers." I think you don't give the two sources (Reason magazine, where the writer is an associate editor, and TheCollegeFix, which is run by the Student Free Press Association) enough merit in their ability to consider certain decisions noteworthy. But, the fact that you keep deleting the information means others aren't likely to weigh in. Athoughtforyou (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I put it back, with a few edits. Reason is libertarian, but it has a professional editing staff. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs. Just because other news outlets have not printed anything on this does not mean it did not happen. It undoubtedly did, and Reason found it worthy of Note.Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It could be edited a bit more, but it should be in here. It's justified. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed because the section was riddled with errors. (1) The decision was in November 2016, not January 2017; (2) The institution is Amherst College, not Amherst University; and (3) most importantly, the decision was not based simply on the fact that discovery might re-traumatize the complainant, but was also based on the fact that (a) the complainant was not a party to the lawsuit; (b) many of the facts sought through discovery of the complainant could be obtained through Amherst; and (c) whether the allegations were true or false was not related to the federal suit. A fair description of the decision would read like this:

In November 2016, Robart considered the case of John Doe v. Amherst College, in which an Amherst College student who was expelled from the college in 2012 for sexual assault brought a lawsuit against the college. Doe sought to obtain an in-person deposition of the accuser (who was not a party to the lawsuit), along with documents from her pertaining to the night in question. Robart granted a motion to quash, finding that the discovery would be unduly burdensome and was not relevant to Doe's underlying claims, which were not focused on "litigating what happened on February 4-5, 2012" but rather challenged "the policies under which Amherst and its administrators conducted their investigation and review, whether the administrators in fact followed Amherst’s policies, and whether the process or policies discriminate against men."

That's probably the most brief way to accurately portray what occurred. I considered about editing the text to appear as above, but I think that would run afoul of weight concerns, given that this was one motion to quash (he didn't even have the whole case - that was being litigated in D. Mass.) and that the only secondary source we seem to have is a blog post with commentary (and not from a legal scholar, either). Neutrality^talk 18:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

References

I have been considering that I might be too hardline on this case and maybe could find a compromise. My initial objection was that the item claimed the decision had "made headlines"; I checked and found out that wasn't true. That's gone. My more recent objection is that the item as written seemed to imply, falsely, that Robart's refusal to allow the evidence led to the student's expulsion. No source even implies that. The rewritten item proposed by Neutrality (thank you) gets rid of that problem but creates an UNDUEWEIGHT problem. After all, in the discussion just above this one, people are saying we shouldn't update the paragraph about the travel ban case because it would be UNDUE. This detailed explanation of Robart's decision in the Doe case is much longer than the travel ban item was, and yet the Doe decision was not that big a deal - borderline trivial in my opinion. Basically he ruled on one small aspect of a case which in itself was not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The new proposed item does not make clear that he did not hear the entire case, just the request for a deposition. And IMO it is way too long and detailed. If we're going to mention the case at all, how about something like this:

In November 2016, Robart considered a request for evidence related to the case of John Doe v. Amherst College. Doe, an Amherst College student who had been expelled from the college in 2012 for alleged sexual assault, was pursuing a Massachusetts lawsuit against the college. Doe sought to obtain an in-person deposition and documents from the accuser, who lived in Washington. That request for evidence was heard in Robart's court. He granted a motion to quash the request, finding that obtaining the evidence would be unduly burdensome to the accuser and was not relevant to Doe's underlying claims. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Eagle Scout

It is incorrect to say that this man (or any man) was an eagle scout. Once you become an eagle you are always an eagle. I am an eagle scout know this for a fact. Why you don’t say someone was an Eagle Scout--Rusf10 (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "once an Eagle, always an Eagle" is correct; a person does not stop being an Eagle Scout upon turning 18. I actually changed it to "is" myself in the recent edit warring. On the other hand, I thought that the wording "achieved the rank of Eagle Scout" was a clever way of getting around the is/was controversy. I support that wording and think it should be restored. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"achieved the rank of Eagle Scout" is fine with me. Neutrality^talk 17:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the wording suggested by MelanieN. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"So-called judge" epithet

It's probably well-worth mentioning in the article that the President's questioning whether Robart is a real judge has now been publicly criticized by the very person whom he recently appointed to the Supreme Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.8 (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:Not news. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

References