Talk:Brett Kavanaugh/Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2018
This is what appears "On September 26, Julie Swetnick alleged under oath that Mark Judge and Kavanaugh organized and participated in gang rape; ..."

In reading the "Declaration of Julie Swetnick" I dont see that she made that statement under "Oath". While her statement says she is declaring it under penalty of perjury it is still an unsworn statement and not even an affirmation. I dont know if her "Declaration" reaches the level of being under oath. There is no Notarial seal or stamp affixed to it and no statement of oath only a statement that is she was called to testify she "would and could do so." https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2018/09/26/swetnickstatement.pdf 35.136.236.32 (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ The bit about it being under oath does not appear to be supported by the source, which says only The committee has written a letter to (Avenatti) asking him if he can produce his client for a interview under oath.  G M G  talk  21:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

1998 incident - Senate probes new misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh: NBC News

 * 1) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/senate-probes-new-misconduct-allegation-against-kavanaugh-nbc-news.html
 * 2) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/senate-probing-new-allegation-misconduct-against-kavanaugh-n913581

Sagecandor (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Michael Avenatti and allegations of gang rape and rape trains. Why are no specifics mentioned?
Basically the subject. Why are the specifics of the allegations not mentioned? 73.181.160.177 (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is sensitive stuff, but it will come. Be patient. Most American editors are asleep now. Tomorrow should see more action on this front, and more coverage in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's a breaking news story. JTRH (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If I had to guess, I'd imagine that the editor who inserted that section wisely understood that it would be an absolute violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP to include what you're asking for. Frankly, the Avenatti claims don't even belong in this article until something of actual substance comes of it. Essentially they constitute an anonymous "allegation of an allegation," the source for which is Michael Avenatti, who is not a WP:RS. If the article's subject were not a controversial figure at the center of a polarizing issue, there would not even be a question of whether or not this sort of stuff should be included. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know why she didn't report girls being raped to the police when she saw it happening - doesn't that make her an accessory? And then she went BACK to the parties where she knew girls were being raped? And now there are reports that she owed 100,000 in back taxes, with an active security clearance?  How do you maintain an active clearance with 100,000 in back taxes?  Now Politico is reporting that her ex-boyfriend got a RESTRAINING ORDER against her!  Michael.suede (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Evidence to Deborah Ramirez's claim
There is no evidence to the Ramirez claim as far as I know I cited this article. I was told that was an opinion. I disagree there is either evidence or there is not. Is there any evidence? Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence to anyone's claims or denials. There is only corroboration. We don't cite opinion pieces as facts. Such sources can be used if properly attributed like "In an opinion published in the Washington Post, John Doe insists that..." or something similar. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So if there is no evidence why would it be reverted? Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As already said "We don't cite opinion pieces as facts". Unless you can find good reliable sources do not add anything. Best to post to talk page first that way others can assist if there is more to it and help find more RS. ContentEditman (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Question: should we add "alleged rapist/sexual assaulter" into the first sentence of the lede?
e.g. "Brett Michael Kavanaugh (/ˈkævənɔː/; born February 12, 1965) is an American attorney, jurist and an alleged sexual assaulter/rapist/gang rapist who serves as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit." Openlydialectic (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not? Openlydialectic (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. PackMecEng (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No. If the reason is not obvious, you probably should not be editing Wikipedia. Sorry to have to be harsh.- MrX 🖋 19:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should stop then. And I will, if you care to explain ur reasoning Openlydialectic (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mostly because it would be a direct WP:BLP violation. I would strongly suggest you read over that policy. PackMecEng (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite simple: Because it places undue weight on mere allegations without conviction, which is a major WP:BLP violation. Regards So  Why  20:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am withdrawing the proposal. Openlydialectic (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Note
.--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The Gateway Pundit is not a reliable source. See WP:RS.- MrX 🖋 12:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if it were, none of those "stories" are anything other than "why this or that". Regards So  Why  13:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Personal Life: He incurred a debt...
Is that really worthy information for an encyclopedia? Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal I don't think this adds important encyclopedia information to the article, it seems more like gossip/human interest style reporting. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove Trivial info, non encyclopedic. He also sleeps with his eyes closed, but that is non-encyclopedic as well. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove. Trivial financial disclosure with some spin from the White House (which released the baseball story in July) - no lasting significance for a supreme court justice - it is interesting now, but it would not pass the 10 year test.Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Remove WP:NOT -- Sleyece (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion
Thanks to Seraphim System's complaints about my reducing redundancy, providing context, and restoring a deletion made by an IP editor, I looked at the original stories about the issues in question. This article about Kavanaugh's acquisition of considerable consumer debt is particularly germane and I think the issue should be included. During one year He racked up between $15,000 and $50,000 in a total debt of up to $200,000 on three credit cards and similarly sized loan. The explanation about why he did this, in part buying season tickets to Nationals season games and playoffs for friends, and for which he was reimbursed, frankly is a bit confusing. If he was reimbursed why did he continue to carry the debt, for instance, and why didn't they buy their own tickets? It's an important issue. Here's a story on it that is not reflected in our Wikipedia article. Activist (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wapo is paywalled - however the 11 July credit-card thing was spin pushed out by the WH (and carried by several outlets - e.g. Vanity Fair - - they all took a bite at this planned release) and is all together meh. This Chicago Tribune piece from August 2018 is a bit more detailed on various aspects - but I'm still at meh - it's all rather mundane financial disclosures (part of any vetting process for a candidate of this caliber) for this position and income level.Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is already an open discussion about this in another section. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 14:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think WaPo is only paywalled after one reads more than five articles per month. Lots of other media took note, without penciling out what it really meant. I don't think the debt is meh at all. For whatever reason, they accumulated high interest credit card and a similar-sized loan debt in a year which exceeded the annual family income after taxes and FICA, etc. (She wasn't working.) They bought their house in 2006 for $1.2 million. That's another $80,000 a year in interest (in July 2006, benchmark mortgage interest was 6.79%), plus property taxes, etc. The credit card interest on $200,000 in 2006 was, at the "nominal rate" of 14.73%, about another $30,000 a year. The kids' tuition at a Catholic school was over $10,000 each. That may be the tip of the iceberg. Clearly, they were way over their heads. Activist (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The WaPo source says its just a routine financial disclosure. It also says all his debt has been paid off, with the exception of a mortgage. There is nothing in the source that supports the above comments - please remember that WP:BLP applies on the talk page. This is routine news coverage that doesn't seem like it will have any lasting significance for a BLP of a Supreme Court justice. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This should probably be moved to the section you mention, I assume, "SS". Activist (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018
I JUST TO INFORM ALL READING THIS PAGE, THAT WIKIPEDIA IS EXTREMELY BIAS TOWARDS ANYTHING CONSERVATIVE AND WILL RESTRICT ANYTHING POSITIVE AND READERS MAY MAKE THEIR OWN DICISIONS BASED ON FACT, RATHER THAN OUR FORCED WORDS 72.28.17.191 (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: unencyclopedic L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

