Talk:Earl Warren/Archive 1

Jurist?
The article currently states that Eisenhower wanted an "experienced jurist" to serve. Odd, then, that he should nominate Warren, because a "jurist" is a judge, and Warren had no judicial experience prior to serving on the Supreme Court. This needs to be clarified.97.124.9.7 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Random
This completely random, but I was wondering about Warren's 1946 feat of winning all 3 primaries. It says 'California law at the time'...has this changed since then? Does anyone have any source on electoral law either way? I'm partially curious whether it has been changed, and I'd also just like to know more about that in general...seems strange but cool. :P Doregasm 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In relationship to the California primaries at the time: California had a primary system that made it so you didn't have to run under any one party ticket. You could just run and all parties could vote together either for you or somebody else. In Warren's case, he ran as an Independent and won all primaries (Republican, Democratic, and Independent).

Name Places
The two long lists of schools and other things named for Warren are of no interest, and simultaneously extremely random and incomplete. Imagine if the articles on Kennedy or King listed the schools names for them. The fact Warren has a few less doesn't make the information more useful or interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Other
Brown vs Board was presaged by Warren doing the same for hispanics in CA, as governor. Tempe Normal schools (AZ) in the 1940s almost did the same desgregation plug too, I may dig up data. ~ender 2003-10-27 11:18:MST

Yes, verified details on this are sorely needed in the article ~vaughn 2007-12-29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Eisenhower quote on the appointment of Warren as Chief Justice. "The biggest dam-fool mistake I ever made".

Simpsons
Why does Marge debate Homer by saying "Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!" ?
 * Haha that line cracks me up :P The humour I think lies in it being a totally non-sequitur moment. Also it is a Simpsons running gag that Homer knows a great deal about the Chief Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Kewpid 05:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree the line is hilarious, but I've seen every episode of The Simpsons and don't recall Homer ever mentioning a Supreme Court justice besides Earl Warren. 69.118.235.3 14:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In one episode (I think, Homer Goes to College, Homer is horrified to learn that David Souter is a nerd. "Oh, no! Not Souter!", or words to that effect. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am fairly sure Homer has drooled to Warren Burger. So, not all Chief Justices, but at least two :) Kewpid 09:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court! What great men he would join. John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, Warren Burger... mmm, burger..." 222.155.144.12 00:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While 'Simpson Quote' is funny and all (it could use a reference from snpp.com) I don't really see how it is that relevant in an Article on one of the most important Supreme Court Justices. Can we remove it or put it somewhere else?

