Talk:John Roberts

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

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Withdrawn by requesting editor. bd2412 T 23:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

John RobertsJohn Roberts (judge) – Too many notable John Roberts. No evidence this one is the primary topic. People are also interested in the actor and the journalist. I can't think of a perfect disambiguation for this one at the moment, so suggestions are welcome. Beerest355 Talk 20:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

  • You're probably right, but can you give us some evidence? --BDD (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • After checking some stats, here's what I found. I didn't look at every Roberts there is, just the ones the nom indicates people are most interested in.
  • The judge has 69549 page views in the last 90 days.
  • The actor has 21560 page views in the last 90 days.
  • The journalist has 10104 page views in the last 90 days.
  • The nominator didn't talk about this, but I feel it's worth noting: the DAB has 1823 page views in the last 90 days.
I'm inclined to oppose this proposal. This Roberts is Chief Justice of the United States and the page views pretty much favor him. It is a very common name, but that's not a reason to move. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no comparison. Pageviews are not the only measure. A Chief Justice of the United States is inherently going to be of substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than most any actor or journalist - and the actor and journalist in this case are not exactly a Laurence Olivier and an Edward R. Murrow. bd2412 T 00:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose being CJOTUS is a pretty big deal. The pageview numbers only reinforce that. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BD2412. A SCOTUS chief is going to have more enduring notability. Bms4880 (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Now I see why this is at the undisambiguated page. Thank you for your comments. BDD or BD2412, since you are administrators, can you close the move request? I'd like to withdraw it. Thanks, Beerest355 Talk 22:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wife's Roman Catholic affiliation.[edit]

Not sourced, not relevant (?), and maybe POV? Not removing it, but asking editors to evaluate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosware (talkcontribs) 01:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is sourced near the end of the cited NYT article, but I tend to agree that the way it is currently just dropped in, it doesn't seem too relevant. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Traditional" vs "Conservative" vs No Descriptor Included[edit]

As an uninvolved editor, I'm opening this discussion thread, in an attempt to gain consensus for one of these two words. There appears to be something of a slow motion edit war beginning to swirl over the wording, and I'd like to nip this in the bud, if possible. Note: I come into this discussion with a completely open mind, and am willing to be convinced either way. LHMask me a question 15:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Traditional" is quite apparently not POV, whilst "conservative" without a specific secondary reliable source for the exact usage might be considered POV. It is the onus of the person seeking that change to obtainWP:CONSENSUS for it per policy. See WP:BRD etc. BTW, this is not about a person being politically "conservative" or not but rather specifically about his approach to Federalism. Collect (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To play devil's advocate to your argument, how is "traditional" not POV? What I mean by this is, the opposite of "traditional" is what? Non-traditional? Isn't that, at least slightly, a POV-ish formulation? Meanwhile, it could be argued that "conservative" and "liberal" (or "progressive", perhaps) are simply descriptors. Taking off the devil's advocate hat for a minute, I guess what I'm asking is why you see "traditional" as "quite apparently not POV." While I can be persuaded to see it as less POV than "conservative", I don't think it's as obvious of a case as you present it to be. LHMask me a question 14:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I originally reverted the change from traditional to conservative because, on its face, the change was more POV than the existing word. However, I noted that there was no citation for either characterization or that there had been a change from the "past". I've therefore just changed the article to be completely neutral and just quote what he said in the interview. Unless we can cite something to describe his views in a particular way and that they had changed (from when?), we should leave it neutral and let the quote speak for itself. Anything else is WP:OR.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I can certainly see some advantages to this approach. I had considered doing so myself, but decided instead to open this discussion thread. I am also changing the thread title accordingly, to reflect the existence of three primary options. LHMask me a question 14:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As the editor who are the original change form "tradition;" to "conservative" I am fully satisfied with your edit, which avoids the use of normative linage (i.e. as if anyone who didn't accept Roberts views on jurisprudence or Federalism as being non-traditional. Well done. Lestatdelc (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Seizures / Football Captain Background, Americans for Safe Sports Example[edit]

i was going to use Chief Justice Roberts as a counter-example to the principle that tackle football damages the brain. But now, having glanced at this health section, and on the Understanding that it's credibly and properly reported, and verified correctly, i'm now missing a templar for an "Safe Sports America" counter-example on gridiron brain injury hazard. The last thing We need is any recurrent or lurking brain injury for the next and future Associate Justice Appointments.

This is absolutely not a point connected to the Chief Justice's extraordinary capability and well-known brilliance. This is only a note of concern about the dysharmonies of gridiron, and the long latency of its total deleterious effects. i was very much hoping this would go the other Way, and be an uncategorized but silent risk state, a Complete, 100% Harrison Bergeron case, and it's not. There's a recurrent idiopathic seizure being reported here, with a 60% prognosis of recurrence reported in this Wikipedia article, as of J015 - 09月28日. A fall of "5-10 feet" of the Chief Justice of the United | States, is a very serious Interanacional Security Incident. i don't know if it can be pinned on a Youth Athlete Review Herstory of Gridiron Football, but it's another, more dark and serious point of reconsideration on Gridiron (again, not the Chief Justice Selection, but the still-lurking epileptic risks). The last thing i want to see is the Chief Justice reporting that s|he'll need to retire early because of, or even as a partial result of a contributing factor, of Gridiron Decades Back. H|er brane integrity outranks all but a handful in the U|S. Exceptions might include the Governors, the President, the Speaker of the Hh|ouse, the Senate Leader, an Associate Justice the Chief Justice esteems and mentors as an equal, for succession optionality. That's about all i can imagine, with that last unrecognized and inexpressible by anyone but the Chief Justice.

This remark is wholly dependent on the accuracy of the Sources used by the Wk³ calm⁴unity, which i openly confess i have not root-traced, or even checked on a first-pass. i don't want to get trapped by a "citation lookup failure".. i know Wikipedia is reliant on regular root-tracings and calm⁴unity discussion. If the Sources unravel (i have some private doubts, at times, about the stability of this media environment.. i once changed the Semmelweis article, for example, with "learned helplessness" Seligman, et. al. "yoked-dog depression" causal mechanisms with a speculative "or" chain, and it persisted, and may still persist [the theory is very properly applied, and meets the evidence, but probably doesn't meet Wk³⁶ Standard, except thru my own Semmelweiss "amateur scholar" assertion of posthumous, inferential diagnostic applicability, and i lack a medical degree and psychiatry residency⁵]), this remains as a mark of concern for the hidden latency costs of gridiron, with Chief Justice Roberts returning to a perfect "Harrison Bergeron" Case, with an unseen black swan neurological plaque-up risk. (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)