Talk:Federalist Society

This section has major issues please revise it
''The Federalist Society has been influential in the Trump administration, hand-selecting Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and recruiting a slate of conservative judges to fill vacancies throughout the federal judiciary.[29][30][9] The society helped to assemble the list of 21 people from which Donald Trump said he would choose a nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nine of the 21 individuals spoke at the society's annual convention in late November 2016, while nearly all of the others were in attendance.[31][32] Federalist Society members have generally chosen not to criticize President Donald Trump and Politico described the Federalist Society membership as "elite, conservative lawyers who have generally chosen to give Trump a pass on his breaches of long-cherished legal norms and traditions in exchange for the gift of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch."[30] Federalist Society executive vice president Leonard Leo said: "What President Trump has done with judicial selection and appointments is probably at the very center of his legacy, and may well be his greatest accomplishments thus far."[33]''

1. There is no evidence to suggest Gorsuch was hand selected by the Federalist Society. There is reporting that that he was on the list of judges recommended/submitted to Trump who made the final decision.

2. Politico doesn't know generally if FS members give a pass to Trump for breaches of norms and traditions that is an unattributed statement in the article and it's the authors opinion. The Federalist Society has between 60K-70K members it is highly unlikely the author spoke to a majority of them and there is no evidence of any polling done. Is there a secondary source for this?

72.139.195.173 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that the anonymous poster above should note that "hand-selected" is a loose metaphor. It means "selected with care." There is no evidence that President Trump has ever made a "final decision."


 * I wonder whether the petulant anonymous poster has an example of a Federalist Society member who has not given Trump a pass for his outrages.


 * The nameless poster is certainly correct in their choice of headline. The section does have "major issues." It treats this extremist right-wing political lobby with the dignity it aspired to but never achieved in the 1980s, a treatment it not even remotely deserves today. All these problems might be avoided if the entire Wiki entry were replaced with a single sentence. "The Federalist Society is a group of American lawyers" would probably cover all the bases. Anybody who wants the rest of the fluff can get it from the web site of the "Society."


 * David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ad/POV issue
This reads like an ad for the Federalist Society, with the POV that its right-wing views are only right and proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.106.193 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2002 (UTC)


 * If you say so, but it was written by a Libertarian who is a member of the Federalist Society and does not hold any right-wing views -- i.e., me. To wit, I am a strong advocate of legalizing drugs, a view championed by many libertarian members of the Federalist Society, and opposed by an equal number of conservative members.  In any event, the Federalist Society is most certainly a bastion for conservatives, and unabashedly so, just as the ACLU is a bastion for liberals, and this article should reflect this bias, which (in my opinion) it does.  To that end, I would most certainly welcome any and all critics to modify this article to include any and all criticism of the Federalist Society and/or conservatives in general.  The Society's members are quite accustomed to being demonized. -- NetEsq 22:27 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * " and this article should reflect this bias, which (in my opinion) it does."
 * The idea that an encyclopedia article should be written with the bias of the subject of the article strikes me as bizarre -- and very precisely incorrect.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Can you work some of that into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.106.193 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2002 (UTC)


 * The Society's precarious balance of libertarian and conservative viewpoints is hard to capture in the context of an encyclopedia article. Indeed, few outsiders are even aware that such a diversity of viewpoints exists.  As such, I did my best to present a concise summary of the who, what, when, where, and why of the Federalist Society (as one would see it from the outside) in the hopes that the Society's ubiquitous critics would emerge from the woodwork and express their own opposing viewpoints. -- NetEsq 23:22 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * A self-proclaimed member should not be writing anything in the article about the Federalist society, if the goal is impartiality. Would you not recuse yourself from hearing a case against the society in court, either? This clearly raises questions about violation of original research and neutral POV. After reading the article, I was completely disappointed that none of the controversy this group has generated is covered. Even worse, its goal of radically curtailing hard-won individual and civil rights -- as protected by previous courts, which the society opposes -- is completely whitewashed. Many people see the Federalist society as a neocon, re-education focused, radical right-wing organization. This article needs those voices included, or it should be deleted as non-impartial and self-dealing. 97.76.180.50 (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Bush
Hello, I recently read that Bush has been using the Federalist Society to review and approve judges rather than the American Bar Association, as was the practice before this administration. Is this true and, if so, what does this mean? I would love to see this mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.123.105 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2004 (UTC)


 * The Bush Administration announced in March 2001 that it would no longer provide the ABA with a list of prospective judicial nominees, but the ABA has never had any official role in the evaluation of prospective federal judges, much less the Federalist Society. Even so, the Federalist Society has long been known among legal professionals to be a career vehicle for law enforcement officers, criminal prosecutors, and conservative judges. // NetEsq 04:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

