Talk:Amy Coney Barrett/Archive 1

Categories
Given that her Catholic faith contributed to a defining moment in her confirmation hearing and thus her notability, who will agree that she is eligible for membership in Category:American Roman Catholics? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Feinstein made it WP:DUE when she made that rookie blunder and criticized Barrett's faith.– Lionel(talk) 22:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 5 July 2018

 * Please add Category:American Roman Catholics per WP:EGRS. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fish +Karate 13:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

dupe ref
Last reference in current version is a dupe of #10, and missing title: "Some Worry About Judicial Nominee’s Ties to a Religious Group".198.58.163.19 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Changed. O3000 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

semi-protected edit typo
Under heading "Federal judicial service" 2nd paragraph this line:

"The controversy focused on whether lines of questioning violated the the U.S. Constitution's No Religious Test Clause."

There are two "the" words, only one is necessary. I would recommend it be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0a0x0e0 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC+5.5) (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 06:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Empty section
To date, there is no information in the article on Barretts tenure on the Court of Appeals. I have created a subsection on her tenure and tagged it as empty. SunCrow (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Amy Coney Barrett.png

False: "She seems extreme and is not too bright."
"She seems extreme and is not too bright." is not factual. It is false opinion, bias, invective and violates Wikipedia's policies and should be removed immediately. What she seems to any writer is not factual. Anyone who has read anything this woman has written knows this statement is false. Whatever the writer's political differences, is is not cause to mislead our readers. Dbldomer69 (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is vandalism. It has been removed and the page has been protected. KidAd   talk  20:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

RV judge infobox
saw you removed the judge infobox. All ok?Bjhillis (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me to post about that here. The article subject contacted the Oversight list about the unsourced public addition of her birthdate. Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, I've suppressed it.
 * You're fine to add the infobox back if that's supported by consensus, but do not add the birthdate again without multiple reliable sources, and even then we'd ask you respect the subject's wishes and concerns. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 21:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. No need to include a DOB given request.Bjhillis (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2018
CHANGE Feinstein's line of questioning was criticized by some observers and legal experts while defended by others. During her hearing, Barrett said: "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."

TO Feinstein's line of questioning was criticized by some observers and legal experts while defended by others ; nevertheless, any discrimination of an applicant based on religion is well settled law and illegal under 42 USC 2000e-2. In defense, during her hearing, Barrett said: "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law." Wiki Start 12-30-17 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This would be original research. It's also more than a stretch. O3000 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous overkill
It was not necessary to revert back to oversight the birth date. All that had to happen was to remove the birth date and then oversight any revisions that had the birth date in it. Much productive work on this article was destroyed due to the errant manner in which this oversight was conducted. Safiel (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

In any event, I clean up the mess. Safiel (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The sole problem was that the full birth date needed to be removed and oversighted. It should not have been done the way it was done, it could have been done with FAR less disruption. In any event, I have restored the infobox, with year of birth only, and have fixed most of the damage that was done by the massive rollback. Safiel (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Same thing happened at Kevin C. Newsom page. To avoid any issue, I removed dob from the 20 or so pages of living persons (judges, lawyers, law professors) I had infoboxed.Bjhillis (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Date addition
Hi I added the birth date of Judge Barrett a few hours ago which was initially deleted (for lack of sources), after which I added a source for that. After that, my edit was reverted, mainly due to higher privacy standards for living persons which specifies that the birth date has to be "widely published." I found another source verifying her birth date from Martindale-Hubbell an information services company that openly provides which provides background information on lawyers and law firms in the United States and other countries (link: ) Does this source match the "widely published criteria?" Surely if her birth date is on a open website that many people in the legal profession use on a daily basis, it could possibly be considered as being "widely published." --Daffy123 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation.
 * Hmm. My understanding of the requirement—that the birth date have been widely published in reliable sources—is that it contemplates material that's gone through some sort of formal editorial process. Cf. WP:Verifiability § What counts as a reliable source ("The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people . . . ."). It looks to me like Martindale-Hubbell's online database is built in at least in part from user submissions; are you familiar with its verification process? Does it conduct follow-up interviews, verify documentation, or confirm the identity of those submitting attorney profiles? If it doesn't, it probably runs afoul of WP:UGC ("Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable."), which would make it unsuitable for supporting any fact, not just sensitive information about a living person.
 * However, reliability may be a moot point here, since the policy appears to require (or does it merely encourage?) that the wishes of subjects be respected in this matter: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." As noted above, the subject complained at one point. Rebb  ing  16:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that the birth date (not year) has been suppressed at the subject's request, when the birth date is so readily available from public documents. In any event, should she be nominated to the US Supreme Court, any question of whether her birth date be included would certainly be over.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Relevance, and WP:OR
The appearance of the statement, at the close of the section on Education and Career, addressing the title subject's admission to the bar in Washington, D.C. but not in Indiana raises enough questions in this reader's mind—e.g., what is the relevance of the latter choice to include Indiana?—to be driven to the listed sources... only to find that this statement's appearance constitutes a clear case of original research by the editor(s) involved. This is true both in sourcing the factual statements in primary data sources rather than secondary reports, but also in the more subtle matter of relevance, wherein the WP editor (rather than published authors) chose to elevate the subject's inability to appear in just one state, and to do so without further explanation (which, absent secondary sources, one is left with no recourse to understand). Hence, despite being reasonably well placed geographically and reasonably well informed to understand, I remain flummoxed. An additional irritation is that the report of the credentials, positive and negative, appears without any "As of..." date, as if such qualification are decided once, and only once (and for all), in a career. All in all, confusing, and laughably non-encyclopedic. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:4514:62FA:9B60:4E4C (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The bar admittance stuff did seem like WP:OR, and I removed it. We would need to find a secondary source discussing where she is (or isn't) admitted to the bar. Marquardtika (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Stare Decisis, Barrett, and Roe

 * If Barrett is nominated to the US Supreme Court, I wanted to flag that there is likely to be a significant debate in the editing of this article regarding her views and scholarship on the legal rule of "stare decisis," i.e., following prior legal precedent. This all ties closely to Roe v. Wade (1973), because in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the constitutional right of a woman to choose an abortion (per the holding in Roe) was upheld in part because the Court (or some of the court?) believed that past precedent should not be lightly disregarded.  It appears that the main focus of Barrett's legal scholarship as a professor has been exploring how stare decisis intersects with Constitutional issues -- and basically what I can discern is that she believes honoring precedent can be unconstitutional when due process concerns are raised, i.e., it can be viewed as a blueprint for how Roe can (and should, under her analysis, though not explicitly stated) be overruled.
 * To date, however, I do not find mainstream news reporting that explains her scholarship in this area. So I refrained today from editing the article on this area.  Advocacy groups on the left have noted some of it.  But obviously we want to use mainstream news reporting whenever possible to avoid allegations of bias.  It is pretty clear to me that Barrett believes it her Constitutional duty to vote to overrule Roe if the question was presented to her, but my armchair non-legal view is not encyclopedic. She said more or less the opposite.
 * Her scholarship in this area includes:
 * Stare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003) ("if a litigant demonstrates that a prior decision clearly misinterprets the statutory or constitutional provision it purports to interpret, the court should overrule the precedent")
 * Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 83, No. 3, 2008 ("pausing to reflect upon the variety of ways in which nonjudicial actors have, over time, registered their disagreement with decisions of the United States Supreme Court.")
 * Precedential and Jurisprudential Disagrement, 97 Texas Law Review 1711 (Volume 91, 2013) ("the public response to controversial cases like Roe reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor ...")
 * Originalism and Stare Decisis, 92 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1921 (2017) ("The question whether stare decisis is compatible with originalism has occupied both originalists and their critics.")
 * --Milowent • hasspoken 17:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. There can only be a "neutrality" issue when available reliable sources are not balanced. Since by your own admission there are no sources for the issue you are raising ("I do not find mainstream news reporting") there is no POV issue. There are no grounds for the tag. – Lionel(talk) 02:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because Snoogans failed to start a discussion as required when tagging an article I thought this discussion was for the POV tag. – Lionel(talk) 22:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Lionel, no problem! I would be somewhat surprised if Barrett is the nominee now.  The NYTimes interviewed pro-choice Republican senator Susan Collins, and unless she chooses to be blind to it, she could not vote for Barrett based on her scholarship regarding precedent and Roe.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP and adding "Handmaid" to this article
To shoehorn a reference to fiction into a serious topic is to underscore why wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. You think Encyclopedia Britannica would do that? Wiki's main advantage is more articles. The disadvantage is poor quality whenever politics or social issues are involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:CB81:3770:C513:7C87:E86:DB7B (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed recently added text saying that Barrett is a member of a group which assigns Handmaids to members. Per sources, they were spiritual advisors assigned to some members (no indication regarding whether applies to Barrett) and it's not clear if the group currently uses the term handmaids. Seems this might be intended to confuse or perhaps even inflame readers regarding The Handmaid's Tale (TV series) and we need to be careful regarding WP:BLP. To say that the Handmaid thing is intended to import the book or show into peoples' thinking is the understatement of the century. If wiki does that, it's totally lost. General information regarding People of Praise should be added to that page. DynaGirl (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is sourced to the New York Times. Are you saying that the New York Times is not a WP:RS? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, please see above comment. That's clearly not what I'm saying. DynaGirl (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to be clearer then. You seriously can't be calling for the exclusion of reliably sourced content because some readers might confuse the religious group's use of "handmaids" (per RS) to the Handmaid's Tale? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to National Review and other news outlets  the NYT article was a politically motivated "hit piece" and we need to assess whether or not it is WP:DUE for a BLP article. Not everything that is printed is suitable for a WP article.– Lionel(talk) 22:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Two op-eds criticize the NY Times article without identifying any inaccuracies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the RS noticeboard. Perhaps this discussion will clarify whether an obscure rag called the New York Times is a reliable source or not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Well the NTY article is getting some coverage now, , , .Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the paucity of material on the subject, the fact that she is now in a bright spotlight, the implications of strongly held religious beliefs in the SCOTUS, and the fact that this was an article in the NYT that is garnering attention; I don’t see how this can be considered UNDUE. And, we can’t omit words from an encyclopedia because they were also used in some TV series. O3000 (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Add to the People of Praise article absent any source that Amy Coney Barrett personally had an advisor termed a handmaid. Currently there's no mention of handmaids on their wiki page. Sources aren't even clear on if People of Praise still uses that term for anyone but tend to agree that clarification of use and history of that term for that religious group is encyclopedic. DynaGirl (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No-one has argued NYTimes isn't a reliable source so it doesn't really make sense to bring it to the reliable source notice board. The issue is BLP. There's currently no source that says Barrett had a spiritual advisor called a "Handmaid" and sources aren't even clear on if People of Praise still uses that term for anyone. Of the four new sources linked above, one doesn't mention Handmaids at all. Two describe People of Praise using the term in the past and one calls the NYTimes piece a "politically motivated hit piece". DynaGirl (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) It's already been pointed out to you that the text at no point said that Barrett had a handmaid. Stop misrepresenting the disputed text. (2) You can't claim that "No-one has argued NYTimes isn't a reliable source" while in the same comment arguing that the NYTimes piece is a "politically motivated hit piece". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wish to convince that you are not arguing the NYT is not RS, then you should probably stop using the term “politically motivated hit-piece” which suggests otherwise. The fact that one of five sources doesn’t mention handmaids would seem to mean that four do. Doesn’t that argue for DUE? The article didn’t say she had a handmaid. It said she was a member of an organization that swore an oath to have one. I think we’ve all agreed that this came from a reliable source. I simply don’t see a not DUE argument. Now, if you wish to add some balance in addition to the NYT piece, then that’s another matter that could be discussed. O3000 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen zero editors arguing NYTimes isn't a reliable source. One of the reliable sources linked above did argue that one specific NYT article was politically motivated and a "hit piece". This is clearly a BLP issue not a RS issues. An editor is attempting to add "handmaids" which is currently a very charged term to Barretts BLP. If the content is in regards to People of Praise, not Barrett specifically as seems to be the argument above, why not add it to People of Praise's page instead of this BLP? That page currently doesn't mention handmaids at all. DynaGirl (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Both you and Lionelt have characterized the NY Times article as "a politically motivated hit piece" (i.e. an unreliable source). Marquardtika claimed that the NY Times article contained "unsupported insinuation". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't speak for Lionelt but I've just pointed out that one of the reliable sources recently linked above by Slatersteven describes that particular NYT article as politically motivated and a hit peace. I've repeatedly stated this is a BLP issue not a RS issue. DynaGirl (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an op-ed in the National Review. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically what you are saying is that no one is arguing that the NYT is not RS, but we can’t use this article because it’s a politically motivated hit piece, which is to say the source is not RS. An opinion piece opined that this article was a hit-piece. That doesn’t make it unusable. The argument that the term is also used in a piece of fiction on Hulu and that could cause confusion is mighty weak. The term is defined in the text and we can’t hold the hands of all the readers. If the term should also be added to another article, that’s a matter for editors at that article. O3000 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's clearly not what I'm saying. I've stated this clearly already but I guess I'll repeat it again. This is a BLP issue not a RS issue. There's no reliable source saying Barrett specifically had an advisor termed a "Handmaid" so there's no reason supported by WP:BLP to add that negatively charged term to her BLP. The sources aren't even clear if People of Praise still uses that term for anyone, but it seems the use, history, and evolution of that term for that group would be interesting and encyclopedic on the People of Praise wiki page. DynaGirl (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP requires that a source be high-quality (it is) and if it’s challenged, that it is supported by an inline citation (it is, but in the preceding paragraph). This material is not titillating or tabloid in nature and is relevant to her position. In an abundance of caution, I think we can repeat the inline citation, change handmaid to woman leader as this sect has done so, and add testimony from the subject.