He's not an "Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States"
The infobox falsely claims that he holds the office of "Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States" and that it's merely a matter of time before he takes office. In reality he hasn't even been appointed under the relevant mechanism of his own country, namely by being confirmed by the senate, and may never become Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States at all. At this point all we have is Donald Trump's proposal that he should be appointed, which the senate may never agree to. This should be removed from the infobox until such time he has formally been appointed to that office. --Tataral (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You forgot the word "Designate". Also, the President appoints Supreme Court Justices; the Senate advises and consents. - MrX 🖋 13:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The President doesn't appoint them in the normal meaning of the word, and for the purposes of the "office" parameter of this infobox, since they don't become supreme court justices at all without the senate's consent. If that were the case, what about the supreme court justice appointed by Obama, Merrick Garland, who held the exact same status as Kavanaugh? If Kavanaugh has "Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States" listed as an "office" in the infobox without having been approved by the senate and with no guarantee of being approved or ever taking office, then so should Garland. --Tataral (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It includes the word "Designate" at the end. Technically, having been nominated but not yet confirmed, he is an Associate Justice-designate. Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia does links, it can't be presented that way and still link to the Associate Justice page. But the appellation is correct. JTRH (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Tataral may have a valid point. After Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court, we did not change the infobox to identify him as a "designate" office holder.. The same is true for Elena Kagan .- MrX 🖋 19:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * At best, he is a nominee or candidate. Has no status as a "designate"d office holder.  He still occupies an office, i.e., Judge of the Court of Appeals.  These seats are mutually exclusive.  Should not put cart before the horse.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Someone should go ahead and change the infobox.- MrX 🖋 19:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"Violently"
I think it is clear enough from my edits that I am not on some mission to defend the man from the allegation as I have also cleaned up some TE that was in his favor. But "violently" is totally redundant (is there "nonviolent" sexual assault??), unnecessary, and unencyclopedic; it is inappropriate for the lede of an article of this level of public interest. You should self-revert. --Calthinus (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Section name: "Sexual assault..."
Should the section be: "Sexual assault and attempted rape allegations"? The third accuser does not allege that Kavanaugh raped her, but that she had been raped at a party where Kavanaugh was present. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify for me as to why you closed the discussion? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * What is the BLP issue here? Why did you close the discussion? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am rather perplexed as well. Please explain the WP:BLP you note or re-open the section for discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hat removed. I apologize if I overstepped a bound in this section. As a side note, a change somewhat similar to the one suggested here has recently been made to the section of the article in question. -- Sleyece (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Professor Christine Blasey Ford Opening Statement.webm

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2018
Brett Kavanaugh is an alleged rapist. 193.203.64.82 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌ Already mentioned in the article. Regards So  Why  09:00, 28 September 2018 (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) 10:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Professor Christine Blasey Ford Opening Statement.webm

Irrelevance of home purchase and salary
"In early 2006, Kavanaugh and his wife bought a $1.2-million home in Chevy Chase Section Five, Maryland.[29] In 2018, Kavanaugh reported that he earned a $220,000 salary as a federal judge and $27,000 as a lecturer at Harvard Law School during the previous year."

The relevance of the cost of the home that Kavanaugh and his wife purchased and the subsequent mention of his salary twelve years later is questionable. This fact (documented as it appears to be) has no place in the article, since it is trivial and has no place in an article of this type.

What the author appears to imply is that a $247,000 income is not sufficient to purchase a $1.2 million home. Further research into other sources of income or other funds would be appropriate if such an entry remains in the article, in order to present facts and convey them objectively. mattmidi 10:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbrown1427 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no comments on the inclusion on this but while ORry, I want to point your last rational is just silly. For starters as you already pointed out the income figure is many years after the home purchase so automatically anyone who thinks it has any real relevance is dumb. More to the point, even ignoring the fact that his wife's income isn't mentioned, savings etc (including of course the classic bank of mum and dad), buying a home 5x of income is considered not ideal, but hardly uncommon in some places. [//www.mymoneyblog.com/4-different-rules-of-thumb-for-how-much-house-you-can-afford.html] [//www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/where-the-house-price-to-income-ratio-is-most-out-of-whack/561404/] [//www.propwise.sg/is-paying-just-5-times-your-annual-income-for-a-property-realistic/] [//www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12078098] [//www.theguardian.com/money/2006/aug/20/firsttimebuyers.property] [//www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/mortgages-and-rates/canadas-old-standards-of-housing-affordability-need-an-update/article27126408/]. If the info belongs, there may or may not be a better way to structure it but ultimately some info is going to end up together and some idiot could jump to to silly conclusions. We should consider whether these two pieces of info belongs and if so where on their own merits, not be influenced by the fact some idiots may put two and two together and get 1 trillion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz: Postpone Kavanaugh confirmation until FBI can investigate accusations against him
Sagecandor (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Catholic magazine un-endorses Brett Kavanaugh, American Bar Association demands an FBI investigation
Sagecandor (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * America: The Jesuit Review concluded, "For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson." Sagecandor (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

See here.2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The lead has too many paragraphs
The lead currently has six paragraphs, even though Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Lead section says that the lead's "length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs". That guideline page linked to this supplement to the Manual of Style, which says, "The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs" and includes this graph that indicates that the lead of an article should have, at most, three or four paragraphs. This article has about 124,000 bytes of content. For comparison, I randomly chose a few other articles that I assumed would be very lengthy, Michael Jackson and the September 11 attacks, to see how many paragraphs are in their leads. Both those articles have over 100,000 more bytes than this article, yet only have four paragraphs in the lead. Based on all this, I feel that someone should condense the lead of this article to three or four paragraphs. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was five paragraphs when I came across this comment, with the first being a single sentence. I combined them. It's four paragraphs now.
 * The lead in my opinion, is a bit too long, including details unnecessary for the lead, such as which fraternity he belonged to. It could use some pruning. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. MelanieN changed it from six paragraphs to five immediately after I posted my comment. However, a new problem was created after your (Anachronist's) edits: The opening paragraph is now way too long because you merged the first and second paragraphs. The Manual of Style says, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific" (my bolding). That opening paragraph was perfect before you made your edits and should therefore be changed back to how it was originally, with the second paragraph beginning with "Kavanaugh graduated from Yale College..." Also, I definitely agree with you that the lead needs pruning. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you and I edit-conflicted while we were both working on the lede. I trimmed some detail, combined some material, and as a result it's now just three paragraphs. I agree that the first paragraph should be split back into two per usual Wikipedia style. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, please split the first paragraph back to the way it was and we're all set. Thanks for the quick help on this issue! 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2018 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School signed a letter
FROM:

Over 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school.

TO:

Over 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School, including Republican United States Senator from West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito and actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school.