Strangiosity
Does anyone else think it is really strange that Earl Warren was followed by Warren Burger? Not only that, but the two had almost opposite judicial and political ideologies. Is this some sort of Ying/Yang thing, e.g., Earl/Warren/Burger, or maybe just some sick twisted conspiracy designed to fuck with our minds? Goddammit, I'm not getting any sleep tonight. Does anyone know how tall EARLWARRENBURGER was.
 * I think about the same as Lawrence Eagleburger. Postdlf 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Silly aside here, but this coincidence of names has actually caused confusion in real life: I was going through a retired judge's papers at the National Archives, and there was an dated document (ca. 1968-70) on "Chambers of The Chief Justice" stationery marked "received from Warren" and it was actually difficult to tell whether it was from Earl Warren or Warren Burger.
 * The greater tragedy of names, of course, is that Justice Burger never got to serve with Justice Frankfurter. On the other hand, Justice White served for 9 years with Justice Black, and the first Justice White served with Justice Brown and Justice Gray. Newyorkbrad 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Another interesting sidelight: Warren Burger's full name was Warren Earl Burger, so we went from Earl Warren to Warren Earl, and achieved not only a reversal of philosophy but a reversal of names as well.97.124.9.7 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please Add Your Sources
In the peer review of this article one of the most obvious points editors make is that there is a wealth of information in this article that lacks citations. At the bottom of the page there is a list of references which seems to indicate that this is where the bulk of the information came from. I am relatively new to this article, but I would like to improve it in order to nominate it for GA status. I am going to try and find sources for the material in this article, and will start with the books listed under references, but it would be helpful if anyone who has been editing this article based off one of the books in the references could go back and make inline citations. If you need help check out Citation_templates for the proper formating. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Error in infobox
There is an error in the infobox. Where it is supposed to say VP nominee of Rep. Party it only says "incumbent."Bellczar (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Heavy Lifting"
"The Warren Court often failed to pursue the legal scholarship and heavy lifting required to sustain the progressive victories it won." "Heavy lifting" sounds like jargon; it should either be explained or replaced with a clearer term. Dynzmoar (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Warren's Liberalism
I noticed that Warren was mentioned in Wikipedia's list of Freemasons. Warren led one of the most liberal Supreme Courts in American history, and part of it is alleged to be related to his Masonic carreer. Hugo Black, another judge on the Court, was also a noted liberal and affiliate to secret societies, including the anti-Catholic KKK. Any public mention of Masonry is of course taboo, but in this case there a good amount of evidence that suggests otherwise. Warren was a prominent supporter of the wall of Separation and approved a decision to suppress all restrictions to contraception ; both of these decisions have a strong moral element in them, and both are in solid agreement with the views advocated by Masonry. Some conspiracy theorists will also argue that the Warren Commission is related to all this. These issues are of course controversial and would therefore deserve to be debated more openly. ADM (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Demographics
We shouldn't have a see also link to Demographics of the Supreme Court for the same reason we don't have a see also link to Demographics of California, which he was also a part of. There's thousands of these pages, and adding them all just clutters the page. It's a subpage of Supreme Court of the United States, which we already have a link to. It's not a racial thing at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning, we shouldn't have Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States on any individual supreme court justice page. This is part of the larger effort by a number of editors to completely homogenize the supreme court, and to remove any references in the articles to race, religion, ethnicity. It has already been removed from the info box and the classification. Apparently this is the way of the Wiki, but I'm not buying it. There is a political side to these appointments that heavily infects the process, if not the decisions by the judges. Apparently you don't get it, and neither do they. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * "See also" sections are collectors of trash, links to every subject on the sun that someone could somehow connect to the topic of the article but didn't want to actually have to explain by integrating it into the article. My edit was not about politics, no matter how you want to smear your opponents. Apparently you don't get that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This was not a question of "smearing opponents". I regret your sensitivity, as no offense was intended. FWIW, I WP:AGF, which doesn't seem to be reciprocated here. I don't know, and don't care particularly, about your motives. You may even be right about "See also" sections in general, but this is not about generalities. What I was trying to do was put this into the larger context: where the Chief Justice came from (in a broad sense) is important. Judges and politically appointed judges to one of the most high profile jobs in the United States (and subject to the advice and consent of the senate) are not fungible, like so many peas in a pod. I don't recall your being part of those discussions, although maybe I missed (or erroneously don't recollect) your name. Apparently you don't get that.
 * BTW, your "smear" accusation was both discourteous and without foundation. You have simply misunderstood the words and context I referenced. Apparently you don't get that either.
 * Finally in undoing my edit and complaining that I changed your comment, YOU CHANGED MY COMMENTS! Don't do that, particularly as you act in an ironic and inconsistent manner. I would only note that my edit summary made it clear that I had made the change, as you are talking about (and now insisting on) a nonexistent link -- but that of course is your prerogative. The discussion would be better if we talked about the real link that was in the article that you deleted. Not the non-link that you made up. Happy editing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * "I regret your sensitivity" is one of the classic personal attacks couched as an apology. If you don't know and don't care about my motives, don't claim that it's part of a concerted effort to "to remove any references in the articles to race, religion, ethnicity." Supreme Court of the United States is all the context we need; if you want to know about the larger context, that is the larger context, of which Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States is part. If you want to add context, say something in the article relevant to the race, religion and ethnicity of Earl Warren as it relates to the Supreme Court.
 * was a straight undo of your edit, which was not a simple correction. Don't mix edits to my comments in with edits to your comments and I won't have to undo both at once or waste my time fixing your edits to my comments.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Warren Commission
The sentence "The report was long controversial" should be removed. Gerald Posner in his book "Case closed", clearly shows that the Warren Commission was practically right (only it was the second shot that hit Kennedy, the first one going awry, whereas the Warren Commission had concluded that the first and second shots hit Kennedy and the third one went awry), and that they were right inspite of the fact that both Robert Kennedy and Hoover withheld important evidence from Warren. The latter fact is especially stressed in a chapter on Warren's work on the commission in Jim Newton's book, "Earl Warren and the Nation he made", an excellent biography of Earl Warren.

Cbohnert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbohnert (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because you're right, doesn't mean you're not controversial.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Education Early Carreer and Military Service
Removed this... The younger partner, Bestor Robinson, whose father became a California Superior Court Justice, was very active in the Sierra Club and conservationism and was an avid rock climber.

