Talk:Nicole Berner

Requesting reconsideration to publish this article following President Biden's nomination of Nicole Berner to serve as a U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, replacing the seat vacated by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz. If confirmed, Berner would be the first openly LGBTQ judge to serve on that court and only the third openly LGBTQ woman to serve on any federal appellate court in U.S. history. Kirmel (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Kirmel

Incorporating content from sources
There seems to be a dispute over whether to more fully incorporate content from sources in the article to describe the nomination hearing at Senate Judiciary Committee, e.g. whether to only state that she was questioned, or to say that she answered questions. The sources currently in the article are Courthouse News (Dec. 13, 2023) and Bloomberg Law (Dec. 13, 2023). Courthouse News includes "Berner told Lee she was acting in her capacity as the union’s general counsel." Bloomberg Law includes "Berner told the panel..." similarly discussing her role. This is an article about Berner, so the sources noting her responses seem WP:DUE to include in the way it had been mentioned before the most recent change. The previous version also seems more neutral according to WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand the objection here or the distinction above about "being questioned" versus "answering questions." It was a confirmation hearing; she was asked questions and she answered them. And we should report what WP:RS said about the hearing. Here's a Washington Post article with more info from her hearing that we should incorporate. Marquardtika (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing the discussion here - I think BLP and NPOV policies encourage a cautious approach with regard to how much information is included and how it is presented, particularly for contentious content, so a close look at the sources is helpful. As to available sources, we have: From my view, WP:BLPSTYLE encourages precision, and taking care to avoid undue emphasis on recent events, while WP:BLPBALANCE warns against allocating disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; based on the one day of news reports, the inclusion of what seems to only be the view of Republican questioning seems disproportionate. I also don't think neutrality can be enhanced by enlarging the section, e.g. by including her specific answers - not only are allegations against another living person involved, but an expansion seems undue to include based on the limited duration and depth of reporting available. This is why I favor a more concise and conservative approach that seems to more broadly summarize the available sources - she answered questions about various issues raised during the hearing that were related to her work as an SEIU attorney - and I think the WaPo source helps make this more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Bipartisanship still on the table as Senate considers more judicial nominees (Courthouse News, Dec. 13, 2023) (emphasis added to highlight how the removed text "questioned over her handling of a sexual misconduct allegation while she was serving as general counsel" could be potentially misleading, by potentially implying she had a role handling the allegation when she said she did not)
 * Judiciary Republicans Prod Muslim Circuit Pick on Terrorism (1) (Bloomberg Law, Dec 13, 2023) (this may also be a potential WP:CLOP issue, considering how closely this tracks the recently removed text )  (this is another source reporting her answer is she had no direct role - and this is an article about her, not sensationalized claims made at her hearing - so the focus on the questioning, instead of her answers, also seems problematic from a BLP policy perspective.)
 * Republicans grill 4th Circuit nominee on Justice Kavanaugh, ‘right to work’ (WaPo, Dec 13, 2023) In addition to more broadly reporting on questions and answers related to her SEIU work, this source includes