Over 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School, including Republican United States Senator from West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito and actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ The RS seem to say the letter was delivered to Shelley Moore Capito, not that she signed it (at least as far as I can tell). -Obsidi (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Julie Swetnick allegations
In this edit, removed the entirety of what she alleged Kavanaugh to have done; I don't see how the text is a BLP violation; and while one may want to change the wording or trim the text down, I don't see any valid reason to completely exclude her allegations. Would including something like this text, which removes redundancy, be acceptable to people: Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed you've restored the edit; while I don't disagree with the restoral obviously, note that edit was in fact a violation of discretionary sanctions restrictions (which is why I posted here for a consensus) per "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Accusations of this nature, alleging someone to have participated in multiple gang rapes over a multi year period, without any evidence is a BLP violation. Thanks for bringing the discussion here. I see I've been reverted again (courtesy ping ) so I won't remove it myself anymore, but I view it to run afoul of our policy - Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. No RS seems to have taken Swetnick's allegation seriously, they've only reported what she claims to have witnessed. To give this uncorroborated claim credibility is to suggest that in 1980s suburban DC there was a crime ring of teenage boys running a drugging and raping scheme so heinous that multiple women were abused multiple times over multiple years, but that absolutely no word of this was reported until now. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the claims, the New York Times writes "None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview." in this article. If the claims have consensus to stay, a heavy disclaimer should be added per the NYT story. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've redacted a bit of your comment. Please be mindful that Julie Swetnick is also a living person with WP:BLP protection, and keep your own speculation about the credibility of the accusation (which has absolutely no bearing here) to yourself. I don't see that WP:RS have or haven't taken her allegation seriously; all I see is that numerous WP:RS have reported on it, and I haven't seen them view the allegations as being not credible in a manner that would want warrant exclusion here; I don't see how the NYT comment says anything other than that though they are reporting the allegations, they are not saying they are true; which is standard for when it isn't their own reporting that is revealing an allegation Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit my comments. My comment was about her claim. Claims are not living people and have no BLP protection. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment was problematic for the same reason that saying that someone's statement is a lie is problematic even though statements are not living people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wild is a very accurate definition of those claims. I could have also gone with shocking. If I said false I would agree with you but I did not. Regardless I changed my description to uncorroborated. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, above you use hyperbolic shock language: "a crime ring of teenage boys running a drugging and raping scheme so heinous that multiple women were abused multiple times over multiple years," I don't know how old you are. I'm 67 and grew up in the '60s and '70s when "sex, drugs & rock 'n' Roll" were a very real and common lifestyle. If you weren't into that kind of thing, you were a nerd and considered uncool and abnormal. Sex between very intoxicated partners was common and generally not seen as "rape". That word was reserved for sex under violent duress. Sex with multiple partners was common, and I knew several girls who experienced screwing many or every guy at a party. I know two who did it willingly, but also one who felt pressured to "just continue". She felt pretty lousy afterwards, but didn't consider herself to have been "raped". Now we are more enlightened and see any sex without consent has highly improper. A drunk person cannot give consent.
 * I am not saying this to excuse bad behavior, but to put things in context. These boys may well have gotten girls drunk, but they did not see themselves as rapists, and neither did many of their peers. Only if violence was involved would the "rape" word be used. These boys did not see themselves as part of a "crime ring" either. This type of thing was very spontaneous. Hey, a girl was willing, or at least not protesting, so things happened. Yes, it was inappropriate as hell, but it happened often. I feel sorry for all the girls who felt taken advantage of. The context of the times was not on their side. Some could hide those memories, and others not. Fortunately society is moving in the right direction, but with Trump's "war against political correctness", we're regressing back toward those times when women were treated as objects with few rights. I just don't understand how any woman can vote for these men. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It's true that the lurid portion of her allegations - drugging and gang rape - are the things that Reliable Sources have focused on. If we take our clue from Reliable Sources, that is what we should report, and using a direct quote from her as in the suggested text above makes it clear that these are allegations and not facts. But if people feel that BLP requires us not to allow such lurid accusations on our pages, we could use a toned-down summary, for example ...who declared in a sworn statement that she went to high school parties involving Judge and Kavanaugh, and that it was common at such parties for boys to prey on girls, sometimes by spiking or drugging the drinks so that the girls could not resist. Would it be OK with people if I add this while we discuss it? or if someone adds it? It makes no sense for us to do what we currently do in the article, i.e., give no indication at all what kind of "credible information" she claims to have. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Mr Ernie, Galobtter, Awilley: I certainly wish to comply with Wikipedia policies, including discretionary sanctions. I did see where it says in the edit window, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." At the request of other editors, and in the spirit of cooperation, I have reverted my edit. However, I do not believe my previous edit restoring the deleted section was incorrect. I did reinstate text that another editor (Mr Ernie) deleted, but the text that Mr Ernie deleted was not deleted via reversion. Mr Ernie's edit summary said, "Julie Swetnick: BLP violation, removed", not "Undid revision nnnnnn by so-and-so (talk) ... ". So, I don't see the violation, but in cooperation, I won't do anything further with this section until there is consensus. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , people recently (obviously, since the allegations were only revealed a few days ago) inserted the text that Mr. Ernie removed, and so his edit was a reversion of their edits - reversions are reversions whether done literally with the undo button or not Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries - thanks for coming to the talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok by me, but I suggest to add that there is no evidence or corroboration in support of the claims. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @Anamalocaris, I was treating the BLP challenge as a reversion in the sense that it was removing material added in the last couple of days. @MelanieN, I don't see any problem with putting that in to make it work for now. ~Awilley (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I added it. This is a compromise/watered down description of the allegations; we can continue to discuss here whether to use the actual quotes from her. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is now more information about the Swetnick allegations in the intro than in her section. That can't be right.--Pharos (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not any more. I trimmed most of the detail about the allegations from the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

, you quoted from BLP, but you need to recognize that BLP describes when and how we are supposed to include these types of allegations. Done properly, we are required by NPOV to do it. Don't just yell "BLP" whenever you see negative content of this nature. Learn the proper way to include it, without censorship or neutering, both of which violate NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The nature of the allegations is key here, which is why they're explicitly described in all the reliable sources. We are censoring ourselves way more than most reputable media out there. "Prey" is WP:WEASEL in this context. The original text should be restored and there's no use in trying to hide behind fallacious interpretations of BLP or the same Uber-Gamable discretionary sanctions.  Volunteer Marek  06:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking purely as an editor, I would actually agree with restoring the more specific quote that is under debate here. I inserted the compromise or "weasel" text just so that the article would have SOMETHING while we debate it. Note that we have not yet reached consensus on whether to include the more specific language and we must not restore it unless/until we do. --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

completely outdated picture
Kavanaugh's picture is at least 20 years old. --Espoo (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Tis a 9 year old picture Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. But we will have a new one to use after he's confirmed to sit on the SCOTUS.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 13:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How do we know it's from 2009? --Espoo (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Metadata table at the bottom of the file page says the image was created in 2009. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean the date info on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judge_Brett_Kavanaugh.jpg How do we know that's correct? --Espoo (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He's clearly younger in that picture than in this one from 2006: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/09/626164904/who-is-brett-kavanaugh-president-trumps-pick-for-the-supreme-court --Espoo (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that that's just the difference between makeup and non-makeup. Here's another PD image that could be used. Regards So  Why  18:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Cite errors
Can someone fix the 8 ugly, red cite errors? They're all the same type of error ("The named reference (ref name) was invoked but never defined"). 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There were five cite errors when I added a template to the top of the page fo fix the issue. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * These are turning up because people are trimming and deleting material from the article. Fixing them would require searching through the history to find out where the source reference was, before it was deleted. I took a quick look but haven't found them yet. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's currently down to two errors. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And it looks like it's all fixed now. Thank you, whoever did this! --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Picture
This picture, in the article, is in my opinion not useful. First I focussed on the wrong person, sitting to the left of G.W. Bush from my point of view. Then I understood which person was in fact meant, and noticed that you can't see the man's face. In my opinion it would be a good idea to delete the picture from this article. Bob.v.R (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's OK. It's the only illustration we have for his time in the Bush administration. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since it's the only image available from Kavanaugh's years working in the GWB administration, it's a valuable addition to the article. To prevent confusion about Kavanaugh's location in the photo, perhaps the caption could be changed from "Kavanaugh is seated directly to the left of Bush" to "Kavanaugh is seated directly to Bush's left". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I have changed the caption accordingly. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Brett Kavanaugh in the Oval Office.jpg George W. Bush and other White House staffers. Kavanaugh is second from the left.]]
 * Brett Kavanaugh and Bill Clinton.jpg Bill Clinton on Air Force One.]]
 * Brett Kavanaugh and Bill Clinton.jpg Bill Clinton on Air Force One.]]


 * 69.181.23.220 (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The photo provided by 69.181.23.220 of Kavanaugh in the Bush meeting is obviously better than the one currently being used, which has Kavanaugh turned away from the camera. The one with Clinton is great, too. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fully agree with the remarks about these two pictures. So the picture on the left could replace the current picture with G.W. Bush. Bob.v.R (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutral language (allegation - accusation)
At his point, Kavanaugh's denials are no more proof of his innocence than the assertions of the women who accused Kavanaugh of various wrongdoings are of his guilt. Both are assertions without proof or before proving, i.e., allegations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think any reasonable editor would disagree with your statement. The section regarding all the claims is titled "Sexual assault allegations" (bolding added). "Allegation" and "accusation" are synonyms. So are you requesting something? If so, please be specific. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My above edit was an additional explanation for my edits to the lead. One of the sentences has since been removed by another editor which is fine by me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018
I'm requesting that the fact that he sexually assaulted Dr. Ford, or at least that he is under investigation for sexual assault be added to this fage int eh first 3 sentences so that when anybody good=gel him, they'll see that and know Llollla (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The location of the allegations content in the lead is appropriate per MOS:LEAD and MOS:BEGIN and has been reviewed extensively by numerous experienced editors. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Motion for Subpoena of Mark Judge was removed from article
Motion for Subpoena of Mark Judge was removed from article.

Relevant info was removed. 

Cited to multiple sources.

Should be added back.