While its interesting, I fail to see the relationship between Warren, and the interests of some partner in a law firm he once worked for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.39.181 (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal Giants?
"Scholars agree that as a judge, Warren does not rank with intellectual giants such as Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black, William Brennan or William Rehnquist in terms of jurisprudence." Maybe I am missing something, but since when is William Rehnquist considered any kind of giant, intellectual or otherwise? Does he even belong in the same sentence as Brandeis? Williamsonday (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical of the assertion in general. It opens with weasel words, "Scholars agree," and follows with a warantless conclusion. How does Warren not rank with intellectual giants? Is it his diction? What makes his opinions unclear? Are we going to look at how many cases of his other courts have overturned? The author created, frankly, a vacuous statement. I don't know who these "scholars" are, nor do I know what metric they are using to assess intellectual capacity or effectiveness. I am hereby marking it both 'dubious' and 'weasel word' until this claim can be both properly clarified and substantiated. Neocarpetbagger (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * turns out that was a direct quote from a leading scholar and should have been footnoted. I added the quote marks & the citation from Urofsky who wrote, "Scholars agree that as a judge, Warren does not rank with Louis Brandeis, Black, or Brennan in terms of jurisprudence. His opinions were not always clearly written, and his legal logic was often muddled." Urofsky in the Dictionary of American Biography, a standard reference source found in most academic libraries. Urofsky is a leading historian of the Court. I also added a couple other RS that make the same point. I have not seen anyone make a contrary argument.Rjensen (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a lot different then the original quote.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Went too far
The bottom of the lead has a poorly sourced comment " Political liberals sometimes admit that the Warren Court went too far in some areas," that does not make sense with the remainder of the sentence. What Political Liberals suggest he went too far? In what fashion. What that really sounds like is an injection of POV to support the conservative viewpoint (people who still today would like to walk back some of these decisions). It serves as a dismissive introduction to the rest of the sentence which reads "most of its controversial decisions struck a responsive chord in the nation and have become embedded in the law." Before I kill that part of the sentence, I wanted to see if there is any discussion to better source or explain that comment. Trackinfo (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * too far, say some liberals. For example, Melvin I. Urofsky The Warren court: justices, rulings, and legacy 2001 p xii: "But sometimes it went too far, and the work of the Burger Court in part consisted of correcting those excesses."; L. A. Scot Powe, The Warren court and American politics (2000): p 101 "a fear not only among conservatives but among moderates as well as some liberals that the Justices had gone too far in protecting individual rights and in so doing had moved into the legislative domain."; at the time there was Anthony Lewis, Earl Warren,, who worried publicly that the Court did not recognize "there is danger in moving too far too fast." (cited by Kalman 1998 p 267). Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What does the author mean [the Court] went too far? There isn't anything in the constitution that establishes boundaries for "unexcessive" judicial behavior, and "excess" invokes a relative frame of reference from what the author considers to be appropriate. This violates neutral POV. The latter statement about whether the Warren court had moved into the legislative domain is speculative. There is no question a difference in jurisprudential approach between Warren and Burger. But the wiki should articulate it as such--a jurisprudential difference. It should not make judgments as to which approach is better. I also concur that the sentence needs to be revised or deleted. Neocarpetbagger (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki reports what the RS say, and does not make judicial opinions. Erasing well-sourced material violates NPOV rules. Did some liberals and most cvonservatives say he went too far--yes, that's a well sourced fact. Did Warren actually go too far? that's not Wiki's call. Rjensen (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Political liberals sometimes admit that the Warren Court went too far in some areas" is a really biased comment. It seems to suggest that the Warren Court went to far as a matter of fact, and that sometimes liberals admit this fact. Sorry but that's not impartial. The sentence needs to be fixed or removed.

I think the problem stems from this being an oddly written sentence for an encyclopedia article, and I think we can come up with something that more accurately reflects the thrust of the sources cited. The above quotes from the Urofsky and Lewis references do not say that liberals thought the Warren Court had going too far. The Powe reference seems only to address going too far in the context of one area, individual rights, and says that some liberals feared this, not that they admitted it. A more useful reference for the existing quote would be a collection of statements from "liberals" saying that the court had gone too far. As it stands, it might just be better to quote these sources directly and let them speak for themselves. bd2412 T 19:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy Section
I edited in what I thought was a very well supported subsection of the Warren Commission section. It contained on topic, extremely important information related to an Earl Warren sponsored appointment of a key senior assistant Warren Commission counsel, as well as related background on Earl Warren and family that was integral to the controversy of this Warren appointment.: Link to the new section entirely deleted by Rjensen.: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Warren&oldid=432596658#Controversy