The deleted text:

Suggested text:

O3000 (talk)

A couple thoughts on the conversation above:

1. Whether or not a publication is a reliable source - with regards to specific facts - is a separate matter from whether or not an individual article is a "hit piece." A hit-piece can consist completely of factually accurate information, but selectively present and spin it in such a way is to be very one-sided, and sometimes even misleading.

2. Some of the commenters above seem to be intentionally missing the distinction between the RS and the BLP issue. With BLPs it's important that undue weight not be given to something which is only tangentially related to the main subject of the article.

The fact that a group which Coney Barrett has been associated with has had (and possibly still has) people with a role known as "handmaids" isn't particularly relevant to a biography of Coney Barrett, even if it is sourced to a RS. As discussed above, there's no evidence that Barrett had anything to do with the system of "handmaids," we don't know if this group even still uses that term, and their use of the term was apparently completely different than the use of "handmaid" in Atwood's "Handmaid's Tale" and subsequent derivative works.

To make an analogy here, the inclusion of the bit about "handmaids" would be like if the biography of Arnold Schwarzenegger were to say something like "Arnold Schwarzenegger comes from Austria, which is also the homeland of Adolf Hitler." This is factually accurate, and can be easily be supported by RS citations, but the problem is that the inclusion of such inflammatory tangential information goes against BLP. (The fact that Hitler grew up in Austria though is relevant, and does fit, in the Austria article.) -2003:CA:83D0:1C00:4185:4622:5E1:7DF1 (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but being born in Austria and choosing to join and maintain membership in an organization are completely different. And incidentally, the article on Arnold Schwarzenegger does say that his father was a member of the Nazi Party. Also, the point made by the article is not just that handmaids exist, but that members take an oath to use them. This is a very brief article for a short-listed SCOTUS aspirant, and like it or not, her religiosity appears to be a major factor in her background related to this position. Further, my suggested change removes the word handmaid and replaces it with the currently used term. O3000 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The overwhelming use of anti-Feinstein op-eds makes one section non-neutral
Half the 'Federal judicial service' section is currently devoted to editorials that criticize Dianne Feinstein. That's undue. I'm therefore adding a neutrality tag and I'm encouraging editors to improve the section with more balanced content. That one editor just removed content sourced to the NY Times under a weak BLP claim does not help. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Senator Feinstein's statement to Barrett during judicial confirmation hearing of "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's a concern", received abundant reliable source coverage and generated a lot of reaction regarding religion and screening judicial nominees. Seems this constituted the vast majority of reliable source coverage regarding Barrett, so seems in accordance with wp:due. I disagree with tagging this section. DynaGirl (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Snooganssnoogans please be specific about what changes you are recommending. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The solution here is to add RS content on the episode in question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But there is no RS sourcing on this in the article. The sourcing is exclusively anti-Feinstein editorials. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the current section, it appears solidly sourced. Which source(s) are you arguing are unreliable? DynaGirl (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources 14-18 are anti-Feinstein editorials and take up almost half of the text in the section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's worth noting that you yourself removed RS content on legal scholars arguing that Barrett's membership of that religious group raises legit questions about her independence and impartiality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add "pro-Feinstein" reliably sourced editorials regarding her statements to Barrett during judiciary hearing if you can find them. I recall the coverage being largely critical at the time. But please don't again insert "Handmaids" into the article because at this point there is no source saying Barrett specifically had an advisor termed a handmaid, it is not clear if People of Praise still uses that term, and general information regarding People of Praise belongs in that article not Barrett's BLP. I also didn't remove the NYTimes source. It's still referenced in the article. DynaGirl (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't presented a single coherent reason why the reliably sourced content on 'handmaids' is false or should be doubted. If you dispute the facts in the NY Times article, you should take your complaint to the RS noticeboard. And no, I will not add any editorials to this article, because that's not really my thing. I add RS content - RS content like the one you deleted without reason. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems disingenuous. Seems you're calling reliable sources such as Chicago Tribute etc non-reliable if they are critical or questioning of Senator Feinstein. Also, I've provided multiple coherent arguments regarding not adding "Handmaids" to Barrett's BLP. Here they are again. The sources don't say Barrett specifically had an advisor termed "Handmaid". It's not clear if People of Praise still uses that terminology, and general information regarding People of Praise belongs in that article not this BLP. DynaGirl (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Please familiarize yourself with the difference between op-eds and reporting. (2) The text in the Wikipedia article at no point said that Barrett had a handmaid, so you're arguing against a version of text that never existed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Feinstein was lambasted for criticizing Barrett's faith and trying to implement an unconstitutional religious test. The section accurately describes the pivotal moment in her hearing. It is the reason why people know who she is. Due to Feinstein's behavior, it is neutral as it's ever going to be.
 * We have consensus to remove the tag. – Lionel(talk) 22:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim that the section "is neutral as it's ever going to be" was totally false. There were plenty of pro-Feinstein op-eds at the time (as shown by a quick Google Search and my recent edit), which is precisely what my complaint was. Perhaps you should assume good faith, and try to listen to fellow editors and edit collaboratively. This is not the first time where you make completely erroneous statements in a content dispute. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

In a surprising edit, Marquardtika removed any and all op-eds which do not hold a pro-Barrett stance, which is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. If this article is to contain op-ed garbage, it better include op-eds published in legit outlets on both sides. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Trimmed pro-Feinstein addition per WP:BLOATED. – Lionel(talk) 10:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure op-ed content is appropriate unless the positions of the op-ed represent positions articulated in mainstream news coverage. I.e., the news is covering the various opinion writers as the camps surrounding her potential nomination. E.g., [this [[Ramesh Ponnuru]] (Bloomberg) op-ed calling for Barrett to be nominated is probably not notable by itself.  The Feinstein stuff is interesting.  The quote appears to have derived from Barrett's 2003 article which directly articulates for when, in the view of the authors (she was a co-author), a judge who is Catholic must alter what he does because of his religion.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Restored reliable sources
I restored the reliable sources for the personal life section regarding adopted children. Being religiously affiliated does not make National Catholic Register or Clarion Herald unreliable. There is no reason to remove these two reliable sources and then mark the content citation needed. DynaGirl (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with religious affiliation. One is identified as a blog and the other is identified as an opinion. These do not fit the definition of reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are referring to. Neither source describes their children as "an opinion" and neither source is being used to reference any opinions. Both are reliable sources for the personal life section regarding number or children/adopted children. The National Catholic Register is the oldest national Catholic newspaper in the U.S. and the Clarion Herald is the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of New Orleans.DynaGirl (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The age and status of the sources aren't the problem. We avoid using opinion pieces in the NYTimes as well. Further, the opinions stated are highly biased. Please self-revert and look for a better source than an opinion piece pushing a POV. O3000 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the sources for the content they are being used to reference. We're not adding any opinions from these religiously affiliated reliable sources to this BLP. We're citing objective neutral information such as number of children. These sources are appropriate for the content they are being used to reference. DynaGirl (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Barrett also testified at her last confirmation hearing about her children. Using an op-ed cite to confirm a fact can be done when its the best available sourcing and the claim is not disputed. When I looked recently, those pieces were the best we have.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Difficult to believe there isn't a better source. Both of these cites are opinion pieces using the children as part of an argument to push a biased view. I'm not comfortable with the concept of using this as fact. O3000 (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not crazy about these two cites, although they are accepted, but I think they are better as they aren't using the children as part of an argument and blatantly pushing a POV:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs)
 * Those sources seem inferior to the ones currently in the article. Heavy.com says the Barretts adopted 2 children from Haiti but does not clarify the other 5 are their biological children and the Slate one links to the Clarion Herald article already referenced as their reliable source of information. DynaGirl (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Two out of seven adopted means five biological. Why are you insisting on highly biased opinion columns pushing a POV? O3000 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Heavy.com says " they have seven children together. Two of their children were born in Haiti". That's not clear. Just from this source the others could be adopted as well just not from Haiti. Seems we should go with the best, most detailed sources available. The POV of the Clarion Herald and National Catholic Register sources aren't of issue here because they are not being used to reference any text related to any POV. They are only being used to reference information in the personal life section regarding number of children/adopted children. DynaGirl (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then leave it out. If she wants it known, she can say something herself. Why are you insisting on highly biased opinion columns pushing a POV? O3000 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The resistance to these sources runs counter to policy. WP:BIASED specifically permits these very sources in this particular case. The language of the policy is clear and unambiguous: " reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs."