General suggestions for improvement
Some comments on your page: I think there could be a clearer first sentence simply defining what the Federalist Society is/does, rather than its history, which could go in the second sentence. I have read the entry and am confused about whether it's a non-profit organization, a thinktank, a membership organization, or a system of ideas taken up by member groups at law schools. Also, is James Madison the father of the constitution or the father of the Bill of Rights? If either one is true, then he should be listed in the entry List of people known as the father or mother of something, where he is listed as father of the Constitution. Also, this has nothing to do with your article, but since Madison did an about-face in later life and abandoned the Federalists for the Democratic-Republicans, why would he be the poster boy for the Federalist Society? And, if he was involved with the writing of the Bill of Rights, and advocated an even wider list of protected rights, why would the Federalist Society champion him and oppose the ACLU? Bruxism 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's be honest
The Federalist Society takes the name oddly and to level-headed thinkers it seems very tongue in cheek. The ideology that comprises the group is nothing like that of the original federalists. In fact, many federalists are big states-rights idealogues (e.g. Anton Scalia) and would never have held much esteem with the ideas of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

Further, the Federalist Society has done its very best (and admittedly a very good job) of setting the stage for not only judicial apppointments, but employment at large firms and recognition at the state and local level. They even have permiated every facet of law school life at the expense of the ideas in the Bill of Rights--personal liberties and freedoms. It is odd to me that so many libertarians support them, when in fact, they are only for certain individual rights (namely white, heterosexual, upper-middle class male rights). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.14.242 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you elaborate on what grounds these statements rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.149.159 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It does appear that Hamilton and the Federalist Papers overall where very much pro big government, something the the Federalist Society seems to oppose. And the often cited Hamilton passage about judicial restraint and separation of powers does nothing to clear up the point about Hamilton actually being very much pro-big government and Madison eventually becoming very much pro-States rights (once the Constitution was ratified). So, having Madison as a poster child has more to do, it seems, with his later views than with anything he wrote in the Federalist Papers, so perhaps the name of the society is strange in that regard. It is allegedly named after papers that were written in part by a person who changed his views to anti-Federalism as soon as constitution gave him the freedom to do that - Madison. --RossF18 (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You sound like one of those people who says that they are in favor of individual rights but really mean class privileges for your favored groups. Your "white, heterosexual, upper-middle class male" is your favorite target. People of your variety are the type that get very angry over discrimination and then proceed to do the exact same thing towards your "white, heterosexual, upper-middle class male". You're in favor of the poor but when the poor have a different belief system than you that proves that they're poor white trash, and therefore wrong.


 * If people can have such obvious Leftist politics contained in their libertarianism, I fail to see why those who are Right-wing cannot infuse their libertarianism with their values. If you think it is somehow contrary to libertarianism (and let the merits of that be said to be what it will), then how is it that so many progressive libertarians are indifferent to powerful social lobbyist groups using propaganda to force their version of Progress on people? Sexism is only sexism when a man is doing it, racism is only racism when a white person is doing it, intolerance is only intolerance when a heterosexual person has their own beliefs, and people only complain about deviation and contradictions when the Right-wing is detected--when it is the Left, it's simply part of Progress.


 * Alinsky would be proud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.241.127 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "You sound like one of those people who..." is a wee bit trite even for anonymous right-wing venom in YouTube's columns. Here it is the lead-in to whole paragraphs of ill-mannered personal abuse. Nobody is surprised that it is unsigned.
 * Might Wikipedia be better off if use and contribution were restricted to identified and confirmed individuals? At least if they are residents of Europe, the Americas or the Commonwealth this might improve things. Anonymous users in the police states don't seem to descend to this sort of infantility.


 * David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The name "Federalist Society" is a piece of skullduggery in any event, sort of like Orwell's "...up is down, yes is no, in is out..." When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Governeur Morris, Franklin, etc. were labeled "Federalist" favoring a Constituion which would strengthen the "nation" by uniting the 13 colonies which would have certain economic and security strengths which the 13 States as a confederation lacked. The "Antifederalists" opposed a national Constitution and were represented by the likes of Patrick Henry and Luther Martin, who spoke as a delegate. Antifederalists did not show up for the Philadelphia Convention and in any case were outnumbered and outclassed by well-prepared Federalists like Madison & Washington, etc.. In 1787--they were labeled as Federalist & Anti-Federalist. With the approval of the Constitution and the Inauguration, Washington was sworn in as Federalist--a supporter of the Constituion. Jefferson, America's Representative in Paris at the time of the Convention, had reservations to the Constitution though as the 3rd US President, he took the powerful "Federalist" step approving the Louisiana Purchase.

The issue with the Antifederalists was diminishment of States' Powers (States' Rights) with a Federal Constitution. But Federalist vs. Antifederalist did not last much beyond the 1816 Election of Monroe/Democratic-Republican vs. Rufus King/Federalist. Jefferson (1801) ran under the banner of Democratic-Republican while Adams ran under Federalist banner. Madison (1809) would run under Democratic-Republican banner which shows how far he had moved from his original Federalist Political position. Finally with Andrew Jackson the label Federalist was lost; Jackson (1829) ran under the Democratic political Banner with his opponent John Quincy Adams running under the label of National Republican Party. (Michael Beschloss, Presidents.) These labels of the 1800s bear no relationship to the political labels of the modern era.

It was FDR who saw a National/Federal response to the Great Depression and created Federal Programs to resolve the economic crisis. It is to FDR that Americans receive the safety net of Social Security, etc.; a safety net expanded by Lyndon Johnson with Medicare, Medicaid, Voting Rights, etc.