The edited in new Controversy section was undisturbed in the Earl Warren article for less than six hours when this occurred.: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Warren&action=history 02:00, 5 June 2011 Rjensen (talk | contribs) (58,036 bytes) (drop long passage based on gossip not reliable secondary sources,.& not closely tied to Warren) 1963 Rjensen had deleted the entire new Controversy section. This decision, edit, and explanation was not consistent with his history on a much more important biographical article of an assassinated U.S. president, John F. Kennedy

Two edits prior to the one where Rjensen edited in "numerous" in this sentence in the John F. Kennedy article, the theme of sexual promiscuity on the part of President Kennedy had a much lower emphasis in the article.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Kennedy&diff=next&oldid=390418716
 * ....Kennedy is reported to have had affairs with numerous individuals such as Gunilla von Post

The section in the President Kennedy article currently displays this way.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_f_kennedy#Image.2C_social_life_and_family John F. Kennedy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 * Image, social life and family

....Some corroborated reports allege, but others deny, that Kennedy had affairs with a number of women, including: Marilyn Monroe,[214] Gunilla von Post,[215] Judith Campbell,[216] Mary Pinchot Meyer and Mimi Beardsley Alford.[217][page needed]

The section I had edited in was extremely well documented, and at its core is the continuity of October, 1963 reporting by Drew Pearson, expanded on with specific names in a 1974 book edited by Pearsons stepson, Tyler Abell, former Chief of Protocol in the Johnson White House, and the spouse of Ladybird Johnson's appointments secretary, Bess Abell, who also served as chief of staff of the wife of V.P. Walter Mondale.

I would like an explanation for Rjensen's swift and arbitrary deletion, seemingly on weak and inconsistent justifications. I cannot comprehend how he seeems to have been so eager to support and aggravate the wording in an attempt to edit in gossip in the section of the personal life of an assassinated and popular U.S. president, while at nearly the same time, showing such resistance and arbitrary judgment about an edit thoroughly documented from sources much more solid than what he seemed eager to accept in his cooperation with the Kennedy edit, the UK Times newspaper.

I would like my edit restored and if points in it or supporting citations are to be challenged, for them to be challenged in a cooperative, reasonable way, the way Rjensen is exhibited cooperating with an editor bent on inserting details supporting President Kennedy's promiscuity. Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruidoso (talk • contribs) 04:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ruidoso makes three fatal errors and one near-fatal: 1) no reliable secondary sources; 2) Original research (using poor sources); 3) no connection to the article on Warren; 4) much too long and poorly written (is it really more important than huis Supreme Court decisions?) Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My instinct with this section was that it was standard conspiracy crap, drawing huge unfounded connections and implying things because stating them would show how weak they are. Wikipedia should not be dealing in that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are details justified by the notion of the compromising potential of appearance of impropriety, unchallenged in edits of the JFK article, but nonexistent in the Earl Warren article? Rjensen is on record on the Archive 5 talk page of the John F. Kennedy article, posting his concern that the sexual liasons of high government officials are relevant to any bio article of such a person because of the issue that the "official puts his official position at risk". He then goes on to assert his opinion that the lack of details in the wikipedia JFK article related to Kennedy's private sex life are "being covered up here simply for POV reasons." I submit that, considering his prior comments and the length of my edit and the sheer quantity and variety of supporting citations included in it, that because Rjensen so swiftly entirely deleted my edit, he could not possibly have made a neutral and thorough evaluation of the contents of my edit before he deleted it. I attempted to discuss the above points with him on his talk page, and he has deleted my comments there. I made a well thought out and very well supported edit to the Earl Warren article. I made the edit in good faith. The good faith I am practicing is not being met in kind. A foundational citation supporting my edit is from a book edited by Tyler Abell. Excerpts from the book were widely published by newspapers who took the details in the book, seriously. In the John F. Kennedy article, consider that, author Richard Reeves is so widely cited (no less than 90 of 236 footnotes, twice in the text, and twice in the references) and usually as a sole RS of phrases negative in tone, in the JFK article, and Kennedy was a higher, more important government official than Earl Warren. Many of my citations are from newspaper articles, books of respected authors, and some are from minutes of testimony in a 1953 Congressional Committe hearing. It is undisputed that Earl Warren proposed the appointment of Albert E. Jenner, Jr. to his fellow Warren Commissioners. This was an extremely controversial appointment. It is undisputed that Earl Warren had close ties with Conrad Hilton and Paul Ziffren, both widely associated with organized crime figures, that Warren's daughter, Virginia, was closely associated with Conrad Hilton, and that Henry Crown, linked by several RS to prominent organized crime figures and the most important law client of Albert E. Jenner, Jr., "quite inexplicably" introduced Virginia Warren to Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip during a 1957 private reception where all other attendees were board members of the Empire State building controlling entity and their spouses. None of these details is original research. For the sake of consistency and credibility, Rjensen should extend the concern he demonstrated about the compromising potential of the sexual proclivities of public officials, to, as well, the appearance of impropriety and compromising potential related to the relationships of said officials, with persons linked by RS to prominent organized crime figures. If Prosfilaes and Rjensen are simply going to dismiss the entire contents of my edit and citations, out of hand and not cooperate in a good faith effort to pariticipate in a point by point and citation by citation analysis, I request that the seeming inconsistency between what Rjensen is on record saying, his influence over the changes edits resulting in the balance between positive and negative phrases in the more important JFK article, be compared to the one sided tone in the Warren article. The disparity between the balance of POV in the JFK vs. Earl Warren articles is even more puzzling and aggravating because both men were high officials of the same era. Or alternatively, explain to me how this process really works, resulting in a lily white, Earl Warren image, a gray, single sourced dominated Kennedy profile, and a limitation, conveyed twice now, that Earl Warren edits are restricted to SCOTUS related items, so in the future, I can play by your rules, too. Ruidoso (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) the Kennedy article is not at issue. 2) no RS claims Warren had ties to crime; 3) no RS claims that Warren's close friends had ties to crime; 5) Henry Crown is not at issue--and no RS claims he had ties to crime. 4) Jenner was one of the nation's best and most and most honored lawyers and no RS claims he had a conflict of interest. 5) Supreme Court Justice Clark was one of the nation's best and most and most honored lawyers and no RS claims he had a conflct of interest. 6) The whole edit is based on Ruidoso's original research into very poor sources and has nothing to do with Warren. Rjensen (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