Sagecandor (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal. This is a very minor incident in the hearings, having no effect on the outcome (since it was defeated) and not important enough to include in this biography. It could be added to the article on his nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose adding back into this section. It has no WEIGHT for this BLP. it is already in the article about the nomination, added by Sagecandor, who also added it to a couple other articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Include Its more than relevant and has come up quite often, has many references, and is heavily supported as it is part of the narrative. ContentEditman (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Melanie, this level of detail is outside the scope of a biography. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 23:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ???? User:SageCandor - that delete is a delete in a different article. If you want it added back, you should Talk there and at most notify here that discussion is ongoing with a link to that Talk.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Two men claiming to be the ones involved in Ford's encounter
I found this article with information that I think should be added to the section about Christine Blasey Ford's accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBZE (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have little doubt that most editors actively involved in editing this article are well aware of the fact that both of these still unnamed men are saying they could have been (not are) the boy who allegedly assaulted the woman. This not only has been widely reported, but Ford was asked about it at the September 27 hearing. So, all we have at this point is not one, but two unidentified guys who are not making any definitive claims, but merely saying, "Hey, it could have been me, not Kavanaugh." 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Since it was reported that the Judiciary committee investigated the claims, but made no mention of them in the hearings, my belief is that this is not notable information and need not be included in this article. Ward20 (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, as I said, they absolutely did mention the claims at the September 27 hearing. Ford was asked directly about it. She said she was certain it was Kavanaugh. But I agree, the claims do not belong in the article per my explanation above. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Think it does not belong as it does not have enough WEIGHT to mention. Widely mentioned in this case does not mean enough WEIGHT relative to how much coverage other parts of the topic have.  At most it would be a 1 line mention of existing.  I feel the same way about an anonymous letter additional accusation ... a number mention it exists, but it just is not a significant portion or having any impact.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018 reference improvements
improve:



with



replace



with (as this is a more detailed article)



and include (as they describe the evolution of the document) :





69.181.23.220 (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. I have expanded the “Latest news” reference. I did not replace the Fox 5 reference with the CBC reference you suggest, because the Fox 5 item relates more directly to the material it is cited for. I did not add the Vanity Fair and Hollywood Reporter references, as they are more of a fluff or entertainment type of publication rather than hard news. I did not add a mention of Julia Louis-Dreyfus, as I regard that as basically name-dropping unrelated to the thrust of the issue. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus violation
I challenged your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kavanaugh&oldid=861838966 via reversion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kavanaugh&oldid=861867935. If I interprete required consensus correctly, you should have taken the issue to the Talk page instead of reverting again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kavanaugh&oldid=861871402. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Both versions are basically correct, for what it's worth. Bob Carlson personally wrote the letter, but clearly on behalf of the ABA (referring to "we" and whatnot). Just say both things and you'll both be happier, no topic ban or block required. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It’s not about making editors happy or not. We stick to the facts and sources, and we adhere to Wikipedia’s rules. The sources say that the ABA called on/urged etc.  Their current president signed the letter - so what?  Someone had to sign it.  It wasn’t him requesting the committee to delay the vote as our text currently claims, making it sound as if he was doing this on his own while the ABA was endorsing Kavanaugh. It wasn’t an endorsement, either;  they rate the nominees, and they rated him "well-qualified" based on the information they had at the time. As for the rules, I think this one applies: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Aye, someone had to write and sign it. Best to note who, as a simple sourced fact, while also simply noting he sent it on behalf of his group. Don't pretend Carlson was "going maverick", of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to Edit-war in ABA recommendation
This addition about the ABA giving the candidate the highest rating is WP:PROMO. has continued to try to edit-war this material in, despite warnings on his/her talk page. This needs to stop. Another editor has also objected and removed this new addition. William M. Connolley's edit-note says: "The ABA "WQ" doesn't deserve such prominence. It belongs ni the nom section, if at all here. But Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination doesn't feature it prominently. also needs a cite, of course." I agree. The material does not belong in the WP:LEDE. This new editor needs to follow WP:BRD. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, now it appears as if an IP editor is trying to add this information back in the lede. If it continues, semi-protection may be a good idea. In spite of the edit war, though, I believe that Brett Kavanaugh's new ABA rating of "well qualified" should belong in the article (not in the WP:PROMO way it is written right now), especially since his previous rating of "qualified" is mentioned. I propose to have a sentence somewhere under the Tenure as U.S. Circuit Judge (2006–present) section mentioning that the ABA has given him the "well qualified" rating. Potential sources could include the ABA journal or the National Review. Thoughts? Hickland (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree -- on all points. The need for page protection appears to have been taken care of with this edit.  I would support further protection if more disruption occurs.  The material in question is being added for selling the candidate for the confirmation process.  --David Tornheim (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI. I have taken this to WP:AE here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to add the claim of ABA recommendation is not supported by the citations that come after it. Should be removed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The statement about the ABA rating is accurate but needs to be cited. ABA ratings are often discussed in the context of judicial nominations, but only because almost everyone who makes it far enough through the screening process to be nominated gets the highest rating. It's a big deal if you don't get rated Highly Qualified. It belongs in the article as long as there's proper citation and context. JTRH (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hasn’t Kavanaugh been given a unanimous ABA rating of “well qualified” (the highest possible) as of July 2018? Why reference ABA ratings dating back to 2003 and 2006? To include one but not the other ... what’s the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.69.150 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Amy Chua
The section "Law clerk hiring practices" needs to be updated. See. Amy Chua has called allegations against her "outrageous" and "100% false." 66.188.103.126 (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently the article says Responding to the report, Chua denied that Kavanaugh's hiring decisions were affected by female applicants' attractiveness, stating, "Judge Kavanaugh's first and only litmus test in hiring has been excellence." What about this is wrong, or needs to be expanded? -Obsidi (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No change. The situation is covered adequately in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2018 alumnae delivered the letter personally to alumna
FROM:

Over 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school.

TO:

Over 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School, including actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school; some alumnae delivered the letter personally to Holton-Arms School alumna and Republican United States Senator from West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito.

Over 1,000 alumnae of Holton-Arms School, including actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, signed a letter stating that Ford's accusation was "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived" while attending the school; some alumnae delivered the letter personally to Holton-Arms School alumna and Republican United States Senator from West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is interesting. I'll try to find a better source for the Capito information; the item from the Miami Herald is an opinion piece so not ideal.--MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Found one! I'm going to leave out Julia Louis-Dreyfus as name-dropping, but the information about them delivering it to Capito is interesting. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added the information to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Particularities in separation of claims, allegations, speculations, and evidences
I would suggest that greater clarifications be made both for the sake of modern onlookers as well as consistency for posterity. Specifically, in noting how claims which are only partially correct or consistent be explicitly noted in their differences. This is to avoid and confusion or conflation as to where partially correct claims begin and end in their factualness.

Two important relevant examples I think, include specifying that when: "Ford stated that in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, one of Kavanaugh's friends from Georgetown Prep School, corralled her in a bedroom at a house party in Maryland and turned up the music that was playing in the room." that note is made that there was no particular date, time, or location offered regarding to where these events supposedly took place. This is to distinguish from the normal practice of stating when events occur where their particular time and place are not encyclopedicaly relevant (an example is that Albert Einstein studied between these years, but we don't specify frivolous details like the exact dates of semesters and every professor he studied with). Clarifying that no given date and place exists is key in preventing confusion or conflation between common linguistic practice, and avoiding inaccurate assumptions.

The other is regarding to the distinction between "no memory of the events" and "these events did not happen". Clarifying the particulars of who denied the allegations directly, and those who refused to, or felt that they could not offer comment. This has become a particular point of contention regarding current conversation regarding the events, and special effort in establishing a precise and clear record of these distinctions is essential to maintaining objectivity, accuracy, and avoid confusion or erroneous assumptions

--Azeranth (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

How do people feel about images of documents in the text?
Maybe this is a matter of style. But I really dislike the pasting of images of documents into the article, unless they add significantly to the understanding of the situation. Right now we have four in the article, and IMO they are just clutter which could be better treated by paraphrasing or quoting their contents in text. In the Public Hearing section we have two press releases: the two-sentence request from Kavanaugh asking for an investigation, and the two-sentence announcement of Trump’s order. In the Allegations sections we have Feinstein’s letter asking for postponement, and one of Kavanaugh’s letters to Grassley denying the accusations. The two press releases are particularly ugly because they are right across from each other on the page, causing a narrowing of the text. How do others feel about this practice? Pinging User:Sagecandor because I know this is something you like to do. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you in terms of both substance and style. Unless documents are truly famous, historic, or significantly meaningful to the topic, they're completely unnecessary. And, yes, they just add clutter. Text would be much better and more appropriate. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I too agree with MelanieN. Although the matter is important, these are routine documents and seeing images of them adds nothing for the reader. It is nothing like seeing a handwritten draft of the Gettysburg Address annotated by Lincoln's hand. We can use brief, relevant quotes and add references to articles that discuss these documents. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree and I think we should also remove the photo of the tweet from Sarah Sanders. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 23:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd prefer we not remove all of them, but it'd be okay for some pruning, if it's judicious. Sagecandor (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why you feel any of them should remain? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of them are certainly historic, encyclopedic, and have already been widely cited in secondary sources, including the order by the US President of a 2nd FBI Investigation. Sagecandor (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

