Talk:John Yoo

John Yoo cited as Professor at UCB since 1993: this seems wrong

John Yoo is cited in the article as being a UCB Boalt Law Professor since 1993. This seems impossible, but I can't find a definitive reference of when he was awarded this professorship. This definitive bio page cites a few facts:

• Graduated from Yale Law School 1992
• "clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit" (No dates given, but usually clerkships happen right after law school
• "general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee from 1995-96"

With those activities and dates (and missing dates) it seems highly unlikely that John You became a professor at UCB in 1993 (when he would have been approximately 25 or 26 years old)? I would welcome any input or factual sources as to when he actually became a professor at UCB. Stevemidgley (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Too much primary source content

Yoo's own writings are too often interpreted. The article should use reliable secondary sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese page in need of a citation update

The quote translation from the Los Angeles Times is inaccurate and biased. The hyperlink for that article has been updated. User:Eungjeonglee/Evaluate_an_Article Eungjeonglee (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

MP Rollback

@Llll5032 You reversed my changes to the main paragraph. These changes were stylistic ones and did not change the message or neutrality of the article. In short, they merely improved the writing. GuardianH (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the talk page discussion. How did they improve the writing? Do other editors think your changes to the top paragraph improved the writing? Llll5032 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No editors have commented on the writing, something which should not be surprising given the triviality of the changes. As I stated earlier, they were minor stylistic changes meant to smooth out an otherwise more difficult read. For example, I added "In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks," before "Yoo authored the controversial..." in order to give context to readers about what prompted the so-called "Torture Memos". GuardianH (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your rewrite is not trivial. Did you mean to delete that he authored the memos for the Bush administration? Llll5032 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I changed most of the wording back to the longstanding version of the top, which was more complete. But I incorporated some of your September 11 idea, and also simplified some wording about the "Torture Memos". Llll5032 (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not think your simplifications are necessary as you are simply re-arranging a sentence which already worked just fine stylistically. In regards to your first point concerning the triviality of my rewrite, I believe most readers will know given the date presented of when Yoo served as DAAG, hence the inclusion of "In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks" and Yoo's infobox. GuardianH (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears we both lack the WP:CONSENSUS to make some of our edits. Perhaps some other editors will weigh in. Meantime, I am in favor of keeping the stable prior wording, adding the changes we agreed on. Llll5032 (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul M. Bator award

Should the Paul M. Bator award that Yoo received from the Federalist Society should be included in his infobox if no third-party RS is cited? If the award is included, then should the infobox say that it was given by the Federalist Society? The infobox has named the Federalist Society since 2009, but a recent edit removed it.

Per WP:PCR, I think that if the award name is included, then the group that gave the award, which is better-known, also needs to be named. Llll5032 (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If it was an obscure prize with a redlink, the additional FedSoc tag would likely be warranted. But we already have a dedicated redirect to the Paul M. Bator Award which explicitly states it was established by the Federalist Society. I see no reason why we add the clutter when readers can view the link themselves. GuardianH (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The "clutter" you refer to is a two-word link to the better-known society that gave the award. Those two words were originally included with the addition of the award in 2009. Per WP:PCR, "When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article." Do any third-party RS about the Bator award omit the giver? Llll5032 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would they omit the giver? I'm sure they don't — and they don't. From a cursory look, they describe it with some introduction (i.e., the Federalist Society has awarded its...) and that's about it — no different from any other legal award. Also, I don't think any other recipients of the award with a page link add the FedSoc prefix, so seems to be a bit of an outlier. GuardianH (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If independent reliable sources always name the giver, then we should WP:STICKTOSOURCE and describe the award and giver how the RS do: "Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." If some other Wikipedia articles are missing a giver that is more notable than the award, and the giver is noted prominently by all independent RS, then the giver should be added to those articles rather than removed from this article. Llll5032 (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)