3.1 Japanese-American internment
"As Attorney General, Warren is most remembered for being the moving force behind Japanese internment during the war—the compulsory removal of people of Japanese descent to inland internment camps in Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah, away from the war zone along the coast. The internment resulted in the substantial loss of real estate, as internees could not pay land mortgages while interned, and land was often sold at a loss or foreclosed. This large transfer of real estate from people of Japanese descent was highly profitable for the buyers."

War zone? Really? Not as the phrase is commonly understood.

The next two sentences describe a real, significant, often devastating consequence of the internment. However, they are the only statement of effect on the displaced citizens. If the impact of the forced relocation is to be described at all, would not something less balance-sheety be more appropriate? ("[H]ighly profitable for the buyers"? Indeed, but rather bloodless language to describe predation.) More than real estate was involved in the internees' "substantial loss".

Any historians care to come up with something? Best to all, Michael (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

-Levering Act- The entry might be improved if the Levering Act (1950) was mentioned. "As governor of California, Earl Warren signed the 1950 Levering Act, which made every single state employee a “civil defense worker” and barred alleged subversives from employment.[47]" (Quote taken from Robin, Corey (2004) "Fragmented State, Pluralist Society: How Liberal Institutions Promote Fear", Missouri Law Review vol 69 (p. 1070). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.176.204 (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Contemporaneous news item on funeral and resting place
Earl Warren Buried In Arlington Cemetery, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Washington (AP), July 13, 1974, page 3: “. . Washinton National Cathedral. . ”

We are currently referencing the book The Brethren, which is fine, but books occasionally get dates wrong because they are talking about big arcs of events. Plus, sometimes a referenced page number is not viewable on the web. I think contemporaneous new articles can provide an additional sources of information. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Expansion
I don't know what needs to be expanded in this article. Warren "presided over" many significant decisions but he was not really the intellectual leader of the Court at that time. I don't think a long section on Warren's jurisprudential philosophy is warranted. Read "The Warren Court and American Politics" for more on that.

King of the Hill
From King of the Hill: PEGGY: Oh, give me a break. I don't see how having a girl on the team would ruin it. Did a woman judge ruin the Supreme Court? HANK: Yes, and that woman's name was Earl Warren.

Family
I removed the following paragraph from the bottom of the article:


 * However Warren is not the grandfather of actor Tim Daly and actress Tyne Daly. Tyne and Tim are not related to Justice Warren. They were born well before the 1960 marriage of Daly and Warren. Their father, James Daly, not John Charles, has no obvious connection to the Justice.