Clearly--let me repeat--clearly these sources are suitable for the article.– Lionel(talk) 09:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is not about attributed opinions. Clearly biasedd sources can be used in that case. O3000 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Formatting on this page
Can anyone figure out why subsequent talk page headings after "Neutrality violated by quotes" are showing up as sub-headings of that section? I tried to fix it but couldn't figure out what was going on. Marquardtika (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
With the current administration now bringing her into the spotlight, I'd like to nominate this page for semi-protection. We have already seen libel statements being injected into the page.Pirhounix (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, example and example, and I'm sure more IP edits are coming. IP editing needs to be disabled. Devilmanozzy (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The page has been semied due to disruptive editing -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I support keeping it semi-protected.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Viewpoint -- Notable Cases -- Alvarenga-Flores v. Sessions
The last sentence in the subsection discussing the dissent in Alvarenga-Flores v. Sessions includes the phrase "by brushing aside the inconsistent testimony and unbelievable evidence" to describe the legal reasoning of District Court Judge Durken. Such phrasing is non-neutral and should be revised. Additionally, the sentence is long and could be clearer by splitting it into two sentences. Magdalena Tecumseh (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest semi-protecting this page
Because Wikipedia tends to lean to the Left on almost every issue under the sun, the article should be protected because any Trump appointee will be savaged for some reason or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This page is about to become an all-out battleground from POV pushers, considering current events. Let's get out ahead of things for once. Jtrainor (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * agree - it's a complicated enough subject (legal scholarship) that i think semi-protection is fine -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Completely agree on both counts: this is going to be a battleground and therefore necessitates page protection. --- VeritasS (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is clear. Information is being added and removed at speed to try to paint the person in a particular light. 136.37.147.44 (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. There will be a lot of information posted to this article over the next week or so and a semi-protection status would be a wise proactive move. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination Endorsement
I see that mention of endorsements for ACB are being removed for WP:PUFF, while criticisms of her nomination remain on the page. I suggest that both are added in the section under Career regarding nomination, or that a new section is added that addresses criticism and endorsements, to prevent the page from being continuously flip-flopped to paint ACB as good or bad. 136.37.147.44 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Diverse and extensive endorsement to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
I noticed that a portion of writing earlier made about how many people Barrett worked with "liberal or conservative" endorsed her for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and gave her praise to qualities related to the judiciary was completely removed with a comment about the sources, saying "several of these are not RS." However, it was a complete removal and no kind of editing or even supplication of proper RS related to the claim, one of them already cited in the article from NYT but used mostly to bring up information about her religious organization.

I decided to restate the claim with statements related much more to what the endorsements itself contain rather than using "liberal" and "conservative" buzzwords that hold implications that aren't explicitly there in the endorsements. I included direct quotes from the endorsements and have not stated anything not found in the endorsements. I highly believe this to be relevant as these endorsements, despite Barrett's current coverage for partisan political speculation, attest to qualities of her legal scholarship and character entering the Seventh Circuit.

It was wholesale reverted by a user due to "Wikipuffery" and asking for consensus on talk, but I disagree. Wikipuffery is the application of adjectives and claims by the editor to the subject to exaggerate positivity about the subject without basis. The page for Wikipuffery says "A more neutral tone and the provision of factual information, cited to a reliable source, on the other hand, is the appropriate style." It also states in the section for misapplication of the term "Good-faith additions, such as using sources which are not strong, should not be confused with edits which add personal opinion or synthesis." I believe the content I added that is relevant to the subject was incorrectly applied to the content and that it is justified to undo the removal.

Here's the content in question:

"Despite having differing views on Barrett's methods and conclusions, a diverse group of 73 law professors from across the country strongly endorsed Barrett's nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. They all attest to her contribution to legal scholarship as "rigorous, fair-minded, respectful, and constructive" while stating that she "enjoys wide respect for her careful work, fair-minded disposition, and personal integrity." [I then cite the letter itself: ]

Likewise, all 49 of her fellow faculty members at Notre Dame Law School endorsed her nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that they all "have a wide range of political views" and emphasized their "diverse backgrounds and views." Despite their different perspectives to judicial methodology and craft, they all reach the same praise that Barrett "possesses in abundance all of the other qualities that shape extraordinary jurists: discipline, intellect, wisdom, impeccable temperament, and above all, fundamental decency and humanity," concluding that they unanimously agree Barrett is a fit candidate to the judiciary. [I also cite the letter here too: ] And then I cite the same NYT source used in this article but has both of those letters of endorsement in the content "]

Am I mistaken? Thank you --18:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)WePFew (talk)

I think that the endorsement should be mentioned in the "Nomination and confirmation" section under "Career". However, I think the text that you provided that was removed was written in a way that suggests an opinion. I suggest something like, `A group of 73 law professors from across the country strongly endorsed Barrett's nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that she "enjoys wide respect for her careful work, fair-minded disposition, and personal integrity." She was also endorsed by 49 faculty members at Notre Dame Law School.` This would cover the endorsements without implying agreement with them. 136.37.147.44 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The statements(s): "Despite having differing views on Barrett's methods and conclusions, a diverse group of 73 law professors from across the country strongly endorsed Barrett's nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. They all attest to her contribution to legal scholarship as "rigorous, fair-minded, respectful, and constructive" while stating that she "enjoys wide respect for her careful work, fair-minded disposition, and personal integrity" is WP:PUFF and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia should not be in the business of endorsing judicial nominees. Politicians, organizations, and private interest groups are welcome to make their endorsements. These endorsements should not be synthesized and parroted in WP:WIKIVOICE. KidAd   talk  19:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with KidAd that the text that was removed sounds like WP:PUFF. But I also think the endorsements should be mentioned in the page somewhere, so that the page isn't a hit piece nor a puff piece.136.37.147.44 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The page does not read like a so-called "hit piece" of any sort. Judicial nominees, unlike politicians, are not traditionally endorsed. A nomination is eventually voted upon, but one cannot donate funds to a judicial nominee or attend a campaign rally for a judicial nominee. KidAd   talk  19:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To first user, thank you for your input! I disagree it suggests an opinion but rather states the opinion of those endorsed. I am not saying the article itself says these qualities about her but rather that the article itself states these people from numerous diverse backgrounds has these opinions and it is they who say these qualities about her. I am willing to cut it down and perhaps have it in a more appropriate section, but I believe that the information that many in the field of law from diverse backgrounds with differing political views (including nearly all of her collegues) that have endorsed her for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is entirely relevant and should be in the article.--WePFew (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To KidAd, I agree Wikipedia should not be in the business of endorsing judicial nominees, but that is irrelevant. Like I said previously, I am not saying the article itself says these qualities about her but rather that the article itself states these people from numerous diverse backgrounds has these opinions and it is they who say these qualities about her. Addressing the same comment, this is specifically about Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which the article already states she is in, hence she's no longer a nominee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. All the content describes is a fact that she was widely endorsed by collegues and law professors of different backgrounds. This is not WP:PUFF for reasons previously stated, I quoted WP:PUFF. This is also not WP:SYNTH because I do not draw a novel conclusion. Just because I quoted two different quotes from a source does not make it WP:SYNTH, which states "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." I have not done this, I do not write any conclusion that the sources do not already state. --WePFew (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * KidAd, "sounding like" WP:PUFF doesn't mean it is WP:PUFF. I noticed how you don't have any suggestions as to how to reword it and instantly have concluded that because "Wikipedia should not be in the business of endorsing judicial nominees" while "Politicians, organizations, and private interest groups are welcome to make their endorsements" then it should be removed. The statement you quoted specifically states that "diverse group of 73 law professors from across the country" clearly have made their endorsement, not Wikipedia. Stating it in wikipedia does not mean it is biased and quoting it without deducing a novel conclusion does not constitute WP:SYNTH and I already quoted WP:PUFF as to why it's not Wikipuffery either. Removal without wishing to make suggestions or edits to achieve neutrality is does not adhere to WP:WIKIVOICE as an editor, which states "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." And the only suggestion of rewrite I have seen is not from yourself.--WePFew (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Final note for the time being: From WP:NPOVFAQ "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias."--WePFew (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

If there's no more discussion on this, I'm going to reinstate the content with some guidance from the unnamed user that did indeed give suggestions. From there it can be discussed where the content can go or how it should be phrased. It's meaningful content and shouldn't be flat out removed.--WePFew (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Observant Catholic
Given that this language pits someone who is only a shortlisted nominee (or probably so) against a current justice, Sotomayor, who in her own words isn't observant (the precepts of the church are an objective standard: attend Mass on Sundays and holy days, confess mortal sins – traditionally all sins once a year — receive communion in the Easter season, and either support the works of the church or follow her marriage laws, depending on your list), it seems a little strange. Plus, Gorscuch is canonically Catholic due to his baptism, so I think that "Catholic" would do with a caveat about Gorsuch, who has attended Episcopal churches without publicly commenting on his situation. 2A01:CB0C:32A:2500:D090:D7A6:9780:355B (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statements regarding LGBT Conflict with Source
The following content disagrees with the cited source (https://heavy.com/news/2018/07/amy-coney-barrett-gay-marriage-lgbtq/)

> It is unclear whether her Catholic faith would affect her rulings on LGBT rights.

The cited source, Heavy, states that "it appears that she might not try to conform her legal opinions to her religious beliefs if they diverged. However, she might step back and recuse herself if she felt a legal decision conflicted with her religion." Thus, it seems that her faith will not affect her rulings on these cases. Speculating otherwise or claiming different intent than what the living person has stated seems dubious at best. The user that added the sentence undid my removal of it, stating that the claim is backed by multiple references (though only one reference is provided, and it doesn't back the statement). 136.37.147.44 (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the text they give "It’s unclear how Barrett would rule in LGBT cases or what her opinion would be in cases involving gay marriage." This is based on her Catholic faith, based on her letter saying no same-sex marriage, based on her not being able to state any landmark LGBT cases as superprecedents, and based on a lecture she gave being sponsored by an extreme anti-LGBT organization. I can procure more references if need be, I saw similar statements in other papers. ɱ  (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Please provide additional sources. I think speculation of future behavior is absolutely inappropriate for BLP, especially when the speculation contradicts the person's own statements and has no basis in past behavior. E.g., saying "It is unclear whether or not Arnold Schwarzenegger will murder puppies" might be true, but it is unnecessary and seems motivated to paint the person in a bad light. I would appreciate it if you could find sources that don't contradict themselves like the Heavy article (which states that it's unclear, then concludes that it is clear that she won't rule based on her religion), as well. Edit: To be clear, I am fine with the sentences that precede and follow the statement in question. 136.37.147.44 (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Heavy states it's unclear, which let's not be confused, is a fact. (She hasn't made court decisions on these matters yet). It goes on to speculate how the writer thinks she might act. Anyway, here's another ref, added to support the fact that 27 gay rights organizations fear her Catholic faith will interfere with her gay rights rulings. ɱ  (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From your new source, "During her Senate confirmation process last year for her current post, Barrett was questioned about important LGBTQ legal precedents, including Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor and Lawrence v. Texas. In written responses to senators’ questions, Barrett repeatedly stated these landmark cases are “binding precedents” that she will “faithfully follow if confirmed.”" Barrett has not suggested any intention to overturn or rule against existing LGBT rights/precedents. Your are using selective portions of these sources to suggest that she has not clearly stated intent to follow existing precedent. 136.37.147.44 (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You totally misread that! Try again. ɱ  (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, in her last role, she was required to follow these precedents and support them. Now potentially in the Supreme Court, she has no such obligation, and is free to overturn precedents. Her inability/refusal to cite any LGBT cases as 'superprecedents' (meaning cases she'll respect and considers untouchable) means she is willing and able to overturn cases as significant as Obergefell v. Hodges (the right to same-sex marriage itself). ɱ  (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Right. But she has not stated any intent to overturn these rulings, and she *has* clearly stated that she will not rule based on her faith. I am very worried about contradicting someone's own statements without evidence on BLP. Can we agree to revise the paragraph to the following? 136.37.147.44 (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Barrett has also not directly ruled on cases pertaining to LGBT rights. In October 2015, she signed a letter stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, in part prompting Lambda Legal to oppose her court nomination in 2017. Lambda Legal's letter, signed by 27 LGBT rights organizations, expressed doubts in her ability to separate faith from her rulings on LGBT matters.[70]"
 * Exactly - she has not stated any intent to overturn, but also views these landmark cases as overturnable. So it's unclear how she'll vote. I somwhat agree with your wording, passing the torch off to the organizations as some of these refs do, but would prefer:
 * "Barrett has also not directly ruled on cases pertaining to LGBT rights, and it is unclear how she would vote. In October 2015, she signed a letter stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, in part prompting Lambda Legal to oppose her court nomination in 2017. Lambda Legal's letter, signed by 27 LGBT rights organizations, expressed doubts in her ability to separate faith from her rulings on LGBT matters.[70]"
 * I'm also considering adding in the anti-LGBT-org-sponsored lecture, membership in anti-LGBT People of Praise, or her refusal to consider any LGBT super-precedents, which are significant considerations against the notion of her voting for LGBT rights. ɱ  (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Should I implement this? ɱ  (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you approve of this wording? ɱ  (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

To include "It is unclear whether her Catholic faith would affect her rulings on LGBT rights" is wildly inappropriate and speculative. It's always unclear how someone would rule on something--we never know what someone is going to do in the future. We have sources here saying she believes various LGBT rights cases set binding precedent and that she won't overturn them. Lots of people will have lots of speculation about how someone will rule or not rule, but it's WP:CRYSTAL to try to guess. She's been a judge, so we have her rulings. She hasn't made any rulings on LGBT issues. So we just don't know how she would rule on any particular cases in the future. Marquardtika (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * And what reasoning is there to not include her own answers to Senate questions about LGBT rights precedents? See this content. It seems highly relevant, is sourced to NBC...? Marquardtika (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You're behind on everything, please read the discussion before commenting. I agreed with the logic presented, that you reiterated, and suggested an alternative. Also, please do your research on why not to include the answers:
 * During her Senate confirmation process last year for her current post, Barrett was questioned about important LGBTQ legal precedents, including Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor and Lawrence v. Texas. In written responses to senators’ questions, Barrett repeatedly stated these landmark cases are “binding precedents” that she will “faithfully follow if confirmed.”