The 1973 Roe V. Wade made abortion a National Issue creating one law for the entire nation. Brett Kavanaugh (a Federalist sponsored judge) asked the question of why abortion was not returned to the States as a States' Right. (The very same States' Rights that gave America Slavery--so right away the problem with States' Rights becomes clearly visible.) So, the decision to overturn Roe V. Wade was a back door attack on Federalism. And since Roe, the present Court (now dominated by Federalist Society Justices) decided the EPA cannot make regulations re climate change, that must be decided by Congress. And the next Court Session is to hear a case to decide whether State Legislatures should choose Electors per Article II, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the Constitution; a notion that only recently has raised its head and promises to overturn "popular mandate" for Legislative Mandate of the controlling Political Party.

But the point of the "Federalist Society" is to overturn the power of the Federal Government (nameless Bureaucrats) and give that power to the States; a notion completely opposite of the 1787 Federalist political position.

So, the name of "Federalist Society" becomes a piece of gas-lighting acting opposite to the original role of the 1787 Federalist Position. StevenTorrey (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Background
Under the "Background" heading in the article, federalism is defined as "the concept that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be." I don't think that is an accurate definition of federalism, which really has more to do with the relationship between levels of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.134.25 (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Presidential appointee" quote
The current text of the article quotes Sidney Blumenthal's Guardian Unlimited article, "All the president's men":
 * According to one source, "There is simply not a single presidential appointee in a position of legal responsibility who is not a card-carrying member."

I have to wonder if this is even the least bit accurate. If the U.S. president appoints all Federal justices, including all Supreme Court justices, does this mean that all Federal justices and all nine current members of the Supreme Court are members? Or are the non-members not considered to be "in a position of legal responsibility"? If Blumenthal was referring specifically to the current president's appointees, as the tone of the article may suggest, the inaccurate blanket implication should be corrected in our article. Does anyone have some clarifying information on this? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty obvious that Blumenthal is refering to current appointees. Blumental is well-known, and the Guardian a world-newspaper, so I'm sure this quote is totally relevant & should be added again to the entry. Stop bickering over POV, any way, liberals who are reading this page will read it from their POV, and the same goes for conservatives - whatever the page itself says. Wikipedia is not a place to convince people, but just to display various opinions and facts. People don't change ideas so easily! So, the best action is simply to put the maximum info possible, of course with quotes and references, using a quiet factual language. But a factual language also means that various interpretations are to be taken into account, as they are no pure facts, only interpretations, and interpretations are always efficient; hence, they're factual... Tazmaniacs 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Top 20
The opening paragraph mentions the "top-20-ranked law schools", but by whom are they ranked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.234 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * U.S. News is inarguably the definitive source for American law school rankings. You can safely assume that that was what the opening paragraph was referring to, unless it stated otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.149.159 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

John Roberts
The Supreme Court nominee is not a member, at least according to this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002431.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.150.72 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Correction: The white house has disavowed his membership, he's kept mum, but other members of the Society have criticised this apparent demonization of the Society and the subsequent percieved blemish of the nominee's record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.140.58.8 (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * He's a "prominent member" of the FedSoc.


 * http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?tag=Supreme%20Court


 * And they are nothing like the innocuous name implies.


 * http://www.institutefordemocracy.org/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.159.161 (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, how about everyone shuts up?
The article suffers from obvious partisan bickering and it really confuses any reader actually seeking to inform themselves of what the Society stands for and what sort of activities it puts on. Particularly troubling is the selection of the most hot button issues - ones that aren't libertarian but instead are nakedly "right-wing" (anti-evolution teaching, etc.) followed by a one-sentence that these are not endorsed by the society itself. A cursory read might glance right over this explnation...also what's with the back-and-forth over the ABA? This article isn't about the ABA and its not really about some left-wing group's charge that the Fed Soc. is engaging in some back-scenes lobbying to push conservative judges. That whole section should be taken out.

In short, I would ask authors of this article, particularly those with an obvious bone to pick with the Feddies, not to conflate the views of Federalist Society members with the goals of the organization itself or its leadership. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.168.170 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, Federalist/Federalism historically referred to the founding fathers, who dismantled the Articles of Confederation in favor of a national Constitution. However, our Constitution is a Republic or federation of States.  The contemporary liberal is typically in favor of a more "national" approach to governance than the contemporary conservative or libertarian who typically favors a federation of semi-independent States. Hence, the "Federalist" moniker belongs not to nationalists but to supports of a true Republic.  --Davidp 14:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That statement is grossly inaccurate. The founding fathers wanted to make a STRONGER national government than the one available under the Articles of Confederation (there were multiple debates about just how much stronger it needed to be, but everyone agreed that a weak national government was inadequate).  Moreover, Alexander Hamilton, who wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers (after which the society is named) was as big a nationalist as you can get.  149.101.1.116 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolution
"Its publications have printed articles criticizing teaching evolution" The issue before last of the Federalist's Harvard Journal has a very pro-evolution article. I have been a member for years and have never read anything that was anti-evolution. I have removed the remark and expect to see evidence for this bizarre claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.255.219 (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