One of the peculiarities of Wikipedia is that articles are sometimes skewed out of proportion. Trivial items of interest to a contributor may take up as much space as the more serious facts. Thus, for example, we often see 50% of an article is information about some rock band or comic book that just happened to take its name from some historic person or place. Usually one can just ignore such extraneous items. However, there comes a point where an article gets overloaded. Here is a case in point. In a relatively short page for someone of Warren's importance, a paragraph has been appended with the purpose of disabusing readers of notion that they didn't have in the first place. Where does it end? Should we add another paragraph to inform readers that the subject wasn't related to Lesley Ann Warren? And why stop there? We could list billions of people he wasn't related to.

Question on Pronoun
"Warren worked a year for the Associated Oil Co. in San Francisco and then joined a private law firm in Oakland named Robinson & Robinson. The younger partner Bestor Robinson, whose father became a California Superior Court Justice, was very active in the Sierra Club and conservationism and was avid rock climber. In August 1917, he enlisted in the US Army for World War I service. Assigned to the 91st Division at Camp Lewis, Washington. 1st Lieutenant Earl Warren was discharged in 1918. " Who is this he? Bestor Robinson, who was just talked about, or Warren? My guess is Warren but i'm not sure.... Please clearfy by replacing said pronoun with the name of correct person.

Postwar
One of the reasons Warren did all the programs after WWII is that California had basically doubled in population and had insufficient infrastructure. Might be worth a mention if it's reflected in his bios. I think it's in Leo Katcher's bio.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Earl Warren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150630105121/http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/index.html to http://americanhistory.si.edu/Brown/history/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Original Norwegian Family Name
The article is somewhat ambiguous about the Warren's original family name. It states that his father's original family name was Varren, and it might have been in the U.S., but the original Norwegian name was Vorre. Earl Warren visited the original family farm (his grandfather was a tenant farmer) at Vorre, Norway on August 15, 1953. His grandfather eventually moved to the nearby town of Haugesund were Earl Warren's father was born. Apparently the original house from the farm was moved as well, and rebuilt in Haugesund. Earl Warren did visit the house on that same August 15, 1953. The local newspaper Haugesunds Avis printed a story on Earl Warren's visit the following Monday August 17, 1953 complete with photographs of Earl Warren at the house in Haugesund and at the original family farm at Vorre. The paper still exists http://www.h-avis.no/. The spelling of the farm name has since changed to Vårå and it may be located on Google maps: https://www.google.no/maps/place/V%C3%A5r%C3%A5/@59.4489951,5.5502803,12z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xf1e1efc4a5225a05 .92.221.34.144 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Earl Warren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411170029/http://www.californiamuseum.org/Exhibits/Hall-of-Fame/inductees.html to http://www.californiamuseum.org/Exhibits/Hall-of-Fame/inductees.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Earl Warren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118180711/http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/460.cfm to http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/460.cfm
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20011127105107/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/warren-e/warren-e.asp to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/Warren-E/Warren-E.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Earl Warren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106125504/http://www.msana.com/emapr06.asp to http://www.msana.com/emapr06.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613184833/http://hoohila.stanford.edu/commonwealth/programView.php?programID=24 to http://hoohila.stanford.edu/commonwealth/programView.php?programID=24

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Curly?
Please can someone with access to Cray check the quote "Warren has had seventeen years of practice in pubic law" and confirm that the typo is in the source. Many thanks.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Party switch?
"In 1962, Warren switched his party registration to the Democratic Party and endorsed Democratic Governor Pat Brown's ultimately successful re-election campaign against Richard Nixon"

Checking part of the Ed Cray source for the 1962 party switch/endorsement, and page 398 notes that Earl Warren Jr (his son, not the Chief Justice) switched parties and endorsed Pat Brown. This Earl Warren Jr endorsement made the news (LA Times-level) at the time. The Google Books preview doesn't include page 397. Since Orser67 added that part of the entry, I'm curious if there's anything more solid in Cray or anywhere else for a Warren Sr party switch or is this is a case of mistaking Earl Warren with Earl Warren Jr.

--RobbieFal (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't own Cray's book and so I don't have access to it. I'm fairly sure Cray stated on pp. 397-398 that Chief Justice Warren did indeed switch parties (he certainly did talk about how Warren had a very positive opinion of JFK and was alienated from the national Republican Party by the early 1960s). Orser67 (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was able to get to the page via Google Books. RobbieFal, you were correct in saying that it was Warren's son, and not Warren himself, who switched parties. Orser67 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)