McGowan, however, noted that such an answer “means nothing when it comes to the Supreme Court.” Not only does the high court have the ability to overturn precedent — as occurred last month in the Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 case, which dealt a crippling blow to public worker unions — McGowan said the court can also “gut or hollow out precedent."
 * ref-- ɱ (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you don't understand how the courts system works. A lower judge like Barrett could not rule against Obergefell in her lower post at the time, so she has to swear to uphold these decisions. But once on the Supreme Court, anything's fair game really. So her answer is irrelevant to whether or not she would uphold these decisions in a Supreme Court role. ɱ  (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources to back up your position? I don't see a problem in including the answers to her questions on LGBT precedent as long as it clearly states they were answers to questions at her appelate nomination hearing. You seem to be assuming she will be nominated to the Supreme Court. That's WP:CRYSTAL. We have no idea. So her appelate confirmation hearing statements and her record on LGBT issues is all we've got. And we have RS discussing them. We shouldn't not include information becuase she *might* be nominated to the Supreme Court. That seems like a WP:CENSOR issue. Marquardtika (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You're really failing to get the point, this really is like Randy in Boise. Sorry. I'm not going to dig up sources to explain how courts work for you, but no, the statement saying Barrett will obey Supreme Court decisions as a lesser judge are wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand. This section is on her views on LGBT rights, and mentions objections to her Supreme Court presumptive nomination. Just like the NBC source says, her following the rules as a lesser judge are completely, wholly irrelevant here. ɱ  (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you need to read something, read the articles Supreme court or Supreme Court of the United States. It clearly explains how, as the nation's highest court, it is the final say, and thus "the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court". So Amy as a Court of Appeals judge could not rule contrary to a pre-existing Supreme Court ruling.  ɱ  (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, you've invented the "issue at hand," which is that she's going to be nominated to the Supreme Court. We don't know that. So we shouldn't violate WP:CRYSTAL by speculating about what she might do if she is nominated. Let's wait to see what actually happens...Marquardtika (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Literally all of the sources mention her LGBT rights history as it pertains to her candidacy for the Supreme Court. And she is on the top of the list. I think it's incredibly more relevant to include her judicial philosophy on the subject as a whole, beyond her limitations as a lower judge. ɱ  (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole reason anyone brought up that confirmation hearing statement is as "evidence" that she will follow Supreme Court precedence. It's been shown to be irrelevant, and now really has no place as an argument for anything. So it would have no place in this LGBT section; that's like saying in a gun rights section that Barrett pledges not to shoot anyone. Is it tangentially relevant? Sure, but it's also the law for her, so it goes without saying. ɱ  (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If it's the law for her to follow these LGBT precedents and not even worth mentioning because it is so obvious that all appeals court judges must follow supreme court precedent, why did Lambda Legal oppose her appeals court nomination? And why would the Senate question her about it? Marquardtika (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Read it yourself. "Simply repeating that she would be bound by Supreme Court precedent does not illuminate—indeed, it obfuscates—how Professor Barrett would interpret and apply precedent when faced with the sorts of dilemmas that, in her view, “put Catholic judges in a bind.”". As for why the Senate asked the question, I don't know, and I don't think you'll find a solid answer from them, but they ask lots of questions and likely want to make sure because she is known to be extremely religion-based and personally at odds with these judicial decisions. ɱ  (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * without getting into the above debate, I want to say in light of the fact her nomination at this point is borderline foregone and even if not, it is still important for a source as widely used by the lay public as Wikipedia to already contain as much relevant information and coverage as possible/admins and editors have had a chance to adequately go through for accuracy BEFORE a nominee is officially announced rather than waiting, if she isn't chosen on Saturday then worse case scenario an online encyclopedia will contain too much info about a highly influential Circuit Judge as opposed to too little knowledge on a current Supreme Court nominee-one that is likely to be among the most contentious in recent history.OgamD218 (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Section

 * While I don't disagree with you that her alleged position on this issue should be relegated to a section of lesser importance, it still does not belong in Judicial Philosophy, especially since she has repeatedly stated that her faith should play no role at all in the any decision she reaches as a judge. The letter she signed in 2015, though obviously raises the issue of her stance on marriage equality, was addressed to a Synod of Bishops and did not discuss the matter as a legal issue. Further she has never published an overtly anti-LGBTQ opinion as either a jurist or academic. Further I read her article referencing "superprecedents", while it is true she does not list any pro-gay rights decisions there, the article predates most of those cases such as Windsor, Perry, Obergefell and the recent EEOC decision. She does discuss how Lawrence vs. Texas is a unique example of a case that overturned a long standing precedent. She uses a neutral if not arguably supportive tone in expressing this. Also in full context, Lawrence would not fit in place as a superprecendent, the most recent of which was Mapp vs Ohio in 1961.OgamD218 (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was meaning that section to be moreso "Judicial philosophy and political views", which I will re-title this to. On a side note: she was however asked if there are any LGBT superprecedents in 2017 (post-Obergefell) and she refused to indicate any, indicating she does not hold gay marriage as a precedent enough, and could overturn it. ɱ  (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not know that but if you read the article or just the summary I provided you might agree it's not a sign of hostility that should would not list any LGBTQ Cases in that category. For example she did not include a single Pro Gun rights case to be superprecedent either (altogether she only listed 7, in all of history).OgamD218 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No, this wasn't just omitting a single case or set of cases. She was specifically asked:

"she was asked if any landmark LGBT decisions would count as “superprecedents.” (She had said “no serious person would propose to undo (superprecedents) even if they are wrong.”) She said she had “not undertaken an independent analysis of whether any particular case qualifies as superprecedent.” This caused some people in the LGBT community to express concern that she might not be against the possibility of undoing the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage, for example." -- ɱ (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Some definitions of a superprecendent: a long standing precedent that enjoys widespread support from the President, Congress, Courts and the general public, the public's belief in their validity is so great they're immunized from being overturned, lower courts do not take challenges to them seriously. Can you think of any pro LGBT cases to fall within or anywhere close to this definition? Remember she listed only 7 (and zero in the last 50 years) as meeting the criteria. I think the presence of President who would nominate and senate that would confirm a judge who'd overturn those cases might be proof they aren't.OgamD218 (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Obergefell v. Hodges, a crucial precedent and landmark decision, enjoyed widespread support, and still does among most politicians since the ruling. She could have easily included that, I believe most view it that way. Regardless, her not including it in her response means she's open to the ruling being overturned. It wasn't just none out of seven, she was asked if any qualified at all. ɱ  (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See this chart and Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States for public support. ɱ  (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's also note that "super-precedent" isn't that established of a term. Each person has their own ideas of which decisions are untouchable, there's no list, and especially no generally-agreed-upon list. All it really means is that Barrett does not consider Obergefell to be untouchable, so she may very well effectively overturn it in the future. ɱ  (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, Super-precedent is not a well est term and while opinions vary, she cited enough scholarship to show it has objective features and her list is 1 many would agree with regardless of politics, honestly idt if any impartial expert considers Obergefell a very recent case decided 5-4 and nominally disagreed with by the sitting Prez to be superprecedent. But I personally consider Lawrence Super-precedent, the views expressed in the dissent are widely agreed to have died with Scalia-Barrett’s mentor. But, to say she at least does not consider Obergefell to be untouchable, is a conclusion i agree with/don't think is hard to draw, but once again since she only listed 7 cases out of tens of thousand in all US history and not a single state’s rights, religious liberty or pro 2nd Amendment case, it’s a stretch to say she sees superprecdents as the only cases she isn’t open to overturning.
 * I disagree with some of this, but regardless, it's not too crucial for this article. We'll just have to wait and see what other sources emerge, and if she is approved for the Court, what she does from there. ɱ  (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Tbh, the fact such concern exist that she might overturn Obergefell is enough to est that it is not SP. I probably should have led with this, it might have saved time lol, but if you check the other sources, the 1 and only case of concern flagged over its lack of inclusion by her as a SP, is Roe v Wade. Lambda Legal made no mention of SP in their statements against her positions on LGBT rights. This is not bc they and others on the left don't don't believe in Obergefell but bc it simply does not (yet at least) meet the objective requirements to be a SP.OgamD218 (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you respond to my ping on the wording in the above section? ɱ  (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry i'm still new, idk what you mean by ping?OgamD218 (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's a tool you can use - by writing ping with a username inside to notify another of something you're writing. But I think the text has evolved beyond what I proposed, so never mind. ɱ  (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing
Heavy.com is a yellow source at WP:RSNP and needs to go. There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead. Especially for statements that really add nothing at all to the article. fiveby(zero) 15:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, fine, but the statements are all in other refs too. I can swap it out, just didn't think anyone would object to this article in particular, seems high-quality and factual here. ɱ  (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would second getting rid of Heavy in favor of a more trustworthy and reliable source. 136.37.147.44 (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PinkNews is considered reliable and factual, as is NBC, with the article I cited earlier. I will swap out Heavy for these two. ɱ  (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used." I think there is a clear conflict of interest and bias in the cited article. While it is probably fine to cite for now, I would appreciate it if we could get this from a source like Politico, The Hill, etc if they cover it in the coming days/weeks.136.37.147.44 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PinkNews is about LGBT issues. What else do they report on? It's ridiculous to not consider the single source that covers the matter(s) in question best. Yes, the paper is about LGBT matters, and this is why I initially stuck with Heavy, but PinkNews is considered to have reliable reporting. Sorry, this article is factual, neutral, informative, and authoritative. Yes, as her career develops (she may well join the Supreme Court) I'm sure we'll have much more to add. ɱ  (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mean they're biased because they report on LGBT news, I mean that the article is a clear hatchet job. 136.37.147.44 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh, this is how PinkNews articles are titled, to get people's attention. The body text within is all accurate and stated rather neutrally. And with NBC as a ref too, it's clear the information I'm citing is factual. The sources don't need to all read perfectly and be by the most pristine news orgs. At a certain point our sourcing standards are impossibly high - I'm sorry the New York Times isn't covering it, but even that is "in the pocket of the Left". ɱ  (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