My thanks to for this edit. Sagecandor (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

So far we have four people who want to remove them all. You want to save some. So let’s take an inventory of the documents in question. I’ll include my comments; other people feel free to add theirs. BTW the fact that something is historic or has been widely cited is an argument for including its CONTENT in the article; it is not an argument for adding an image of the actual tweet or letter. We need to know what value you think the IMAGE brings to the article, as opposed to simply reporting about it. And keep in mind that this is a biography article; we can talk about the Nomination article later. My own opinion is that we should remove all four of them. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Images of documents currently in this Brett Kavanaugh article:
 * In the Hearings section, a copy of Sarah Sanders’ tweet giving the statement from Trump ordering the FBI investigation. Not a document, just a tweet. Adds nothing to the information in the article; we already summarize everything it says in the text.
 * In the Hearings section, two sentences from the Judiciary Committee, dated September 28, requesting a supplemental FBI investigation. Not even a document, just the date and the two sentences. We already report the fact that they asked for it.
 * In the Christine Blasey Ford section, a copy of a September 23 letter from Feinstein asking for proceedings to be postponed and an FBI investigation opened. This was one of several such requests. Since the request was not acted on, this letter has no historical importance and is just clutter. The fact that the Democrats made this request multiple times can be summarized in a sentence.
 * Also in the Ford section, a copy of one of Kavanaugh’s letters to Grassley, dated September 24, denying the allegations. One of several such letters, of no historical importance; the text can and does summarize that he repeatedly denied the allegations. We could, if we want, add a sentence quote from this or one of the other letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs)
 * Reply: Suggest we remove all those, only keeping model by for this edit . Sagecandor (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't full-page documents be transcribed on Wikisource and a Wikisource box be added or something, and only keep the tweet in it's templated form (link above)? <span style="background: turquoise;font-family: 'Segoe Script', 'Comic Sans MS';">(t) Josve05a  (c) 17:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of Melanie's assessments and recommendations. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree with MelanieN's recommendations. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with MelanieN style point, that images of documents in general are poor idea. (More than just this article or these items.)  Unless it is supported by a special consensus for whatever reason.  In this case, remove all seems an improvement.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

We appear to have consensus to remove them all, and I will do so. --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL! After all this debate, it turns out that Sagecandor who was so eager to add these things is a blocked sock. I guess we can now uncontroversially remove them from the Nomination article as well. I'll ask about it at that article's talk page tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Boat incident
Agree with the removal here; seems way too soon to include this. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I re-removed the anonymous accusations. Preserving here by providing this link. I think the article can do without. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree this should stay off for now. The problem is there will be some people that try and take advantage of this situation and prove to be false. Best to wait for more information to come out from more RS for now. Of course that may be a only another day, a month, or never. ContentEditman (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to the people who have been removing the two latest allegations, which are completely anonymous and unvetted. I have added a hidden comment saying "No anonymous allegations; they will be removed or moved to the talk page." I think this is the appropriate approach, per BLP. And BTW, since this is a BLP issue, IMO the usual restrictions regarding edit warring/3RR would not apply - although I hope other people will step in and help K.e.coffman with the policing of the article. (I can't for the next hour or so.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Senate Judiciary Committee is recommending the boat incident peddler be investigated by the FBI. I think at least a sentence or two on this allegation should be included.Sy9045 (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously?? Faulty analysis by the Washington Post
This needs to be deleted:

An analysis covering the period 2003–2018 found that Kavanaugh had the most or second-most conservative voting record on the D.C. Court in every policy area.[6]

Firstly, the Washington Post, really? Look at their rule-set. It's ludicrous to start with. Secondly, it's not objective, they judged it based on their own works (categorizations). Third, they have another article showing quote, unquote 'experts in the field'. These experts are split down the middle on calling Kavanaugh conservative. Also, one of them is some psychopath who makes an insanely faulty analysis of Kavanaughs famous abortion finding. I know this because I just read the ENTIRE court document. the 'expert' is on crack, and so is the Washington Post. Fourthly, they have like 180 items divided in to 10-12 categories. That gives about 15 items in each of their (decidedly ridiculous) categorizations. So.. if you made a bar chart using this data and ranked every judge on it.. The entire graph would be about 15 units high.

Please.

Just delete it, it's embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crogonint (talk • contribs) 05:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, your suggestion is embarrassing. You are not a RS, while the Post is one of the most RS. Your opinion is original research that is not published in a RS. We can't use your opinion. Keep this up and you'll have a very short career here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Corroboration to Ramirez's claim
The article should mention that two students told the New Yorker they heard about an incident matching Ramirez's description at the time, and one of them is "100 percent sure" he was told the perpetrator was Kavanaugh. Currently it makes it seem like her story is uncorroborated which is untrue. This is important supporting detail.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.136.231 (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An unnamed anonymous individual and Richard Oh. Richard Oh says he overheard a female student, whose identity he can’t recall, telling another student about such an incident but with no reference to Kavanaugh. Wikipedia is not rumor. -Obsidi (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is not solid enough or widely-enough reported to go here. This is a biography, it's not blow-by-blow coverage of his nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Bar membership not mentioned
According to this search page, Kavanaugh has been a member of the DC Bar since February 1992.

This should be mentioned somewhere, but I am not seeing where it would fit. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: I added this a few days ago, in the "early legal career" section. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018
On Friday, Heather Gerken, the dean of that law school (Yale Law, Kavanaugh's Alma Matter), echoed the ABA’s letter in a statement issued through the university.

“I join the American Bar Association in calling for an additional investigation into allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh,” Gerken said. “Proceeding with the confirmation process without further investigation is not in the best interest of the Court or our profession.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-calls-for-fbi-investigation-into-kavanaugh-allegations-delay-in-confirmation-votes/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4513c66a412c 187.131.190.195 (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As the template explains, edit requests "must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. 'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

ABA
The current article says the "American Bar Association (which had rated Kavanaugh as well-qualified) requested that the Senate Judiciary Committee halt the confirmation vote." (Here is the original letter by the ABA President) But it wasn't the ABA leadership (under the control of the ABA President) who rated Kavanaugh as "well-qualified." That was the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. They have written a letter to the Senate saying that they were not consulted by the ABA president and continue to rate Kavanaugh as well-qualified. Specifically that The correspondence by Robert Carlson, President of the American Bar Association, of September 27, 2018, was not received by the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary prior to its issuance. The ABA’s rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. Carlson’s letter. and The Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary acts independently of ABA leadership. Given this, I think we need to clarify this part of the article. This was discussed in several RS