POV by omission
this article is "POV by omission"; it has whitewashed out a discussion of the controversy generated by the organization. there is no "controversy" section at all, which is customary for controversial topics. Benwing 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. A Controversy section should be added, and controversies should be discussed. Engender (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems the article is still missing any such sections. Somehow I doubt that there's literally never been any criticism/controversy surrounding the group. While WP:CRIT may suggest that dedicated "Criticism" sections should be avoided (if not carefully watched, they can just end up becoming a dumping ground for every negative thing said/written about the topic), major criticisms/controversies can be important enough to deserve their own section. Otherwise, criticisms can also be worked into the rest of the article as appropriate. V2Blast (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

PFAW POV
A series of glosses and conclusions were included with links to the People For the American Way. These aren't quotations or citations to statements of the Federalist Society. If a section on "opposition" wants to be created, then perhaps the PFAW links are appropriate there. Otherwise, they're conclusory allegations that aren't facts about the history of the organization. Simply stating that the Federalist Society helps Bush and the Right isn't a fact; it's POV meant to drive attention-grabbing. Zz414 15:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly Agree/Strongly Support.--Black Flag 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Founders?
Who were the founders of the Federalist Society? According to this New York Times article, Prof Stephen Calabresi of Northwestern was one of them ... can anyone find info on who the others are, so it can be included in the article? M OXFYRE ( contrib ) 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * According to a Weekly Standard article about Fred Thompson, David McIntosh was one of the founders. Sbowers3 18:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

references should be references, no?
I am a relatively new user of Wikipedia so forgive me if I am wrong about a style issue, but shouldn't references be references, i.e. have tags? Then they would show up in the references/footnotes section with some details about the reference. Most of the references seem to be inline links to outside web pages. Sbowers3 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Individual Chapter links
The problem with listing links to the webpages of individual chapters is that there are 180 student chapters alone, not to mention lawyer chapters. You can't possibly list links for every one that has a webpage, as it would make the links section insufferably long. So then you're left with deciding which chapters get a link and which don't--an unresolvable issue. The best solution is to have no links at all. Most (i.e., the best) fraternity, club, organization, etc. pages don't have links to individual chapters for precisely this reason. --Velvet elvis81 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Perhaps the main Federalist Society site has a list of individual chapters, and we could link to that list? M OXFYRE  ( contrib ) 18:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Monica Goodling
Monica Goodling stated she is a member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.103.62 (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion sought: Shannen Coffin
A few days ago I added the scarcely earth-shattering but factually correct and referenced: "General counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney, Shannen W Coffin, wrote a publication for the Society in June 2004". I'd have been delighted if someone moved it, rewrote it or added to it. It was, however, reverted (a measure normally reserved for vandalism) and I would welcome a second opinion.

I come to this with no political axe to grind, but it appears there is some controversy about whether membership of the Society is linked to high office in the Bush administration. I don't know about that and it is important that all writers adhere to NPOV. Readers, however, can come to their own POV by referencing facts: facts such as the one that I added. It also appears that a membership list is hard to find, making it difficult to end the controversy. What we can give is a list of those writing the Society's publications. None of them mean much to me, but quick research at http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/id.167/default.asp reveals the names of several authors. Surely armed with this list, readers can decide whether this is evidence for or against links between the Society and the Administration. I won't vouch for completeness or a lack of repetition, but here are the names I found:

Michael S. Greve, Rick Esenberg, William E. Thro, Charles J. Russo, Meredith B. Parenti, Susanna Dokupil, Virginia S. Albrecht, Deidre G. Duncan, M. Reed Hopper, Damien Schiff, Jeffrey H. Wood, Robert J. Gaglione, Ronald A. Cass, Austin Bramwell, Vincent Vitkowsky, Thomas C. Marks, Jr., Pamela Buha, Shawn Mitchell, Marc James Ayers, Robert Barker, Holly A. Pierson, W. Ryan Teague, David K. DeWolf, Andrew C. Cook, Seth L. Cooper, Hans A. von Spakovsky, John K. Bush, Paul E. Salamanca, David B. Rivkin, Jr., Lee A. Casey, Mark W. DeLaquil, Daniel Troy, William Consovoy, Wendy Keefer, Thomas McCarthy, Seth Wood, Allison R. Hayward, Michael Newton, Lee Goodman, John Eastman, Shannen W. Coffin, David M. McIntosh (co-founder), Julian Gehman, Stuart Buck, James C. Ho, Brett H. McGurk, Tara Ross, Kannon Shanmugam, Brian J. Murray, David S. Petron.