LGBT rights
You may want to appear to "balance out" this LGBT paragraph, even though it is depicting Barrett's clear stance against LGBT rights. I do not think the Carrie Severino statement is that important, it is one of many against Lamda Legal and the letter, why would we highlight one opinion of it from some conservative activist org? ɱ (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, Lamda Legal is a LGBT civil rights legal organization, not just some cherry-picked activist group. ɱ (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The views of Lamda Legal are notably the primary subject of news reporting, and involve a letter by 27 LGBT rights organizations. The simple response by one conservative activist group is not really something you can equate this with. ɱ (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Many groups opposed Barrett and many groups supported her. We should settle on some type of framework for which to include so we don't end up with a laundry list. The particular source we were using, the NBC one, discussed both groups. It seemed WP:UNDUE to me to include Lamda's opinion without showing that, per our sourcing, it wasn't universally agreed upon. Overall, it would be better to focus our content on expert scholarly opinions and not on advocacy groups. Here's the Washington Post today on "A new conservative Supreme Court justice could boost religious rights at the cost of LGBTQ protections." It has some thoughts from law profs/legal scholars. There is probably something we could incorporate here. I still have concerns over treating this page as a "foregone conclusion" as someone wrote above for a supreme court nomination. If "foregone conclusions" existed, we wouldn't have WP:CRYSTAL and Hillary Clinton would be about to get elected for her second term as president. Marquardtika (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, Lamda Legal is a LGBT civil rights legal organization, not an advocacy/political campaign org like JCN is. The letter is an important statement from a group, significantly reported, so it can stay even among expert opinions. I guess we can keep the conservative org opinion for now, but I look forward to fleshing this out. It's very clear she's against LGBT rights, and we need to make that clearer without washing that out with meaningless counter-arguments in the article. ɱ  (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * (EC)Also, we don't seem to have anything in the article about how Barrett's appelate nomination was "endorsed by every clerk she has worked with and the entire faculty of Notre Dame's law school," per Washington Post. Per SCOTUSBlog "A group of 450 former students signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, telling senators that their support was 'driven not by politics, but by the belief that Professor Barrett is supremely qualified.' And she had the unanimous support of her 49 Notre Dame colleagues, who wrote that they had a 'wide range of political views' but were 'united however in our judgment about Amy.'" We get into some WP:DUE questions when we include the Lampda letter but not things like this. There were numerous instances of people/groups signing letters in opposition and support. Thinking about this, any of the support and opposition to her appelate nominatin should probably go in that section, not in the "judicial philosophy" section. Then we'd have a better shot at actually documenting this stuff. Marquardtika (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The point of including the letter was not to show support or opposal to the nomination, though. I included details of it to show that these groups believe her track record on LGBT rights is poor, as significant evidence of her views on LGBT civil rights. ɱ  (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Bias
I added a POV tag as I want to discuss biases in the article text. This tag is not to be removed until the issue is resolved. I'll elaborate on the issues in just a bit... ɱ (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I created the first paragraph on Barrett's views of LGBT rights and issues. This is a notable part of a person's political views, and something extensively covered by the media. Overall, the media sources covering it (NBC, PinkNews, Heavy) primarily give evidence of Barrett being anti-LGBT rights. The paragraph needs to stay in the "political views and judicial philosophy" section, as readers are looking to be informed on her political views, as evidenced by the multiple news articles on the subject. We cannot hide this away or distribute it among other sections.


 * Several users keep watering down the information or skewing the reporting of her anti-LGBT sentiments, often with original research, like on her statements about superprecedents. I believe these users have a conservative bias, and should step back and analyze what has been written in sources, and what is truly notable. Content added recently by User:OgamD218 is original research based on their personal analysis of Barrett's responses. User:Marquardtika has insisted on including a generic/unspecific criticism of the Lamda Legal letter which does not counter any of the arguments presented, and really seems to be added just to throw in an emotion-based counter-argument against it. As well, adding that Barrett's 2015 letter signing is "legally irrelevant" may technically be true and is obvious, but again it is irrelevant to the article, which is about her own viewpoints on the issues.


 * I am not sure if Human Rights Campaign is considered reliable, but it provides neutral factual evidence like the above three sources, this time with clear judgements Barrett made in support or opposition to LGBT rights.


 * I believe this article needs a more balanced approach, and would invite more editors from all backgrounds to contribute. I think getting the attention of WikiProject LGBT studies is appropriate now. ɱ  (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The only evidence mentioned by these "news" sources is the same thing though, 5 years ago she co-signed a letter with her church group to their church leaders that affirmed church teachings incl but not limited too those on marriage, that not definitively at least her politics-but her religion save evidence presented that's also her politics, but given the polarization of the issue I agree it would be a disservice to place it in a section that wasn't "politics' or "stance on LGBT" or where it is now.OgamD218 (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do agree there needs to be a pause and reset on this particular topic. Idk if from all the back and forth editing from a ton of users has just caused confusion. While I agree an editor earlier, Chrissy something seemed to have a conservative bias, tbh I think it's also clear that you User:Ɱ have a major bias that needs to be addressed. Her view on the rights of the LGBT community is important, but it hasn't been a topic in the news the way you've been trying to frame it, "multiple sources" for the same uncontested claim-5 yrs ago she co-signed a ltr to leaders of her church affirming many principles of faith-incl those on marriage. From there these sources are really just opinion pieces, several such as Pink News & HRC are not reliable or impartial on this topic at all.
 * If the article is about Barrett's own viewpoints on the issues then why did you include Lambda's viewpoint? Why when I included Barrett's actual viewpoint/exact and sourced quotes and sources of her expressing her viewpoints did you accuse me of bias and OR? Why was it that from the begining you had sources discussing the letter in question (which is imo very relevant) but you then included takes from outside groups but failed to include anything else she'd actually expressed including that she considered the view of her church leaders on marriage to be purely theological and should have no influence whatsoever on her legal stance? I don't disagree with your inclusion of the analysis of these other sources but i question what you've been hostile to including what Barrett's actually said on the record at least.OgamD218 (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"Several users keep watering down the information or skewing the reporting of her anti-LGBT sentiments....      eg her statements about SPs. I believe these users have a *conservative bias/should step back/analyze what has       been written in sources/what is truly notable. Content added recently by User:OgamD218 is OR based on their       personal analysis of Barrett's responses.......


 * I am going to have to insist that you please give me an ex of how I skewed the facts..........
 * Idk what you mean by watering down but if by 'personal analysis of Barrett's responses' = I add content of sourced quotes in context, specifically her direct answers under oath to questions you brought up, but seem to conflict with the impression you're trying to convey via Lambda, whose said outright they just don't believe her when she says she considers the pro-lgbt cases precedent that she would & must uphold. But, I apologize if my tone seems too harsh, i'm exhausted lol and it's been a long week, perhaps we're just misinterpreting each other.OgamD218 (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There actually is a variety of evidence, if you look closely, and the evidence provided by the Human Rights Campaign is strictly judiciary-related. It is clear she holds this political viewpoint, so I am not sure why people are trying to change how that appears on Wikipedia. Though I believe conservative-leaning editors may try to do that on an article about a conservative judge.


 * Idk what exactly a conservative leaning editor would do, my understanding is they would generally consider anti-lgbtq positions on those issues a positive especially considering how partisan the confirmation process has become.OgamD218 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure who this "Chrissy" is, but I keep my bias away from my editing, I have been presenting facts from these recent news articles. I am shocked you find recent news articles with new revelations and correlations (if partly about older events) irrelevant. NBC put this together to document Barrett's LGBT views, I am not sure why we somehow cannot do the same. I ɱ (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the hyper partisan HRC provided more than the 1 single ex in all of the other sources, it also was not in any of your original posts and in fact wasn't even published until shortly before this debate began, no mention of it's specific claims was included on the wiki page, only the synod letter and broad unsubstantiated claims of lghbt bias, and if it was i would not have been the one who removed it as her position re Obergefell is relevant and i think should be included now. Coverage from HRC and Lambda Legal has been overwhelmingly hostile to every SC GOP nominee during their respective existences, opposite for Dem nominees, in most instances citing largely other reason than LGBTQ isses as the basis for their position, these basis' are exclusively partisan. Also I never said or implied I found new revelations irrelevant.OgamD218 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had no objections to the few instances of you presenting facts from these articles, unlike you i never deleted any facts. I removed your line about her prayer groups letter to their bishops from "judicial philosophy" bc it had no business there (though i can see a bias editor putting it there), I did not delete it when you updated the section to include politics.OgamD218 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Next, Ogam, is WP:OR. We do not read through primary source documents like Barrett's confirmation hearing transcript, piecing together our own analyses. We instead read reliable sources that have professional writers covering and analyzing it. This is a key Wikipedia policy. Lamda Legal's views of the hearing are incredibly notable, cited numerous times as a significant objection to her 2015 court nomination as well as her being placed on the short list of potential Supreme Court nominees. ɱ  (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that I included other sources aside, User:Ɱ i did not "piece together analyses" from her hearing transcript at any point whatsoever, i noticed what can (following your decision to delete it all together) something that is hard not to interpret as an overt attempt to misrepresent the record-mention sources questioning if she would uphold pro-lgbt precedents and then skewed coverage from partisan outlets saying she would not, esp Lambda's. Once again i provided sources from professional writers and would gladly re-post with them included, but regardless as common sense would dictate i'm pretty sure her actual testimony has been cited far more widely by impartial sources than lambda's-seeing as i am the one who wanted to include BOTH, it really stretches the bounds of reason that you felt their should be no mention of her own testimony on an issue you raised but instead wanted to mention partisan claims from others labeling her views to the opposite of how she herself identifies..........OgamD218 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for a one single ex of a skewed fact on my part, seems your above claim of my use OR does not even come remotely close.OgamD218 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not have time to fully read this wall of text or reply right now, but please stop interspersing your comments into mine. It really messes up the readability. Anyhow, as I stated before, the original research happened when you read the transcript of the hearing confirmation, added text summarizing your view of it, and then cited that transcript. That is simply not allowed. ɱ  (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither PinkNews.com nor Heavy.com are reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, but not the consensus on WP:RSP. Heavy is sometimes considered reliable, and PinkNews usually is. Just because the topic PinkNews covers matches the topic we're discussing doesn't mean it's not reliable, if anything they're better-equipped to handle LGBT issues accurately. ɱ  (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And regardless, these are the only three-four sources covering the matter, and all present the information factually and neutrally. The additions added to my text have largely skewed from how all these sources, even NBC, present the issues. ɱ  (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I am still waiting on uninvolved editors to comment on their views of the bias in this article, and if agreed, how it can be changed. I strongly believe these sources are accurate and factual, and have been heavily skewed and misrepresented in this article by other editors. ɱ (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I’ll stop interspersing comments, sorry i’m still getting used to the format. I’m also still waiting for an ex of facts I've skewed or how I’m the one whose bias has been on display   OgamD218 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the media constantly focuses on controversial issues because that is what sells. The HRC analysis is closely related to this because it largely exists to influence the media. Given that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, it makes sense to look more at the overall picture and focus less on the controversial issues. If it is bias from what the media sources report, it is bias in favor of sounding like an encyclopedia rather than sounding like something that would sell newspapers and magazines. As for the "toning down" aspect of it, the inherent difficultly with including the more hightened statements is that they will likely require more context if they are not to be misinterpreted. Omitting them is a way to prevent UNDUE. The practice on Wikipedia of stating a truncated statement that is maybe half-way where it seems like it ought to be on some controversial issue took me aback too when I first saw it employed on another article some months back. Then after reading more I understood that even though it seemed wrong, it was really intended to be a sort of compromise between conflicting viewpoints from different editors without forcing an WP:UNDUE coverage of the issue. So if one side says "AA" and the other side says "CC" sometimes an article will have a truncated "B" rather than "AAAACCCC" worth of coverage on the disputed issue. This is apparently how things work on Wikipedia and I have come to accept it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't be pissed, I don't know how to format this, but abortion is only legal until 13 weeks in Indiana and prenatal screenings don't come in until after that. She didn't choose to "keep" her baby with disabilities. She was legally obligated to do so in the state and that line should absolutely be removed because it's ridiculously biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:C80:5620:D1E9:AE16:260:FFEC (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2601:603:C80:5620:D1E9:AE16:260:FFEC (talk its ok i'm definitely struggling with the formatting myself/apologize as well if i'm screwing it up. Abortion is legal on demand in indiana until the 20th week, planned parenthood does not provide abortion services after the 13th week bc of what i believe is a state law requiring the procedure be performed as inpatient hospital surgery. In addition, Barrett works full time in Chicago where abortion is legal on demand until the 24th week.OgamD218 (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