I would also note that there is substantial question if the ABA President can speak on behalf of the ABA, as, according to the ABA that power is given to the Board of Governors. -Obsidi (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)-Obsidi (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * What do you want to change? The ABA Standing Committee already downgraded him to 'qualified' according to the Washington Post (Strike that. I guess they changed it again ). Do you want to say that his 'well qualified' status hasn't changed because of the ABA President's letter? I would wait until the Board of Directors states the ABA President can't speak on behalf of the ABA before changing that separate issue. Ward20 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is two-fold. (1) The ABA President (nor anyone under his authority) did not say Kavanaugh was well-qualified. Implying that (as the text currently does) makes it seem like even those who supported Kavanaugh in the past are doing this. (2) It implies that the previous rating has changed given the past tense (which it clearly hasn't). The ABA has never changed their rating during this confirmation process (he was downgraded during his nomination to the D.C. Circuit a long time ago leading to controversy). -Obsidi (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking something like the following would be more correct (not including the citations to sources):
 * The day of the hearing, the American Bar Association President (which had rated Kavanaugh as well-qualified) requested that the Senate Judiciary Committee halt the confirmation vote, saying it should not move forward until an FBI investigation into the sexual assault and suspected intent of rape allegations can be completed. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary continues to rate Kavanaugh as "well-qualified."
 * -Obsidi (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This hasn't received coverage in reliable sources; if it does, we can discuss it. Two of your three sources are biased (Washington Examiner and National Review); the third source is about the ABA's Sep 27 letter, not about the Standing Committee's letter. The current text of the article doesn't state that the rating was withdrawn. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BIASEDSOURCES reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.. Saying they are biased does not mean they are not RS. The third source links to the letter and says Late Friday, the ABA’s standing committee on the judiciary said it had not seen Carlson’s letter before it was sent to the Senate. “The Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary acts independently of ABA leadership,” Paul Moxley wrote, the committee chairman, said in a letter to Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the judiciary committee. The current text of the article puts the rating in the past tense. -Obsidi (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And the Senate Judiciary Committee itself as commented on this -Obsidi (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also we discuss the ABA rating in 2003 (which was downgraded), but other than this one side note, the article never discusses the ABA rating for current nomination. Is it any wonder that someone like Ward20, on this very thread, was confused as to the current ABA rating? -Obsidi (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is what the WSJ Editorial Board said: Mr. Carlson is not a member of that committee, and he is not supposed to speak for the ABA unless the legal group has made a policy decision. In this case he is trying to sandbag his own ABA colleagues. Paul Moxley, the Utah lawyer who chairs the ABA’s judicial committee, made that clear on Friday when he wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Carlson’s letter “was not received” by his ABA committee “prior to its issuance.” Mr. Moxley added: “The ABA’s rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. Carlson’s letter.”
 * The ABA rating for the current nomination probably should be discussed. The WSJ article is opinion. On the other part I would keep it simple. How about, "American Bar Association (which still rates Kavanaugh as well-qualified) requested that the Senate Judiciary Committee halt the confirmation vote." Ward20 (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion satisfies my point #2 (the past tense part), but doesn't differentiate from the ABA President's statements from the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. I know the WSJ article is an editorial (it is written by the editorial board after all), but it is clearly a RS as to its own opinion, and it is a very prominent opinion. So, if used, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV we could write something like The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has questioned if the ABA President speaks for the ABA rather than the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.. That would properly attribute the opinion to a prominent source and let the reader know that there is a distinction. -Obsidi (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the WSJ's question, of whether the president is speaking for the ABA, is simply speculation by the WSJ's editorial board. I don't believe that is notable. My position would change if the board isssued a policy statement saying the president was not speaking for the ABA, of course. Ward20 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I knew I had seen this on Wikipedia somewhere: it is covered (both the "well qualified" rating and the ABA president's letter) at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. That's where it belongs. There are sections at that article about who supported his nomination and who opposed it. I don't think we should say anything about it here. This would be TMI for this biography article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But we already discuss his 2003 ABA rating, and the ABA asking to delay for an FBI investigation. How are those more relevant? -Obsidi (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would propose removing the entire paragraph about the ABA president's letter (which is the request for a delay while the FBI investigates) and the similar request from Yale. Such requests were coming from dozens of people at that point. In the section about the Judiciary Committee hearing, it is overkill and cherry-picking to single out these two IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're correct. The notable issue is that they are doing a supplemental investigation. Readers who want more detail can go to the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination article. Ward20 (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that would solve both of my issues. -Obsidi (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. It's notable for his bio that numerous institutions and people called for postponing the vote, including the dean of Yale Law School (Kavanaugh's alma mater) and the ABA.  Unanimous "well-qualified" ratings for Supreme Court nominees aren't all that noteworthy, they are the rule (Merrick Garland got one, too); it would be noteworthy if he hadn't gotten it. :  You deleted the paragraph saying "reader can go to" the nomination article but I don't see the information on that page. Where on the page did you add it? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The ABA information has been on that page for several days. It is at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have looked for the ABA's letter - being characterized as their president's letter - under "Support", and while one Yale law professor is quoted directly twice there is no mention that Yale Law School's Dean Heather Gerken also issued a statement supporting the ABA's call for a postponement of the vote. Oh well - as long as, for example, the long paragraph with Trump quotes in the Christine Blasey Ford section isn’t "bogging down consensus" … Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it is the "rule" the ABA gave Justice Thomas a majority "Qualified" and a minority "not-qualified." -Obsidi (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant rule as in "usually valid generalization." The NY Times wrote in 1987 that the committee has given unanimous approval to the professional credentials of the vast majority of Supreme Court nominees in the past three decades, and that still holds true. There were only a few exceptions, Clement Haynsworth in 1969, Bork in 1987, and Thomas in 1991. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I see three-to-one for removal of that paragraph. I will do so. Discussion about including it can continue here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually Ward20 has already removed it. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Limbaugh as "RS"?
I removed the Rush Limbaugh quote and citation as it is both redundant (there is a Fox News citation as well), and Limbaugh should hardly be treated as an RS: (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=22&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro) Activist (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please revert this OR
I would do it but I just changed some text. Ward20 (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"Nicknames"?
I do not believe the inclusion of supposed "nicknames" are made in good faith and is meant to give credence to conspiracies concerning his supposed drinking habits in high school. More generally, I don't believe that those who know themselves to be biased against Kavanaugh ought to be making significant edits on his biography. JKRichard (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)JKRichard

Does this category belong here?
The category "Sexual harassment in the United States" has been added. I am dubious about whether it belongs here. At most what we have here is sexual harassment ALLEGATIONS in the United States. I note that we do not include this category in articles like Donald Trump or Al Franken or Bill Clinton, where there have been merely allegations. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, it doesn't belong! It should be removed immediately. Right now, we have allegations. The category Sexual misconduct allegations is included in the Clinton and Trump articles; that is the category that should be in this article. I also found List of federal political sex scandals in the United States, which includes a listing for Kavanaugh. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. When I reverted some vandalism and then reinstated subsequent edits (see next section), I did not reinstate this category. Nurg (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't and I have removed it. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well now I think there's an issue with the DS on the page. added the category in this diff, and it was reverted by } in this diff . It was then added again by Radiohist in this diff , violating the WP:CRP provision. I removed it again here per the initial consensus. I need some help to understand if I also have violated the provision. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Mr Ernie - I think sexual misconduct allegations belongs, and not sexual harassment. But it seems something editors struggle with or mismark elsewhere too — I see Justice Thomas got harassment in October 2017.  Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school signed a petition vouching for his character
65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school, during the time of the alleged attack, all signed a petition saying they vouch for his character. This should be included in the headline summary along with the sexual assault allegation. I think it should also be noted that the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is a professor and a registered democrat who has donated to Bernie Sanders far-left socialist campaign. 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ford's political views are irrelevant, we don't engage in such innuendo unless sources explicitly state she was politically motivated (they have not). The Fox report on these women who knew him (or claimed to) isn't really relevant either -- if it wouldn't be in the article without the Ford scandal, that is indicative it is not indepedently notable, while including it in the scandal would be too much detail for that section (if this ends up getting its own page -- maybe). --Calthinus (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ford political views should be held as relevant only insofar as it pertains to Kavanaugh's counter accusation that these allegations come as a product of a political hit. In the same area where note is made of the refution and counterclaims, so to should be made any relevant information which was used in the support of these claim. NOTE this is not to say that it is relevant or irrelevant, as this is not the business of what aims to be an objective source, rather, it should be included that it was CLAIMED to be relevant by the concerned party (Kavanaugh) and his contemporaries, and the notes regarding this should be kept exceedingly clear on exactly what CLAIMS to relevance have been made, in the interest of maintaining neutrality. --Azeranth (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