(It's possible that some of the wikilinks in this list may be to namesakes. And of course this would need editing, checking and putting into context before going onto the main page.) Wavehunter 02:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reversions are an entirely appropriate way to edit. See WP:BRD.  If you want to demonstrate links between the administration and the Federalist Society (which no one denies exists, since most conservative lawyers who would be interested in serving in the Bush administration are members of the Federalist Society, as that is often the only conservative organization at law schools), then it's easy enough to find a source that say they exist.  Search law.com for "Federalist Society" or "Leonard Leo."  The fact that Engage accepted for publication an article doesn't demonstrate anything other than that Coffin wrote an article, though.  See also WP:SYN.  The Coffin discussion was reverted because this isn't an article about Coffin, and the fact that he wrote an article is hardly more notable than the fact that Daniel Troy (who also served in the Bush administration) or James Ho (who also served in the Bush administration) wrote an article. THF 02:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And you've linked to the wrong John Eastman. Feel free to create a dab page. THF 02:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to THF for correcting the link to John Eastman. And I accept the point that Coffin's contribution is not necessarily any more notable than that of others. I would also leave it up to readers to surmise whether Coffin is a member of the Society. I also note that WP:BRD is an essay whereas Help:Reverting is a guideline which states that "generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly." Since it was THF who carried out the revert, opinions of others would be gratefully received.

Also, if THF or anyone else can provide citations, perhaps a paragraph along these lines would be appropriate...


 * While not necessarily members, several figures with roles in the Bush administration have written for Federalist Society publications, notably Daniel Troy, James Ho and Shannen W. Coffin. Other of the Society's writers have no known links.

Or, perhaps even less controversially...


 * While not necessarily members, several figures in the public eye have written for Federalist Society publications, such as Shawn Mitchell (a Republican member of the Colorado state senate), Hans A. von Spakovsky (a commissioner of the Federal Election Commission) and Shannen W. Coffin (general counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney).

I really don't want to demonstrate that there are links between the FedSoc and the Bush Administration, or the reverse. Like you all, I want to contribute to an encyclopaedia.Wavehunter 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Virtually every major conservative or libertarian legal figure has spoken or written for the Federalist Society. I can't even think of an exception.  It's a mystery to me why that one issue of one publication means so much to you; there are years worth of them, and Engage comes out multiple times a year, and that's only one of the Fed Soc's publications.


 * Reversion wasn't taken lightly. The edit you made contradicted several guidelines, as listed by my edit summary. Reversion was appropriate. That's how Wikipedia works, and you can't take it personally. WP:NOT and WP:NOT are two other guidelines you may wish to consider. THF 03:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again to THF for his opinion. (I do not take it personally.) I've put forward some ideas for improving (rather than deleting) my original contribution and I look forward to reading others' opinions on this.Wavehunter 04:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, due to the lack of feedback and with no comments for or against my suggested improvement, I'm going to be bold and add my less controversial suggestion as above. In my opinion it would be a shame if it was reverted as it would suggest that there are certain facts in the public domain that should be hidden from Wikipedia readers. Hopefully it will instead be edited, added to or improved in some way. The three individuals I mention as 'in the public eye' have Wikipedia pages so this adds to the linkedness of the encyclopaedia. There may well be other contributors more famous or more notable and I would be delighted if those in the know were to alter this list as appropriate.


 * In being bold I've cleaned up the whole section. On careful reading the section on conservative member turned out to be a right mess! It still lacks citations but previously mentioned the Solicitor General but not his name (Paul Clement) - is he a member? It also mentioned the Dean of Pepperdine and Kenneth Starr separately when they appear to be the same person. And there was mention of an unnamed DC Circuit Judge.


 * That's it. Adios. Wavehunter 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, nearly every major conservative legal figure (and many non-major ones) has either spoken to or written for the Federalist Society. Mentioning three people at random adds absolutely zero to the article.  I've edited it.  --Velvet elvis81 06:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Point?
The Membership paragraph under Aims and Membership is a rather clumsy "guilt by association" tack. If the Federalist Society itself did not do this, it does not belong in an article about the Federalist Society. To say that "Federalist Society members helped..." without citing WHO or HOW is just not useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverstarseven (talk • contribs) 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

this needs cleanup
http://www.overlawyered.com/2008/03/wikiality_part_732_the_federal.html Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. PFAW are political activists, and completely un-Reliable Sources here. Jack Huberman's book is supposed to be funny and polemical, and is definitely not Reliable.


 * I've had a go at fixing some of the problems, but don't have time to do a proper job. For one thing, the discussion of whether John Roberts is a member is too long. Indeed, why do we have such a long list of alleged members? Given that some people participate in Society activities without actually joining it, I'm worried that we're wrong about many of these people. For example, the Kenneth Starr article is in Category:Federalist Society members but does not mention the Society.


 * There are some wild conspiracy theories about the Society out there; have proponents of those theories been editing the article?