As someone not previously involved, it appears to me based on the discussion in the sections above that the article currently has a reasonable level of objectivity, and your previous edits, which appear to have been removed or modified, appear to have been appropriately removed or modified. In particular:
 * the Heavy article said (a) it's unclear how Barrett would vote in LGBT cases, and (b) she's stated that her religion would not affect her interpretation of the law, and if her religion prevented her from providing a purely legal opinion, she would recuse herself. Based on the discussion, you concluded, (c) it's unclear whether Barrett's religion would affect her voting in LGBT cases.  That's not a reasonable conclusion from (a) and (b), or at least, drawing conclusion (c) requires enough editorial judgement that it can reasonably be considered original research.
 * LGBT sources can in some cases be reliable sources, but your apparent belief that conservative sources cannot is mistaken. You may believe that LGBT sources are neutral, but I would suggest that's because you agree with them, not because they represent an average opinion of the whole population of the US, much less of Wikipedia readership.
 * While I'm personally skeptical of Barrett's whole idea of superprecedents, by Barrett's definition, Obergefell cannot be considered a superprecedent. Lots of people in the US still oppose gay marriage despite Obergefell.  Very few support resegregating public schools contra Brown.
 * Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people applies to this article, so one has to be very careful of anything that could be interpreted in a negative light.

Note that I have not gone through the history in enough detail to find every relevant edit, so I'm basing my position on the discussion in the relevant sections on this talk page. If you think the discussion in these sections doesn't represent the issue you're raising well enough, I'd suggest adding links to the relevant edits. Also, I'm just contributing one opinion; I'm not saying any consensus has been reached or that the tag should be removed immediately. Warren Dew (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to argue with you here, your ideas lack nuance. "Lots of people not supporting gay marriage" is vague, and as I showed, the majority actually does. This among the idea that I did not find conservative newspapers reliable (where?!) is where I stop. ɱ  (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Re your first few points, eg I created the first paragraph on Barrett's views of LGBT rights and issues., can you provide diffs? I don't see it in the article currently, so I guess it was removed, and I don't really want to dig through history for all of this. To the extent that a text for these issues has already been written, can you provide diffs of what you wrote? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

`Barrett has been described as "fervently antiabortion."`
This section, under Judicial Philosophy, makes a strong claim backed by a single Washington Post citation. I think it would be beneficial to readers to specify where these claims come from, for example:

`The Washington Post has described Barrett as "fervently antiabortion".`

Or to tone them down, e.g. dropping "fervently". The concluding sentence also cites the Washington Post:

`Experts who have studied Barrett's writings said they believed she would join other conservative justices in overturning Roe v. Wade.`

I think it would be again be beneficial to mention who the experts are. 136.37.147.44 (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: This seems to be directly addressed in the latest revisions by Fiveby. 136.37.147.44 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't see the talk page section. There will probably be some in-depth analysis from notable organizations. Shouldn't be throwing in the opinion of a random journalist or unnamed "experts". fiveby(zero) 15:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Fetal Rights vs. Abortion Rights
The article currently uses the term "abortion rights", which is extremely biased in favour of abortion. I am referring to the sentence "Barrett has never ruled directly on a case pertaining to abortion rights..." I recommend we change this wording to "fetal rights". Alternatively, we could just remove the word "rights" altogether.2607:F2C0:92D9:5400:5067:AD48:D884:E36B (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither option seems neutral. ɱ  (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that says fetuses have rights and is more widely used in reliable sources than "abortion rights"? If you want to change the wording, find sources. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The source (Reuters) says Although Barrett has not ruled directly on abortion as a judge, she has cast votes signaling opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions. 2607's suggestion that we drop the word 'rights' would bring the text in line with the cited source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never in my life heard anyone that was not a biased source on this subject, refer to/use the expression "fetal rights." ACB sits on a federal circuit and under federal law a fetus does not have any rights (though all 50 states extend some level of rights to the unborn). Case law re this matter tends to focus on to what extent does a woman have a right to an abortion/what are the limits of that right. It seems the more common bias expressions are "pro-life" and "pro-choice," and that "abortion rights" is a fairly neutral middle ground, though perhaps simply "abortion" would be better. That said the sentence would be rendered inaccurate by the removal of 'rights' since ACB has definitively ruled directly on abortion-just not specifically on "abortion rights" necessarily.OgamD218 (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're disputing the accuracy of the Reuters quote I provided above, which says she has not ruled directly on abortion? If so, can you please provide a replacement source? Othewise we need the change t to accurately reflect what Reuters says. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

No I did not say that OgamD218 (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I made the change. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that just “abortion” is the most neutral/best option. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 01:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Experience as a sitting judge just 3 years?
Is it correct that her experience as a sitting judge is just 3 years? From 10/31/2017 up to now? Or is there missing something in her biography? Biolekk (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * She has been a member of the court since receiving her commission on November 2, 2017, if confirmed to RBG's seat she will have less experience as a judge than most but not all current members at the time of their respective nominations, specifically CJ John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan-who was never a judge prior to her nomination. OgamD218 (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I know it's not a discussion board here, but that is weird. After all, I don't want to be operated on by a surgeon who has never been in the OR before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biolekk (talk • contribs) 09:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this is off topic, but I guess this is partly a function of age: by appointing someone (relatively) young to a life-long position, her impact will last for much longer than if they appointed someone older and more experienced. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , You are correct, this is not a discussion board for the merits of her qualifications, it is a discussion board regarding how the article should be written. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresented source implies bias on the part of the editor.
I'm new here, but this comment jumped out at me:

"She criticized the Obama administration for providing employees of religious institutions the option of obtaining birth control without having the religious institutions pay for it.[59]"

This is an egregious misrepresentation of the original article, and completely misses the point of the criticism. It needs to be corrected. I'll leave it to y'all to word it correctly. JGGIL (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the text from the source. You can see how the meaning has been changed.

"She also criticized the Obama administration’s method for giving employees of religious-affiliated organizations access to birth control without having the institutions pay for it.

Religiously-affiliated charities and universities were allowed to shift the cost on to their health insurance provider. But a letter Barrett and more than 300 academics signed said the accommodation “changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGGIL (talk • contribs) 02:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding why you think the quote from the source differs in meaning from the text in our article. Can you try to explain what you take the difference to be? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The original source (corrected) said that she criticized the Obama Administration's method for giving the employee's coverage, not that they received coverage. The point of the criticism was that the employers were still involved in providing birth-control in contradiction of their religious beliefs, whether they paid for it or not. She was not opposed to them getting coverage, just that the employers were forced to participate in that coverage.JGGIL (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)JGGIL (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The way the Wikipedia article is written is ambiguous. It leaves the reader to infer either a) she thought the employees weren't entitled to coverage, or b) she thought the employers should pay for it (mostly b). Neither implication is accurate.JGGIL (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem with the word "option"-- right? That to an uninformed reader it implies that they could avoid providing birth control coverage completely if they didn't take the option?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the problem is that Barrett was not criticizing the Administration for giving employees the option of coverage, or that the employer wouldn't have to pay for it. She was critical of the Administration for forcing the employers to participate in the birth control coverage against their beliefs if the employees opted in. (The coverage would still go through the employer's insurance plan). The article really twists her position.JGGIL (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Another awkwardness is this sentence is tacked on to the end of a paragraph about a separate issue, the tax mandate. I believe Barrett was referring to the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases when she mentioned the birth control mandate. Here's a link to the actual case that was decided by SCOTUS in favor of HL and the LSotP. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf JGGIL (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * How would you fix it?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:JGGIL is right. The South Bend Tribune article says: "She also criticized the Obama administration's method for giving employees of religious-affiliated organizations access to birth control without having the institutions pay for it." (Emphasis added.) "Method" is an important key word here; removing it changes the meaning of the sentence, insinuating that she criticized the Obama administration for giving the aforementioned employees access to birth control, when the South Bend Tribune article says it was the method she criticized. I've changed it in a way that I think makes it more consistent with the article it cites. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like this issue is solved.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Amy_Coney_Barrett
According to whom are these notable cases? They are pretty thinly sourced, often to primary docs. I would suggest a fairly substantial trim of this section. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Article fails NPOV by failing to note where she stands on abortion
Per every RS and all experts, she is likely to expand states' ability to restrict abortion access and even strike down Roe v. Wade:


 * 538: "widely seen as a justice who would be willing to significantly expand states’ ability to restrict abortion access, or even vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion."[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-amy-coney-barrett-could-change-the-supreme-court/[
 * WaPo: "experts who had studied her writings concluded that she would join other conservatives on the court in supporting overturning Roe v. Wade." + "fervently antiabortion."
 * WaPo: "Amy Coney Barrett, whose writings and rulings have led many on both sides to conclude she would vote to overturn Roe"
 * CBS News: "Many believe that overturning Roe v. Wade — the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide — is no longer a hypothetical... Unlike other frontrunners, Barrett offers a judicial record of being against abortion access."
 * NY Times: "hero to the anti-abortion movement"