They are supremely relevant. The 65 women signed the petition expressly because he was being accused of this assault. It's all over the internet. How do you not know this? Further, Ford can't even remember the date and place this alleged assault occurred, which conveniently precludes Kavanaugh from possibly being able to provide an alibi.2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fascinating WP:OR. Now, I wonder what your account's name is. --Calthinus (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not even vaguely an attack unless you're avoiding a ban. That being said, open or insinuated accusations of Ford being guilty of libel fall foul of WP:BLP. --Calthinus (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is most certainly newsworthy and directly calls into question the veracity of Ford's claims. Further, Mark Judge, the man who was supposedly with the pair and stopped the assault, flatly denies the event ever took place. 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are of course free to "argue" that but just saying that is actually no argument. It is neither. It also does not 'call into question', directly or otherwise, well, anything. As for Judge, seeing as he's the third guy in the room that played some role in this incident - according to the allegation, he's the one who turned up the music so that her screams couldn't be heard - he's not exactly a neutral source. And oh yeah that he's written a whole book about how this period of his life was one big 'black out drunk' . Or that he's written some... "controversial" (putting it politely) columns for the Daily Caller.
 * And oh yeah, there's also the letter from Kavanaugh's colleagues and Yale alumni, calling him "morally bankrupt", but I don't think we should put that in the article either.  Volunteer Marek   04:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Bias much?2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, HT, it is, because Judge wrote a whole freakin' book about how this period of his life was a "black out drunk" and Ford went to a therapist, six years before now, saying the same thing, and's got notes to prove it.  Volunteer Marek   04:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that Ford named Judge as the friend because she knew that, out of all of Kavanaugh's high school friends, he would be the least credible one? You can't prove a negative. Her notes never named names, and as far as we know, she never told a single soul about this until 2012. No police report. No friends. No family. No one. Just a therapist decades after the fact.2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. We will include neither. Brad  v  04:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is why Wiki is considered an unreliable and biased source of information by half the population of America when it comes to political topics like this. It's not even worth trying to get headline news posted if it doesn't fit the narrative. People should see ALL of this and be allowed to judge for themselves who is telling the truth.2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC )
 * There are plenty of other websites that entertain nonsense like that. Here at Wikipedia, we're writing an encyclopedia. We don't have a "narrative", we have to treat all information neutrally. Casting aspersions on subjects of articles is not neutral or encyclopedic. Brad  v  04:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is headline news that you have purposefully chosen to ignore in one of the most important current topics on Wiki at the moment... because why again?2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Up to this point, that name had not been mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia as it is not reliably sourced. We have strict policies on biographies of living persons. Brad  v  03:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is headline news all over the WaPo, NYT, Fox News, etc.. and I can't even get this information included in Kavanaugh's wiki article. 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh wait, why am I even replying to this?  Volunteer Marek  04:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Poster case of WP:NOTHERE and a likely IP sock. I recommend disengagement.--Calthinus (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have struck the block-evading IP. Doug Weller  talk 09:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not avoiding a block. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to post without an account. What evidence do you have that I'm avoiding a block?2605:E000:1213:A299:472:170D:BE01:1B17 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here, how's this? Feel better now? Michael.suede (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The person who apparently got banned and also attacked the accuser's character provided no evidence upon which to base his attacks. Fine to note something if it's a fact. But he was just spreading innuendo. -- Secondly, he put a lot of faith in that letter written by 65 of Kavanaugh's friends. But it's unsurprising that Kavanaugh would have friends and allies and that his friends and allies would support him. The letter said nothing about whether or not Kavanaugh sexually assaulted the accuser. None of the signers were present at the party where it allegedly happened, nor did any of them even attend high school with him. What would they possibly know about whether or not he committed sexual assault while drunk one night when they were not present? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.28.105 (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly we should not tell anyone about the letter signed by 65 WOMEN who knew Kavanaugh in high school during the time of this alleged attack. Instead, we should focus on allegations that have not been corroborated by anyone, with no exact date or place provided, by an accuser who refuses to testify under oath or provide a signed affidavit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.suede (talk • contribs) 15:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

++++++++++++++

"The person who apparently got banned and also attacked the accuser's character provided no evidence upon which to base his attacks}

You so realize you're talking about information in an article that attacks BK's character for which no evidence has been provided. Do you see the irony? I'm guessing you don't71.164.97.55 (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "refuses to testify..."?? BS. She wants to testify and wants an FBI investigation. People who are lying don't want that. Kavanaugh is the one who doesn't want an FBI investigation, and the GOP want to rush the process without hearing other witnesses. Fortunately she may get a bit fairer treatment now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Lied under oath
<redacted for copyright reasons  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)>

unquote--2604:2000:1382:40D0:484C:417D:323D:C4DC (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Anon, you cannot post entire news stories on Wikipedia, even on talk pages, as this constitutes a copyright violation.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2018.
The article misleads readers into believing Feinstein did not hide the information for nearly 90 days. 104.129.196.109 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I see so many things wrong with this page
Why is the section titled "Law clerk hiring practices and controversy" where it is in the page? In fact, why is it relevant at all. The Guardian is a reliable source for US politics? They're in the UK! Find a better source or delete it. It's also duplicated further down the page. It looks like you're literally falling over each other to print as much dirt as you can without noticing what dirt your fellow editors already posted.

Re: international sources. Historically, international news agencies and reporters have accurately reported events that domestic sources have either not covered or presented propaganda later to be ruled false. There are numerous reputable internationally-based news sources that have accurately reported on US domestic events and individuals, to assert that is not possible for an international source to do so effectively delegitimizes any international reporting submitted by US news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWGraff (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"On September 16, 2018, Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University, alleged Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when he was a 17-year old high school student" Two errors in one sentence. 1) It was in July that she sent this letter so that is when she accused him (as is mentioned in the next paragraph where it conflicts with the 9/16 date). 2) did she specifically say he was 17? If she did, you need a source. Which brings me to my next error - the link to the redacted letter from CNN is broken. CNN removed that page for some reason which is odd.

"President Trump responded to the claims, saying that Ford would've told law enforcement when the alleged incident had actually occurred. He wrote that the claims were an "assault" made by "radical left wing politicians" intended to undermine his Presidency.[163][164]" What does this add to the page? Trump says crazy stuff every day. It looks like something you could include on just about any page in wikipedia as it just seems like an opportunity to bash Trump and not stick to the actual pupose of this page.

If you want people to put faith in wikipedia, you have to balance out your own political views. Reading this page is heavily balanced in one direction (left). If you're left-leaning in your politcal views, you may not even recognize it. But you're showing your bias here. Try to control it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkallen21 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to place Edit semi-protected request to improve the article. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that President Trump's response is not relevant to this article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

"Facts have a well-known liberal bias." Stephen Colbert MarkJerue (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Professional Assessment of Suitability as a Supreme Court Justice
On October 3, 2018, an open letter signed by over 1,700 US law professors advocating Judge Brett Kavanaugh not be confirmed based on their assessment that the Judge did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest US court was published in The New York Times. This letter was presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWGraff (talk • contribs)


 * This is being discussed above, in the section "400 Law Professors". --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Why was correction of timeline reverted?
What is the reason for this reversion? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kavanaugh&type=revision&diff=862559310&oldid=862550970 Legbracesarecool (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the wiki-jargon in the edit summary, WP:OR (AKA "No original research") ~Awilley (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just read the reference and what was added is not OR, its pretty clearly stated. "She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly." I see no issue adding it back and would include it. ContentEditman (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I support reversing User:Volunteer_Marek's edit. I'm fine with the content as it was added. WaPo is an acceptable source for the timeline and this doesn't really seem to be "ORish", let alone full-blown OR. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback and for pointing out the WP:OR thing. Looking at it again, it does seem kinda wordy, or like it could create the impression it's an original chain of logic. Maybe adding it back without the "before his name was announced publicly" would mitigate that. Legbracesarecool (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, I think the original sentence you added is fine. My apologies.  Volunteer Marek   16:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * reinstated text! Happy editing cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated Legbracesarecool (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

400 law professors -- unintended revert?
I made this edit, adding:
 * In October 2018, approximately 400 law school professors signed a letter that "decries Kavanaugh's 'Lack of Judicial Temperament'".

deleted it with the edit comment "double http". Was that an accidental deletion? Can you restore it? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The reference you used was a live feed so it is not stable. I have added the information using a better reference and in a better location. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW the number of professors is now close to 1000 according to non-quite-reliable-enough sources. I put in "more than 500" which was the most recent I could find in the usual sources. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @David, It looks like the material was deleted in this edit by User:JKRichard, not the edit you linked above by GunniX. JKRichard removed the material again here. It looks like it's time to seek a consensus on whether to include the sentence. ~Awilley (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Aaaaand... It was promptly removed by User:JKRichard with the edit summary ''Unless you plan to include every collection of persons who have come out against and in favor of him, I don't see the sense in including this letter. There are >1.2 million people with law degrees in America. This is also a biography page and not a "pile on anything that sounds remotely bad" page.'' Let's talk about it. The edit I added, immediately following our reporting of his testimony, was:
 * In response to his testimony, more than 500 law professors signed a letter saying that the Senate should not confirm him because "he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land."