 * This article needs a lot of work (and I'm not volunteering, sorry). CWC 14:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What it is
The Federalist Society is neither conservative nor libertarian, they are neocons:

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9231

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8558

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8329

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8395

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12039

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11800

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3261

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3961

--195.0.220.117 (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Read real sources sometime. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable members
Is it possible to find an alternative source for the membership section besides People For the American Way, a clearly biased source? I am not specifically disputing the inclusion of any of the named members, but there should be a more reliable source than a liberal/progressive political advocacy 501(c) group (which are "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees") Biccat (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The section of this article that lists judges who are members of the Federalist Society is sloppily done. For example it lists Neil Gorsuch but then refers to a Federalist Society page showing the Gorsuch attended an event at which his book was discussed. The references for Thomas and Alito point to an article declaring that each “was either a member or approved by members of the society.” This falls short of evidence that they were members. For Scalia the evidence is that Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way (a liberal advocacy group and therefore ideological enemy of both Scalia and the Federalist Society) claimed that he was a member. For Ted Cruz the link was to Federalist Society events at which he spoke. (The original link is broken, here is the current: https://fedsoc.org/contributors/ted-cruz)

The above only represent a cursory sampling of the list. I don’t for a minute doubt that all these people are kindred spirits with the Federalist Society but their membership is not demonstrated (which is the point of the section). The references are embarrassing.Swood100 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Membership lists
Listing individual members of the Federalist Society is like listing individual members of the ABA or the District of Columbia Bar or the American Medical Association or the Democratic Party. Every attorney of a certain age who isn't left of center is going to be a member of the Federalist Society, because it's about the only such organization for conservative or libertarian lawyers. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/fedsoc.htm Gabriel Duvall (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whew! No more WP:BLP or WP:NOR concerns now! By the way, I give all apologies for trying to contribute to an "unencyclopedic" list. I first became familiar with the FS from Jack Huberman's 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America book, which another editor recently claims isn't a reliable source. But of course, we can list the head members of the FS, including Antonin Scalia (who's something like the original faculty advisory right?) I also said that original research was a concern because Wikipedia would be at risk of slandering certain people through "guilt-by-association" (as seen from [coughcoughcough] Conservapedia's infamous "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" list) --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Huberman isn't encyclopedic. There are numerous scholarly books and law review articles about the history of the Federalist Society.  The Federalist Society website lists its most prominent members, who serve on various committees. If you are interested in improving the article, I suggest you go to those.  When you persist in relying upon unreliable sources such as left-wing blogs, Lyndon Larouche, and Jack Huberman, it suggests unfairly you have an agenda other than improving the encyclopedia. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not libertarian
The Federalist Society in practice is extreme-right, not libertarian.

For instance, it supports corporate personhood, which is fascist, not libertarian. We might as well call them "Adolf-tarian." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.86.250 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You're an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.14.94 (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

spreadsheet
Should mention the infamous spreadsheet which emerged from the coverage of the U.S. Attorneys firing scandal -- this was actually some of the widest general media publicity that the Federalist Society has ever achieved... AnonMoos (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

POV Dispute
This article quite strongly reads like an advertisement. It is written in a tone that feels as though it suggests that the organization is just and righteous, which is rather non-POV. It needs to be rewritten in a far more neutral tone. Antman -- chat 02:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Federalist Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.fed-soc.org/abaw8969.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions joking about Russians, Nov 16 2017
Might need to be in article.--Wikipietime (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Federalist Society. 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/20150221015400/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221015400/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718170139/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.levine.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.levine.html

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) 16:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Judicial activism
An IP number keeps removing mention that the FS has been accused of judicial activism from the lede. This text is reliably sourced, and absolutely crucial to include in the lede, given that the lede would otherwise uncritically regurgitate the group's own self-serving self-description. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Nothing about alleged judicial activism is fleshed out in the body, so per WP:LEAD we shouldn't be including it so prominently. Current placement is giving too prominent of WP:WEIGHT to unnamed critics. And it's normal per WP:ABOUTSELF to include how a group describes itself as long as it is clearly attributed. Marquardtika (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A client of CRC
That the Federalist Society is a client of a PR firm involved in smearing a victim coming forward about sexual assault from FS's hand-picked Supreme Court justice nominee is obvious pertinent information and mentioned by the cited RS. After Marquardtika's edit, the Wikipedia page only mentions that it's client of a PR firm without elaborating any further on what kind of PR firm and what kind of activities it has been involved in. It's doing our readers a disservice, and it's not adhering to the RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Does the source say that the Federalist Society has something to do with these smears? No, it says Federalist Society is also a client of this firm. PR firms have lots of clients. So? Seems like you're trying to make a guilt by association argument here. Not neutral, and not in the sourcing you've provided. Marquardtika (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, somehow a high-quality RS finds it important to note that the Federalist Society uses this firm of smear merchants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with the Federalist Society. It does not belong here at all. Tchouppy (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * FS is a long-standing client of a firm that is most prominent for running the Swift Boat smears against Kerry. This same firm coordinated the conspiracy theories on behalf of FS against Dr. Ford during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Which of these facts do not belong in the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This content belongs in the article about Creative Response Concepts, the PR firm in question. There is absolutely no reason the Federalist Society article should have more ink devoted to these issues than the CRC page does (which is currently the case). It's WP:COATRACK. What does one PR firm's client have to do with another (was Federalist Society involved in Swift Boats/Blasey Ford...?) I would suggest proposing some content and launching an RFC to get WP:CONSENSUS. Marquardtika (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That FS associates so deeply with this firm of smear merchants and the fact that this firm runs smear campaigns on behalf of FS is entirely due. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Somehow, every single RS that covers FS and CRC together deems it important to note what CRC is famous for, yet here we have editors declaring that it's entirely unimportant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source that says the Federalist Source associates "deeply" with CRC, or just that they are one of their clients? The fact that you refer to CRC as "smear merchants" makes it seem like perhaps you can't approach this topic in a neutral manner, as I've noted that none of the sources you've provided uses the word "smear." Marquardtika (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think its reasonable to include CRC’s relationship with FS but there doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to include extraneous information about CRC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Federalist Society's use of the PR firm CRC
Can we include text about the Federalist Society's use of the PR firm CRC, which is renowned for the 2004 swiftboat smears against John Kerry, and for pushing the conspiracy theory that the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh (someone that the Federalist Society pushed hard for to become a Supreme Court justice) had confused Kavanaugh with a "doppelganger"?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The Federalist Society is a long-standing client of the conservative public relations firm Creative Response Concepts, which is most prominent for coordinating the Swift Boat Veterans smear campaign against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004.  During the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, CRC orchestrated conspiracy theories that one of the women accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, had mistook his identity and that another person committed the alleged sexual assault.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning.