The article needs to communicate that she opposes abortion and that experts believe she is likely to expand states' ability to restrict abortion rights and overturn Roe v. Wade. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * May need to nuance this a little:
 * Boston Globe: "it could be a stretch to automatically brand her as someone who would overthrow the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade without understanding the nuances of her coded phrases."
 * Harpers: "She doesn't think the core of Roe v. Wade would change"
 * I'm sure there are others. No time to look right now.Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The BG piece is an op-ed. The Harpers piece snippet is already in the article, and it's unrelated to whether she would overturn it if given the choice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , The dismissal of the Boston Globe statement is not well-founded. We are talking about what she might do in the future if the matter comes before her, which means by definition any such prediction is an opinion. Why would one discount one opinion when virtually every statement on topic is an opinion? Plus the claim that your view represents "every RS and all experts" is demonstrably false. I did a very cursory search and found two within seconds:
 * Newsweek:
 * Forbes:
 * S Philbrick (Talk)  21:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * S Philbrick (Talk)  21:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a question of opinion and we should certainly not rely on op-eds. It's unclear to me why you're repeating her 2016 claim that it's "very unlikely" that Roe v Wade will get overturned – that's already in the article and has never been contested (furthermore, a prediction about what is likely and unlikely is not the same as saying they wouldn't overturn it if they could). What keeps getting removed is (i) her opposition to abortion, (ii) her opposition to Roe, and (iii) the assessment by RS and legal experts that she is likely to restrict abortion access and could be the pivotal vote to overturn Roe. There's no reason to remove such content unless to whitewash her position on abortion, the very same position that both motivates support and opposition to her, and the very same position that is the reason why she was nominated in the first place. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course a prediction--even by an expert--about what Barrett is likely to do in the future is an unverifiable opinion. In reply to point (iii), then, we can of course include such opinions, when notable, in the article. But we need to reflect the full range of expert opinion, not just one side. Her statement that it is unlikely that Roe will be overturned is evidence that it is unlikely that she would herself overturn it, so that's why that is relevant. As for (i), I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't see why her moral or religious view of abortion is due, nor do I see a source for that. On (ii), her legal opinion--it is unlikely that the Roe-established "right to choose" will be overturned--is already in the article. We could add something about her view of the merits of that decision, or of its status as precedent, perhaps, though you haven't provided sources for that. Let's FOC instead of talking about motives ok? Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already linked to multiple RS in regards to her opposition to abortion and Roe. It's obnoxious to have that hand-waved away as "you haven't provided sources". Your reading comprehension is also off: she DID NOT say that she would not overturn Roe v Wade, she said in 2016 that it was unlikely that Roe would get overturned. That's not the same thing. A proponent of full drug decriminalization may make the assessment that drug decriminalization will never get implemented, but would implement it themselves if given the power. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, her statement Roe won't likely be overturned is totally irrelevant to whether she wants it to be or not. ɱ  (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You've provided sources which say that experts are worried that she may vote to overturn Roe if given a chance, and that she may vote to expand States abilities to restrict access to abortion. That's true, and I didn't deny that you provided such sources, but only that if they are included, we should also include the opinions of other experts with other opinions, which are also readily available. As for what you did not provide: you did not provide sources on her moral or religious view of abortion, or her view on precedent as it applies to Roe, or to her view of the reasoning in the original decision. Her views on these matters are complex, and I believe that there are such sources, but you have not provided them. I don't know if that level of detail is due anyway. I disagree with you that her opinion that Roe is is unlikely to be overturned is irrelevant. It is relevant. It makes it more likely that she herself thinks the reasoning around the core of Roe is strong enough to withstand scrutiny. It's not conclusive or anything, but it is obviously not irrelevant. FOC please. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't see anyone questioning that you provided multiple sources about her views. The problem is that you open this section with a blatant falsehood — specifically stating "Per every RS and all experts". As I am sure you are aware, such a claim is contradicted by the existence of a single counterexample. Why not start over with a neutral, supportable claim? S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * cmt - Also see Talk:2020_United_States_Supreme_Court_vacancy.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the article fails NPOV. As I stated in a comment above, there will inherently be less coverage of a controversial issue in an encyclopedia article than in a newsmedia piece. This is a bias, but it is a neutral bias and therefore is WP:KOSHER.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

No, having just come and read this topical article I don't think this article fails NPOV. In fact, I would say it shows Wikipedia at it's best, with some excellent descriptions of a whole range of her rulings. Yes, by all means lets craft a (brief) NPOV description of her views on abortion, avoiding any WP:UNDUE weight. However, as a Supreme Court judge (if she is nominated and confirmed) that is only one of many issues she will be dealing with. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that User:Ergo Sum removed the NPOV tag. I support Ergo Sum's action.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, but that NPOV tag is also over allegations of bias on LGBT issues. And no one user can remove the tag until these POV issues are settled, as per its instructions. If you don't like the tag, help settle the disputes. ɱ  (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no dog in this fight. I only removed a silly tag added for well-meaning but defective reasons. I only stop by to note that simply writing "don't remove until we say so" binds no one and indeed is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.  Ergo Sum  00:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to petition at Template talk:POV if you feel tag removal requirements are not in Wikipedia's spirit. But then again, most of our policies and guidelines lack automatic restraints, instead relying on reverts and discussions. ɱ  (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed, yes Wikipedia in general fails to be bold enough to report anything that isn't presented overly clear. It is plain as day that Barrett is anti-abortion and anti-LGBT rights, in private and professional life. We have a duty to report this, and I believe the conservative or centrist editors this article attracts are trying to hide these facts, as has been repeatedly happening. ɱ  (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have taken a quick look at the sources put forth above. They strike me as speculation by people paid to make moderately exaggerated, but news-making claims (also known as pundits). What we have available to us are her writings as a professor, opinions as a judge, and statements made to the public. Until one of those indicates the claims made here (wanting to overturn Roe, etc.), we cannot make such statements in the voice of Wikipedia. For this reason, at present, I detect no POV.  Ergo Sum  00:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Something that might be noteworthy is that in the fetal remains case, the law in question also outlawed gender/race/disability specific abortions, this was called the "eugenics provision", at least by its supporters. A judge threw out the whole law as unconstitutional and Indiana only appealed the fetal remains portion, (the case, "Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc."), Barrett joined a dissent that would have granted a rehearing on the eugenics provision anyway, the opinion states "using abortion to promote eugenic goals is morally and prudentially debatable.” OgamD218 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree Readers want to know whether experts think she will vote to restrict abortion rights or overturn Roe v. Wade altogether. They don't want a whole lot of anecdotal evidence and be asked to figure it out for themselves. If the sources are wrong, then the remedy is to find reliable sources that say something else. TFD (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks like it is three in favor of removing the tag and two in favor of keeping the tag. I thought the sexual orientation related criticism had been resolved already by adding in the comments per the ending of the above section. There was no discussion following that that any additional sexual-orientation related content needed to be added and it has been some time since then. If there is an ongoing discussion that justifies the tag, it is over abortion. If there is a reliable & non-pundit generated source that is somehow being blocked from the article and making it NPOV, this would be an appropriate time to present it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Some mention of her opinion on the abortion debate and/or views on Roe v Wade should be included. It does not at this time warrant inclusion in the lead though. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * : I switched the main page tag to two section tags marking the two sections where abortion and sexual orientation are discussed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Before this article reports how Barrett is likely to rule we at least need more substantial sources.


 * 538: Barrett is “widely seen…” For this it references Newsweek, which says “many fear…” How authoritative is this?


 * WaPo: “experts who had studied her writings concluded…” For this it cites an earlier WaPo article. It finally comes down to  “Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science and law at the University of Minnesota, said Barrett’s legal scholarship “suggests she is more open-minded than other potential nominees” to overturning precedent.” But then Timothy R. Johnson told PolitiFact “that Barrett’s relatively sparse paper trail makes it difficult to predict how she’ll rule if nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court.”  WaPo also says that Barrett is “fervently antiabortion” but where is the evidence that she would allow her personal beliefs to influence her judicial decisions?


 * WaPo: “led many on both sides to conclude…” Is this the best we can do?


 * NYT: “hero to the antiabortion movement…” So they like her personal views on abortion and hope that she will overturn Roe. Does this represent insight into how she is likely to rule? If Barrett has communicated something to them let’s report that. — Swood100 (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * usnews.com: "But she has not said publicly she would, if given the chance, seek to scale back rights affirmed by the high court"--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Time to remove section POV tag on abortion
, ,,, , , , , , :I am of the opinion that the usnews.com source above justifies the removal of the abortion POV tag. The removal of the abortion POV tag is justified because this is a reliable source stating that how she will vote has not been publicly stated. This indicates that the original rationale behind the tag is incorrect. The other POV tag over sexual orientation and Lambda legal is unaffected by this source and and would remain.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like there are no objections, so I am going ahead and removing the tag. If you disagree, revert me and discuss it here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

IUD case
In this one, Barrett found in favor of the manufacturer. It received coverage in the Washington Examiner, lexology.com and the Indiana Lawyer. Possibly could be included under "other cases".--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Added to the article under "Consumer protection"--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Qualified immunity
From an ABC News article: RAINSBERGER v. Benner and DIMITRIS TERRY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Two other significant qualified immunity cases not mentioned in the abc news piece are HOWARD v. KOELLER & O’DONOVAN and [https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-1651/17-1651-2018-08-17.pdf?ts=1534539619 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,v. WATSON]--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I added US v. Terry but in the Fourth Amendment subsection because I couldn't find "qualified immunity" in either the court opinion or the part of the ABC article that talks about it. —KinkyLipids (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * US v. Terry isn't really a qualified immunity case just because ABC news writes about it. I should not have included it. Possibly the last two links are incorrect as well.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Double checking, Watson, the last link, is already in the article and is a fourth amendment case. HOWARD v. KOELLER & O’DONOVAN is a qualified immunity case, and received coverage in a paywalled Chicago Daily Law Bulletin article. I looked on Google and could find no other coverage.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Added in a brief mention of HOWARD v. KOELLER as it relates to qualified immunity.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Teamsters
SHAKMAN vs. CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, Barrett dismisses the Teamsters by saying a memo filing won't make you a party to a lawsuit. Extensive coverage from cookcountyrecord.com. The Shakman Decrees article indicates that Shakman is experienced at suing. So this wasn't an accident; he must have been testing the waters to see if Barrett would accept it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Added a description of this to Amy_Coney_Barrett.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?

 * eurasiareview.com Is this source reliable? It seems to be from a legitimate source, but along with the named author Robert Wenzel it states "MISES Institute" as the source.
 * vettingroom.org, a blog article that seems more unbiased than most news sources--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would avoid the Mises Institute, as it is not RS (fringe-y think tank). Neutralitytalk 20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think the first source is reliable. I think Vetting Room is largely reliable. To me, it's like SCOTUSblog. I think they both fall under WP:NEWSBLOG because they are written by subject matter experts. However, I don't recall Vetting Room ever being discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard, so I don't know if there is any community consensus about its reliability. Marquardtika (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The eurasiareview.com page cited is “a look from a libertarian perspective,” so it announces its bias up-front.
 * The founder and editor of vettingroom.org is Harsh Voruganti, formerly of the ACLU and currently Board Member of the D.C. Lawyers Chapter of the American Constitution Society. The ACS is the liberal counterpart of the Federalist Society. The reporting does appear unbiased but it would seem to fall under the rule about  self-published sources:  “Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.” I think that WP:NEWSBLOG refers to blogs run by recognized news organizations who provide oversight. — Swood100 (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all three answers; I will not use them in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Morales v. Barr

 * 1) catholicnewsagency - ". . In one recent case on the court, Barrett ruled against the Trump administration in the case of an immigrant applying for a U visa. In Yeison Meza Morales v. Barr, decided on June 26 and amended on Sept. 3, Barrett considered the case of a Mexican citizen who entered the United States as a child and applied for a U visa as an adult. When Morales was ordered removed by an immigration judge as his application was still ongoing, he appealed. Barrett ruled that the order of removal was wrongly decided and allowed Morales' petition for the case to be reviewed. . ."
 * 2) WBGH(bostonpublicradio) - ". . Noorani noted at least one instance, during Meza Morales v. Barr, where Coney Barrett ruled favorably towards immigrants. In that case, he explained, Coney Barrett ruled that cases shouldn't be rushed, and that applicants 'should be able to find a sound judgment, or a fair judgment, or a fair disposition.' . ."br>--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I support discussing this case in the article. Both sources are good for using. Previously the article read: In Morales v. Barr, a deportation case, Barrett wrote a majority opinion countering arguments of the Trump administration.ref/ref This comment could be re-added with either source replacing this, since User:Neutrality reverted it and noted that it was an op-ed source.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020
Remove Vivian it supposed to be Coney not Vivian 64.222.180.90 (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, Vivian is likely in her post-marriage legal name. To be sure we would need to see a public record such as her child's birth certificate or her own marriage certificate. In Louisiana where I believe she was married, marriage records cost money. You can't just search it online like in Indiana (she does not show up there). If someone wants to pay for it and scan it for us that would be great.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , per WP:BLPPRIMARY, such a source would not be permitted in this BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)::
 * I understand that. One can find good quality secondary sources both with and without "Vivian"--how else are you supposed to know which secondary source to use? Commons would let you upload a photo of the certificate. The problem is probably that no one wants to pay for it so it won't get done anyway. This a less-than-ideal circumstance, but it is unlikely to bother most readers either way.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would hope Commons would have the common sense to delete such misused public records immediately. A birth or marriage certificate contains sensitive personal information. It is absolutely forbidden to have those floating around Wikipedia. It is furthermore unnecessary; we are based on secondary sources, not primaries. Elizium23 (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elizium23 (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Birth certificates are typically private, but marriage records are typically public in the US. If you paid the fees, you could get a her marriage record, but you could not get her child's birth certificate (which must be private to prevent identity theft). Many states have all recent marriage records available for free online, but Louisiana has only a limited area and time period available. I think the rationale behind marriage records being public is to discourage bigamy, incest, and offending the parents of the bride and groom. Some background info can be found at the secret marriage and Banns of marriage articles. Marriage_certificate indicates that Louisiana is not among the states offering confidential marriages.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Amy Coney Barrett for a resolution to this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