This is not about a "person with a law degree"; this is about hundreds of professors at law schools including Yale and Harvard. The number who signed it is approaching 1000 - far more than several other letters of support and opposition that we already mention in the "Sexual allegations" section. The letter was in direct response to his Judiciary Committee testimony so I put it in that section. There is already a fair amount of coverage about it; there will be a lot more tomorrow when the letter is delivered to the Senate. I am willing to wait until then, because by then we will have an actual number of signatures as well as more widespread coverage. But at that point I think it should be added. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And I see that User:Tvoz has restored it. Tvoz, we are discussing it here. I take it you feel the material should be included. --MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should be included, as long as it's properly sourced and neutrally worded, as it is. Tvoz / talk 02:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MelanieN. Your restoration and other proposed versions all sound good to me.  The arguments you made in favor of its inclusion outweigh those against.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So consensus required is not in effect on this article anymore? PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the material until consensus is established here per the DS in effect on the article. PackMecEng (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * User:MelanieN - think Exclude as misplaced. Nomination details should go to that article.  BLP is when it’s a life choice by him or major effect on his life.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Markbassett makes a good point, perhaps Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination would be a better target. Since it is more related to that versus his main BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think this can be called a "nomination detail". It's a rare and notable fact for a biography if more than thousand highly credentialed members of the subject's academic field publish a statement in the New York Times asserting that the person in question is unfit for their job (current and intended - "disqualifying for any court"). It would be hard to find comparable examples, even among other politically controversial judges.
 * The letter should be mentioned both in the nomination article and (with less detail) in this one, as relevant event in Kavanaugh's life. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, I would agree with Markbassett here but HaeB raises a good point: These professors don't just oppose his SC confirmation but also oppose him being a Federal Judge which he currently is, so the SC nomination subarticle would be the wrong article for it. The SC nomination might have been the the reason for them to become active but they are not limiting their criticism to that. So yes, it should go into the biography article since it is noteworthy if 1,000+ professors in your field think you are unfit for your current job. Regards So  Why  07:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with HaeB and SoWhy's reasons to include it in this article. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SoWhy That is stating an WP:OR assertion of it being 'important' instead of addressing it being WP:OFFTOPIC as not belonging in this WP:BLP about his life. Various petitions for/against and protests/supports seem things he's not shown as even aware of or of having been an important direct effect to his life.  So - details to the other article, not something here.
 * - This brings up a second aspect -- it seems projecting a WP:SPECULATION of significance. We should be WP:NOTNEWS and not be guessing about the future instead of using actual WP:WEIGHT of an event and definite info such as number that will not be seen until Thursday, and perhaps having seen whatever actual durability and effect it has in events, if any.   NPOV would also require including remarks against it and context - such as this is perhaps 1500 out of about 18,000 such professors, and it is an online petition.  (If this does *not* have coverage against it and context explaining it, that would show it is not recognized as significant.)
 * Again, this is details for the nomination article and have a bit of restraint that by next week it may be much clearer what (if anything) should be said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah looking at it more, it is an online petition. That has no impact or bearing on anything at this point. It only came up in relation to his nomination and in response to things said at the nomination hearing. To say this could have a lasting impact on his life as a whole is just absurd and uninformed on the face of it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's our job here to reflect what RS say, not to speculate whether they should say it. Stuff like "it's only 1500 out of 18000" (which still is 8.3% of all law professors in the country) is truly OR because the sources don't say that (feel free to cite RS that do though). But they do say "professors in this guy's field think he is not qualified to have his current job or the one he wants". Links to WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTNEWS are misplaced as well. The proposal is not to include any speculation or anything that is routine coverage (which is what NOTNEWS is about). We're not saying "this will cost him his job!" or something like that (it most likely won't), just that this is something that is noteworthy because it usually does not happen and has thus received the media coverage that rare events receive. I'm not against including it in the nomination article instead though, because I see the point that the "unfit for the current job" part is only of subsidiary importance for those who signed the letter. Regards So  Why  14:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What SoWhy said. Except that it does belong in this article, because this is a review of his competence by an enormous number of people who are qualified to judge that. And my proposed sentence should be revised to say 1,700 and use the NYT reference. BTW it is ridiculous to claim that this biography can only contain stuff that has a lasting impact on his life. If we applied that standard to all BLPs, most of them would be about two paragraphs long. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * True, instead of listing important things about a person's life we should just list every news story that hits. That would certainly make for a much better article... But seriously, yes that is what a BLP should be. Important parts of a person's life that have lasting impact. This is a online poll essentially that came about solely in relation to his nomination, that is also unlikely to have any effect on anything at all. So why push the WP:NOTNEWS? PackMecEng (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An open letter is not the same thing as an online poll. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

So where do we stand - re consensus? We should wait a little longer (I’d say 24 hours) for people to chime in, but at this point consensus is leaning toward include. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * People who think it should be included: David Tornheim, MelanieN, Tvoz, HaeB, SoWhy, ContentEditman, Seraphim System
 * People who think it should not be included: JKRichard, Markbassett, PackMecEng,
 * Good plan. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * include More have come out using similar reasons to temperament and honestly. Many tie together from the National Council of Churches, Bar Association Questioned Kavanaugh’s Temperament and Honesty, etc... so this seems to have more commonalty from not only this groups but others. ContentEditman (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * include I agree with MelanieN's comments above. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 23:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * exclude This seems like a nomination detail and not relevant to his general bio. It should go on the appropriate page for that. -Obsidi (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Include. I agree with MelanieN that we should wait a bit, but this should be included. If not here, then elsewhere. The last figures I've seen, from The New York Times, is at 2,400 law professors. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * User:MelanieN - up to you, but re using the NYT cite, that’s an opinion column w/o analysis. Might be better to cite secondary item.  The Washington Post Grade Point article might do.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Kavanaugh was a legacy student at Yale because his paternal grandfather was an Alumni.
When Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said he had no connections at Yale, that he got in because he busted his tail. How does someone forget that their grandfather was a Yale Alumni? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abstractist (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed already. His comment about "busting his tail" was in reference to Yale Law School, which his grandfather did NOT attend. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. Of course "I had no connections there" is disingenuous, since he had attended Yale as an undergraduate which certainly gave him a "connection" to Yale Law School. Still, not something that needs pointing out in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not disingenuous. Going to Yale University does not establish a connection at Yale Law School. Who in the law school was his connection? His resume was available to the committee, and if they wanted to create the inference that attending Yale University was a connection to Yale Law School, they could do so easily.

Kavanaugh perjury accusation
Not only has this been widely reported on:
 * http://time.com/5398191/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-senators/
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaughs-unlikely-story-about-democrats-stolen-documents/
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2ik6OPG3M8
 * https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimony-supreme-court.html
 * https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html

US Senators have even come out and accused him of perjury over it:
 * https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1038164002998607872
 * https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1038824719989055488

I don't see any way to deny this is notable enough to include in the article.
 * None of these sources qualify as neutral or reliable sources. Per BLP we don't report negative information, or allegations, unless they are well sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it is important to note that the question under oath which Kavanaugh was questioned about were qualified "To the best of your knowledge" and while it may be possible that he did perjure himself, there has not been a provision of sufficient evidence to eliminate a belief for plausible deniability due to the feasibility that he did not at any point study the particular memos in enough detail to notice that they appeared to be drafted by democrats, or that he recalled that information at the time of the hearing. --Azeranth (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Time Magazine and the Washington Post don't qualify as neutral or reliable sources? This is very much well-sourced information. 207.98.196.125 (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If someone is confident enough to press perjury charges, that'd be the clear line between notable accusation and routine mudslinging, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Statement in the First Paragraph
The first paragraph says that "many witnesses" denied Ford's story. This is completely wrong. One witness, alleged co-attacker Mark Judge, denies. Two others say they can't remember the party in question, not surprising since it's more than three decades ago. Please make the change. I am new and don't want to screw up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BugsyBeaver (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

But Leland Keyser said she doesn't know Kavanaugh at all. PJ also said he had no KNOWLEDGE - that that he had no recollection. McDonaldsGuy (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)