Survey

 * Support, but we should as much as possible limit the information about CRC to that most directly concerning the Federalist Society, of which there appears to be plenty. No need for more than a line about Swift boat, Kavanaugh etc. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, prefer instead the shorter description that won't detract from the topic of the article: "The Federalist Society is a long-standing client of the conservative public relations firm Creative Response Concepts, which is has a history of controversial media practices.(+some references, maybe three of them)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose going into specifics. See the initial Jeremiah Wright paragraph of Barack Obama for the correct way to handle this sort of thing. Note that it does not mention any of Wright's infamous quotes. I think User:Epiphyllumlover has it about right.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Barack Obama (as well as any statements about Jeremiah Wright) must comply with WP:BLP whereas this page (or any statements about CRC) does not, I’m not entirely sure that this is the best example or even a good example. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - RS always describe CRC (in all reporting about the ties between CRC and the Federalist Society) as the firm that is renowned for the Swiftboat campaign. It's valuable context for Wikipedia's readers. It's crucial context to note that CRC orchestrated the smear campaign against Blasey Ford, whose sexual assault accusations endangered Brett Kavanaugh's nomination (the Federalist Society pushed fiercely for Kavanaugh's confirmation), so the connection is direct and explicit. So, the content mirrors that of WP:RS and is WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support WP:LIBERTY member I agree with . It also seems like did  homework because there is plenty of WP:RS using similar phrasing as proposed. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose None of the other activities of CRC are relevant to the activities of the Federalist Society. Organizations use third party vendors, like CRC, all the time- it is hardly appropriate the discuss a contractor's unrelated activity regarding other clients on an organization's page. Tchouppy (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Partial support. I'm always skeptical of this sort of guilt-by-association content, but the connection between the Federalist Society and Swift Boat is sufficiently sourced. The connection between the Federalist Society and the Blasey Ford pushback is not. R2 (bleep) 19:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Emir of Wikipedia below that the "conspiracy theory" wording of the Blasey sentence fails verification. R2 (bleep) 20:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support in some form as we should not WP:CENSOR what has been reported in the WP:RSs. Oppose exact wordings as this seems like a non-neutral and perhaps political biased or deceptive presentation of the facts, for example the sources currently numbered 6, 1, and 7 are used to support the claim that this was a conspiracy theory despite not of these three sources saying that. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is supremely irrelevant to the activities of the Federalist Society. Independent 3rd party vendors are just that. Their unrelated activity regarding other entirely separate clients have no place on this organization's page. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Capitalismojo. See also WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Capitalismojo. Rjensen (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: We already have "The Federalist Society is a client of the public relations firm Creative Response Concepts" in the article (in the "Background" section). The proposed addition is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. It is also sloppily written--like others, I'm not seeing "conspiracy theory" in any of the sources, or "smear campaign." If we're going to include additional content here, we'd certainly need to make sure at a minimum that it was properly sourced and not polemically written. Marquardtika (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In what world is swiftboating not a smear campaign? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COATRACK.  Calidum   16:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Mention of Conway's group
I recently removed mention of George T. Conway III's group Checks and Balances (organization). The notability of this group is shaky enough (the future will determine that). However, it's far too tangential to Federalist Society to deserve a mention here. The source states that a dozen FedSoc members joined it. Out of an organization that has 70,000+ members, this comes nowhere close to a "splintering" of the organization. This is redoubled by the fact that after only one line that lasted a blink of an eye in the media, the relationship between Checks and Balances and the Federalist Society has never been mentioned again.  Ergo Sum  17:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The editor Ergo Sum is edit-warring out long-standing text from the article without consensus or by abiding BRD. The text in question is about divisions within the Federalist Society over its staunch support and close association with Trump. The content in question is reported by RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If by edit warring (see block threat on my talk page), you mean a single revert of your edit and opening this discussion, then sure I'm edit warring. I'm requesting WP:RFC because clearly, you have no intention of being reasonable.  Ergo Sum  17:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment
This request is whether there should be mention of George's Conway's group on this article.  Ergo Sum  17:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why challenge Checks and Balances but not American Constitution Society? I think what we had before Ergo Sum deleted it was good, as is the line about the American Constitution Society. I support restoring what was removed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The content belongs. It shows that there is a diversity of opinion with the Federalist Society, and that a faction disagrees with the staunch support and association with the Trump administration. RS coverage from 2019 (I'm not counting 2018 coverage of which there is countless RS): The Atlantic, NY Mag, NPR, The Hill, Law.com, The Plain Dealer. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These are articles mentioning or about Checks and Balances, not about Checks and Balances being a splinter group from the Federalist Society. The fact that other conservative lawyers exists is not newsworthy to the Federalist Society page. It's hardly newsworthy that conservative lawyers may have more than one opinion on a subject. Any large group has differing ideals within it.
