Talk:Judicial Crisis Network

Enough of the edit-warring
Hi Marquardtika, pleasure to see you again. I'm glad we've all managed to come out from the shadows. Let's try to be serious and discuss the line-edits in the appropriate fashion.

You and/or [[user:Seoul1989|Seoul1989}} have repeatedly deleted the text originally entered On 26. []

After a great deal of abusive behavior by Seoul1989, which was combatted by a vigilant third party, Dialectric, you made the following edit (which, as the intervention of Dialectric shows, was not a reversion to any kind of consensus) on 5 November: []

There is more to discuss here, but let's at least start with addressing a few items from the lede. If you would like to get your chum Tchouppy involved, we might save everyone a lot of time on the talk pages of Leonard Leo, Arabella Advisors, and I imagine lots of other pages here.

1. Use of the phrase "dark money" and tone in the lede.

You removed:

Now, I think it is reasonable to suggest that there are some important problems with this. But perhaps you and Tchouppy will find the phrasing familiar, since it was what one of you produced at Arabella Advisors on Oct 28 []:



Would you also call this a "dumpster fire", Marquardtika? Tchouppy insisted that the phraseology was "fully supported by the Politico article" []; obviously the use of this phraseology at JCN is just as fully supported by the Open Secrets and WaPo articles. So, what will be it, chaps? I'm no defender of Arabella Advisors and have no interest whatsoever in protecting them, but such blatant inconsistencies cannot be tolerated. So, play it straight with wikivoice, or get out the partisan knives? I will defer to my Wikiseniors here.

2. Connection to Judicial Education Project, the 85 Fund, and the Honest Elections Project. You also removed:



Again, the Open Secrets article clearly states:



Moreover, the Axios article adds:



3. Connection to Leonard Leo. You also removed:



I cannot see why the reference to Leonard Leo should be removed; the Open Secrets article cited states:



Since, as the article cited in point 2 above shows these organizations are largely fronts intended to disguise that JCN, JEP, Leo and others are all closely connected, what can be the justification for removing this? If you feel that OpenSecrets.org is not reliable, then I'm afraid you and Tchouppy will have a lot of work to do on the Arabella Advisors page you and Tchouppy seem to be quite invested in curating; it is the single most cited source there. Again, I am happy to discuss this further with you.

4. There is also a more serious problem here. Throughout this period of contention at the pages of Arabella Advisors, Leonard Leo, and the Judicial Crisis Network, you and at least one other user were apparently coordinating. In fact, it would appear that you have been working in tandem at Arabella Advisors since at least June 2020. This is not necessarily a problem, of course. But in insisting so staunchly on the use of straight wikivoice for friendly pages and loaded, partisan language for your apparent enemies; in doing so in tandem in a clandestine fashion; in doing so repeatedly and on several pages; in doing so over such an extended period of time; and in the suspicious behavior of Seoul1989}, a largely inactive account with many complaints against it that appeared just long enough to provoke an edit war before going dark, one gets a rather strong whiff of systematic bad faith behavior that would undermine the integrity of the larger Wikipedia project. Since I wish to assume good faith, I am happy to hear any explanations either of you might be willing to provide to justify what appears prima facie to be quite a dubious fact-pattern.

With best wishes Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This seems like a fairly low-traffic article, and with a lack of active editors here, a wp:RFC might be the way to go if you and Marquardtika can't agree on content. Marquardtika's reverting another editor's referenced additions with an edit summary describing the content as 'a dumpster fire' is not constructive. Marquardtika and Seoul1989 should explain here, on the talk page, their specific reasons for removing each reference, but rather than revert them, Publius, writing a concisely worded RFC covering content you would like to include would get more eyes on the page and process while avoiding edit warring.Dialectric (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Publius In The 21st Century, do you want to discuss the content of this article, or do you want to cast aspersions at me and question the good faith of me and other editors? Please pick a lane. Marquardtika (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Coming across this very late, the text from October/November 2020 should really be restored—that’s all relevant information and the reasoning for deletion (that the page was a “dumpster fire”) is not sufficient.—Hobomok (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If you check the sources provided in the current version, you'll find the content in the article is not verified. For example, take the article's first sentence: "...is a Washington, D.C.-based tax-exempt charity that serves as the hub of a well-funded politically conservative 'dark money' network." The two given sources are here and here. If you read them, you'll see that they don't verify that information. What does "well-funded" mean, anyway? It's subjective. The Axios piece doesn't even contain the term "Judicial Crisis Network." Our core function here is to make sure all content is verifiable. The version you reinstated is rife with original research, as evidenced by the inclusion of many 990 forms hosted on GuideStar and self-hosted documents hosted as www.documentcloud.org. That's not the way to build an encyclopedia article. If you want to expand this article, great, but the way to do that is by gradually adding well-sourced, verifiable content, not by reinstating a former version of this article that is significantly out of step with our core policies. Marquardtika (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Origin of name
Is it named for the Battle of Concord in the American Revolution? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Office on same hallway of same building as the Federalist Society
Shouldn't we mention in this article that the Judicial Crisis Network's office is on the same hallway in the same building as the Federalist Society? Source: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/federalist-society-judicial-crisis-network-amy-coney-barrett.html 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)