50 person quarantine order
I think a summary of ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY v. J. B. PRITZKER, including a wikilink to COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois should be added to the article. If anyone wants to write it I will support it if it is contested.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A non-primary source is needed to establish notability, at which point it could then be added to Diane Wood's wiki article, because it was Wood who wrote the opinion. KinkyLipids (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Found one and added. KinkyLipids (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I support adding a wikilink to Diane Wood's article within the existing brief mention added by KinkyLipids, but first work will need to be done on Wood's article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Added to Wood's article and added wikilink to this article. KinkyLipids (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You did such good work on those two, that I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind summarizing nearly 100 more:--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked for RS for the rest, but it looks like this Wiki article already covers all her notable cases. —KinkyLipids (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is a congressional report alone a suitable source for our purposes; even just for a list with the names and dates? It seems like a secondary source, unlike the questionnaire.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like a reliable secondary source. I guess it's up to editorial judgment as to whether or not an exhaustive list of all her court opinions should be in the Wiki article. —KinkyLipids (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

YouTube speech
An excerpt of her 2016 speech about Scalia that uses YouTube as the source has been added as "a secondary source for Scalia’s views". Barrett's words on Scalia, published in a reliable source such as a law journal, could be used as a secondary source for the Wiki article on Antonin Scalia. This article is not the Wiki article on Antonin Scalia. This is the article on Amy Coney Barrett, and Barrett is not a reliable secondary source on herself. Secondary sources are needed to establish the notability of this excerpt of her speech, otherwise it is WP:OR. Also see WP:BLPPRIMARY. (The edit comment also mentioned WaPo, but it's not clear what point the editor was trying to make.) KinkyLipids (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted User:Swood100's edit after I saw your comment. KinkyLipids, for now do not count me as being either for or against the inclusion of the comment; I reverted it because Swood100 has a duty to talk it out with you on the talk page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The source for the quote from Barrett’s acceptance speech has been changed. I thought about that originally but decided that nobody would complain about National Review as a source for text from a speech, as if NR would change that for partisan reasons, especially when There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review and because the objections have to do with opinion pieces.  People have better things to do when the text is, in fact, accurate.
 * The source for the quote from Barrett’s acceptance speech has been changed. I thought about that originally but decided that nobody would complain about National Review as a source for text from a speech, as if NR would change that for partisan reasons, especially when There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review and because the objections have to do with opinion pieces.  People have better things to do when the text is, in fact, accurate.


 * KinkyLipids, you agree that Barrett can be a valid secondary source for an article on Scalia. Are you saying that those words must be in a law journal and cannot be from a Hesburgh Lecture speech given at the JU Public Policy Institute and documented on YouTube? What would your reasoning be? What Wikipedia rules require this?


 * If Barrett says that she has the same judicial philosophy as Scalia then wouldn’t important aspects of Scalia’s judicial philosophy, established by a reliable secondary source, be relevant on a page devoted to Barrett?


 * In ascertaining Scalia’s judicial philosophy we need a reliable secondary source. Certainly Barrett would be a reliable source. Once she has explained Scalia’s judicial philosophy to us then we can use it whenever we need to reference it.  What is your authority for saying that this understanding cannot be used any time we need an explanation of Scalia’s judicial philosophy? If, after explaining Scalia’s judicial philosophy, Barrett said that person X has the same judicial philosophy, couldn’t this be used on an article devoted to person X? — Swood100 (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I also reinstated this edit which I assume was mistakenly included in the revert. — Swood100 (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would rather wikilink to Antonin_Scalia than to explain his philosophy on this page. A "Hesburgh Lecture speech given at the JU Public Policy Institute" is peer reviewed in a similar manner to how journal articles are peer reviewed, since it was presented to an academic audience, which then can chose to give comments or rebut the speaker. "JU Public Policy Institute" is the publisher or sorts rather than a specific journal run by some society or association. That might change the status on Wikipedia policies (or maybe it wouldn't, not sure). I reverted both edits but only the first edit is the topic KinkyLipids is concerned about here, so I am not contesting your re-adding of the second edit.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources also establish notability. The point is not whether the text is accurate, it's about whether it should be in the article at all. Whenever we include anything from a partisan source, we adopt that source's POV that the material is something that should be put in front of readers' eyes.
 * It looks like there is a NYT source, so why go with National Review or rev.com? I support re-adding the quote with a NYT citation. Problem solved. (I can't write the NYT citation myself because I'm not subscribed.)
 * On the Scalia issue, scholarly journals are reliable because they go through peer review. It is not my reasoning, it is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. There is no opportunity for pre-publication review for a live lecture & interview, even one by a respected scholar that is hosted by a university and named after a former Notre Dame president.
 * If Barrett said she admires Scalia's originalism, that does not mean she agrees with every aspect of Scalia's philosophy. To combine material from different speeches (one saying "I admire Scalia's originalism" and the other saying "Scalia says X, Y, Z") to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources ("I agree when Scalia says X, Y, Z") would be WP:SYNTH in a BLP.
 * Also, I'm sure she or the university retains the copyright to her lecture. Quoting at length sets off alarm bells. —KinkyLipids (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that admiring is not the same thing as copying. Lectures may or may not have been reviewed in advance, we don't know although it seems unlikely. What about a brief mention linking to the video? Would KinkyLipids agree to this if Swood100 drops the request to re-add the original edit? As a side issue, could I add a brief quote to this speech she made? I think it is not allowed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a reliable source that found a part of her 2006 commencement address notable. Adding a direct citation to her speech on top of that would be perfect. Here is a citation you can use: —KinkyLipids (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I just added it, but it might get reverted because I didn't see the edit before mine. I already reverted the page once in the last 24 hours and am planning on leaving it the way it is. Someone else may revert it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * nytimes - Barrett @White House Rose Garden: "His [Scalia's] judicial philosophy is mine too."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The National Law Journal probably a better source if anyone has a subscription. fiveby(zero) 14:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Law.com/The National Law Journal - ". . When asked in senators’ post-hearing questions to name which justices or judges with whom she is closest in her views and approach to judicial decision-making, Barrett pointed to her former boss at the Supreme Court. /P/ 'Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom I clerked, is the justice I know best, and I admire the fluidity of his thought, the clarity of his writing, and his careful attention to statutory and constitutional text. I admire Chief Justice John Marshall’s commitment to consensus and collegiality, which manifested itself in both the resolution of cases and his personal relationships with colleagues,' Barrett wrote. 'I admire Justice Elena Kagan for the way in which she is able to bring the knowledge and skill she acquired as an academic to the practical resolution of disputes.' . ." --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I changed the source of the quote from her acceptance speech to NYT, and selected a different quote from a law review article that says roughly the same thing. — Swood100 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the “source for notability” to the Barrett law review quote, given that you thought one was needed. However, according to WP:NOTE, “On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.” According to WP:NNC, “Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists.” So it would seem that notability is not relevant to this quote, since it is not being considered for its own article. WP:NOTEWORTHY says: “Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other  content policies.”

Do the contents of University of Notre Dame law review articles need to be also found in publications such as Vice before they can be cited in Wikipedia? Wikipedia also says about Treatises and law journals that “Journal articles and treatises generally are secondary sources and many are excellent.”  What purpose does Vice serve? — Swood100 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * pointed out in a different thread that I was incorrectly confusing WP:NOTE with a different policy. I'm sorry for misdirecting you to WP:NOTE. To answer your questions, scholarly articles can be cited on their own (as you said), as secondary sources. In the case of Barrett, she cannot be an independent secondary source for herself. Her articles are WP:PRIMARY sources of her own analyses. As I said at the top of this thread, WP:BLPPRIMARY is controlling here: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Vice News serves the purpose of being the secondary source needed to establish the acceptability of the primary-source material. —KinkyLipids (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPPRIMARY cautions against using public documents or records to support assertions about a living person, but we are not using the kinds of public documents that are referenced there and we are not making assertions about Barrett. We are quoting her own words.


 * You are saying that in an article about person X if one wants to use a quotation by person X, one can use the quotation if found in Vice but not if found in a law review article? Vice establishes “acceptability” but a University of Notre Dame law review does not establish acceptability? What is meant by acceptability, that the latter cannot establish it? It can’t mean relevance to the purpose of this article because the Vice article was not written with this article in mind, nor is every quote by X printed in Vice appropriate to an article about X.  Why doesn’t the University of Notre Dame law review serve the purpose of being the secondary source? Vice reports what X said, OK.  Law review reports what X said, No go? Really don’t get it.


 * Even if a person’s words in a law review were a primary source why wouldn’t they still be usable under the rule in WP: PRIMARY? — Swood100 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPPRIMARY requires extreme caution for primary sources, full stop. Then it adds absolute restrictions on the use of government records.
 * "What is meant by acceptability...?" WP:BLPPRIMARY answers this (2nd paragraph).
 * "the Vice article was not written with this article in mind". The article is titled "Trump Plans to Pick Amy Coney Barrett to Replace RBG on the Supreme Court".
 * "Why doesn’t the University of Notre Dame law review serve the purpose of being the secondary source?" I answered this previously, and it is explained in WP:PRIMARY (1st paragraph).
 * Using the less-stringent WP:PRIMARY to ignore the stricter WP:BLPPRIMARY in a BLP goes against WP:PRIMARY, which states: "Unless restricted by another policy..." (2nd paragraph)
 * At this point, we have resolved the main issues related to article text and to sourcing of YouTube and an editorial magazine, and the only issue now is the removal of the news article. I have written enough about why policy requires it, so I refer to this explanation of policy:
 * "Independent sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia." —WP:INDY.
 * Thank you. —KinkyLipids (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2020
Add to Section 3 Judicial Philosophy and political views

"Amy Coney Barrett is listed by Alliance Defending Freedom as a previous Blackstone Legal Fellowship faculty.[1] ADF and Blackstone, identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as "Hate Groups",  seek to recriminalize homosexuality and to recover the "robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries." [2]

1. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8

2. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom

-- Viragods (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source asserting that she worked as a faculty member during the time period that it was designated as a hate group? Or was her involvement prior to the hate group designation?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Faculty" is in an interesting word, as used by ADF. In fact, Barrett spoke on five different occasions to the students of the Blackstone Legal Fellowship program, over the course of a number of years. That doesn't fit with what most people think of as a "faculty" member. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. This is pretty blatantly non-neutral in tone, and is improperly synthesizing material from different sources in order to push a particular POV, rather than drawing from secondary sources directly. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 20180223 185543 NDD 5533.jpg
 * Not anymore; I reverted it. This appears to be a case of where a news-photography-service took a Wikimedia commons photo and used it without attribution. I was thanked rather than contested for my reversion by the individual who found the news photography service watermark on a website using the photo.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I emailed the address given in their EXIF info, and the photographer replied that it was okay, and they're emailing permissions over. So should be fixed soon by the OTRS team I suppose. ɱ  (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone fixed it!--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)