 * That said, and while I think Conway's group is pretty inconsequential, there were RS articles about the formation of Checks and Balances in relation to the Federalist Society in the deleted content. That content has been there for a while without controversy (?) and there is no reason to remove it now. Tchouppy (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, I agree wholeheartedly with Tchouppy: these sources do not at all support mentioning that club in this article. Sorry, but it's like you're answering a very different question. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really see content being there for a while (a month?) as a reason to keep it if it doesn't belong there. I see it as totally different from ACS, because that is a large and certainly notable organization that was created explicitly as a counterbalance to FedSoc. Checks and Balances happened to have a few FedSoc members join it, and that's the end of its relationship to FedSoc. Very different.  Ergo Sum  01:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You didnt answer my question, why challenge Checks and Balances but not American Constitution Society? Doesn't the exact same reasoning apply to both? The coverage linking them to the Federalist Society appears nearly identical. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ACS is an organization that is 20 years old, has millions of dollars, and thousands of members. It was created explicitly as an opposite of Federalist Society; coverage of ACS reflects this. C&B is several months old, has an unknown number of dollars, and has several dozen members. The substantial majority of coverage of it has been regarding its creation. The group's relationship with the Federalist Society is negligible for the reasons I state above.  Ergo Sum  18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I still find myself in agreement with Tchouppy that while "Conway's group is pretty inconsequential, there were RS articles about the formation of Checks and Balances in relation to the Federalist Society in the deleted content... there is no reason to remove it now” We shouldn’t play god if RS choose to explicitly link them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems WP:Undue and WP:Recent. I’d exclude and see if it is actually due inclusion in this article. By undue I mean; it is unclear that this is significant and in proportion to the prominence in reliable sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States proposal
I moved this discussion up to the "Methods and influence" section as most of the discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal is already discussed in the methods and influence section. I would like to trim it down some more since these are all arguments that have already been discussed in the methods and influence section. Furthermore, at this point, it is only a proposal and has not been adopted yet, so a full section of its own is hardly necessary. Tchouppy (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Calabresi Op Ed
It seems to me that the opinion (even published) of one of the Federalist Society's founders is not strongly enough connected to the organization itself to merit inclusion in a general article about the Federalist Society, unless there is evidence that it somehow represents the thinking of the group itself or a significant vein of thought within the group. I removed this paragraph once before, with a note explaining that it was "tendentious" (i.e., not WP:NPOV) and dealt with "a comment made by one of the group's founders which does not reflect the positions or policies of the organization." This was summarily reverted by another editor with just a single word explanation: "relevant." I fail to see how calling it relevant makes it so, although the editor followed up with the addition of a second citation to the paragraph, which however still failed to connect Calabresi's opinion to the Federalist Society itself (the article's only mentions of the Federalist Society were to note that Calabresi was a co-founder and to explain that the Society has been influential lately). Obviously, Calabresi's personal opinions are fair game in his own article (which indeed includes a more or less identical version of the same paragraph with the same sources), but they do not belong in this article, any more than the personal individual opinions of other members (or even founders) of the Federalist Society do. I actually think that the specific sections in this article discussing the Federalist Society under the Bush and Trump administrations are questionable as a whole, but at least the rest of the material presented in those sections is connected to the Federalist Society itself: its events, its publications, its influence, etc. (My objection probably has more to do with the presentation and arrangement of this information, rather than its inclusion.) This particular instance, however, is different, and does not belong in this article, so I am deleting it once more and asking for further discussion here on the talk page before any effort is made to reinsert it. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This statement ascribes opinions of some members to all members. "Members of the Federalist Society have forcefully argued against regulations on guns. Members hold that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to guns, as opposed to being a collective right to arms."

You might as wall say, "Wikipedia editors have forcefully argued against regulations on guns. People hold that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to guns, as opposed to being a collective right to arms."

Wikipedia should not contain unsupportable statements such as that. Anorlunda (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Bias
There needs to be a section dedicated to criticism. Such as their promotion of theocrats. 2601:346:C201:60C0:21F0:D0C0:F954:CDAB (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wholeheartedly agree. The article does have discussion about things like this but it does a bit seem "hidden" under more value-neutral subject headings, not a criticism section, in contrast to common practice elsewhere in Wikipedia. 45.43.101.69 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Politico
The article has an unnecessary amount of direct quotes from Politico which are not WP:NPOV compliant 81.2.103.240 (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How Trump adviser manipulates free speech to advance his causes and ‘hurt his adversaries’
That's the title of this article. Might be of use. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)