Talk:Richard F. Cebull/Archive 1

Birthplace
The subject's birthplace is disputed. His official biography on the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit's Web site states he was born in Billings. A newspaper article states he was born and raised in Roundup. Verification is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.150.64 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As is common in most midwest small towns he parents likely lived in Roundup but the actual town of his birth would have been at a nearby hospital. While technically born in the city of Billings he would not have spent any significant period of his youth physically living in Billings.  Arzel (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"racially charged"
"racially charged" is unnecessarily vague. There's nothing subtle about this email, I think we can simply call it racist. 38.124.250.218 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Racist Email
I am from the UK. Looking at US Judges. Was some news recently about this judge, forwarding emails. Will it make into this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.105.88 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit the article with care
This article has seen some rapid changes today because of the email that the judge had forwarded. The story is still new, with more clarification coming in the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.40.43 (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Amusing vandalism
I have to say, the vandal who added the part about him "hardly going to Klan meetings any more" wins the Oscar for Funniest Libelous Edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.142 (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just deleted another piece of vandalism which was equally funny. What can you say about this type of guy? And he's a judge! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardoni (talk • contribs) 05:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Dog sex
The so-called joke does not imply that Obama's mother had sex with a dog. That's a complete misunderstanding. If it were about sex with a dog, it wouldn't be racist. It's about comparing black people with animals. I strongly suggest we replace the sentence about sex with a dog with this from the given soure: According to Travis McAdam, executive director of the Montana Human Rights Network, the joke “basically compares African Americans with animals.” --Bernardoni (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view, we either say nothing about the dog-sex thing or the black-animal thing, or we quote the e-mail (which was at one point in the article but removed as WP:UNDUE). Any interpretation of what the e-mail meant opens up a can of conflicting sources. Not that it matters, but what I do not understand at all was Cebull's brother's intro to the "joke"; that completely baffles me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that baffles me, too. Obviously, racists find things “touching” that we find sick and disgusting. I've thought quite a bit about that fact and it sure does worry me.--Bernardoni (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the sentence. --Bernardoni (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? The content was well-sourced and relevant. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some reasons for removing the material have been given here by Bernardoni and by me. Why don't you address those rather than just reverting? There are BLP issues involved here, and just because Cebull isn't a popular judge at the moment doesn't mean he isn't entitled to BLP protection. What the e-mail "implies" is a matter of opinion, and just because one source expresses a particular opinion doesn't mean we have to report it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to quote the email rather than an (extremely basic, common-sensical, well-sourced) interpretation of it, that's fine with me. But instead, you removed the interpretation, and then claim an unspecified BLP violation. What's the BLP violation? What is your alternate (and unsourced) interpretation of the joke? Go ahead and improve on my edit, but don't just remove well-sourced, highly relevant content and then abuse BLP policy in order to enforce your removal of well-sourced content. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many sources quote McAdam as Bernardoni stated above for an alternate "interpretation". Here's just one from the AP: . The potential BLP violation is obvious, which is that we are saying that Cebull approved of the cited interpretation. Sorry you don't get that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again. If you'd like to remove the basic, common-sensical, uncontroversial, well-sourced interpretation of the joke and replace it with a quotation from the email, go ahead. But don't just remove it and leave no summary of the content of the email. That would be doing a disservice to our readers. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This judge has worked for 40 years and made a lot of important rulings. If those are expanded proportionally, we can add detail to the section about the joke's content. As it stands, the many interpretations are not needed. Jokestress (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I agree with Jokestress that the interpretation sentence should be deleted, but a little clarity on who Cebull is and what is likely to happen with the article in the future. Cebull has been a lawyer for a long time, but he hasn't been a judge for 40 years, and he's been a district judge for just a bit over 10 years. Generally, district judges don't issue the kinds of decisions that are considered "important" in the legal world because unless it's an issue of first impression, district judges don't make law, they only follow precedent established by the Court of Appeals (in Cebull's case, the Ninth Circuit) and, of course, the Supreme Court. Unless a district judge issues a "controversial" ruling, e.g., Walker and the Prop 8 case, most district judge articles don't get expanded beyond basic biographical/judicial service information.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, Jokestress and myself agree that the dog sex sentence should be deleted. That's 3 voices compared to one. goethean, the fact that an interpretation is well-sourced doesn't necessarily mean that it's common-sensical. This obviously isn't about dogs, because alleging that someone has sex with dogs has nothing to do with racism. I will again remove the sentence in question. --Bernardoni (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a ludicrous action which does our readers a severe disservice. Why you three are against our readers gaining information about the email which this judge sent out will remain a mystery to me, a mystery which none of you have done anything to demystify. The email said, "From what I heard about that night, you are lucky that you don't bark." I'm not sure how you imagine that line to not be saying that Obama's mother had sex with a dog. I've asked repeatedly for what the alternate interpretation of the email is here, and my concerns have been ignored. Hopefully, editors interested in serving our readers will arrive here at some point. Until that time, you may continue to delete, remove, suppress, and ignore. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I might as well speak up, (I have been watching) and support exclusion of the interpretation, many times I have seen - we usually do not repeat such insults or interpretations - its enough to tell the story without egregiously repeating the insult - that is the encyclopedic position. You  really  can  01:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should not offer an interpretation of the joke.  Arzel (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My edit did not "egregiously repeat the insult." It simply described the nature of the controversy accurately, as the current version of the article fails to do. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My attempt to add a New York Times editorial calling the judge's resignation was reverted by User:Youreallycan with the following edit summary: (remove editorial - if he resigns itsa notable not an editorial  in a press outlet) This, of course, is yet more patent nonsense. Having the NYT call for your resignation *is* a notable event to happen to a person. A reference to the event belongs in the judge's biography. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 01:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Coming from the NYT it is hardly suprising that they would call for his resignation, now if the NYT was defending someone that wasn't a liberal; That would be notable! The NYT is not the end all source of note.  It may think it is, but it has become little more than a mouthpiece for the left.  Nothing to see there.  Arzel (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. But if you want to make that argument the best place to attempt to do so would be WP:RSN. Dlabtot (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me add another voice saying that excluding relevant information, whether the joke itself or an "interpretation" of a transparently obvious joke, is an absurd disservice to the readers of the encyclopedia. Saying merely a "racist joke" is both unnecessarily vague and inaccurate in the sense that it does not inform the reader how egregiously offensive this joke was; it makes the reader think it was some mild remark about fried chicken instead of a bestiality scenario. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference provides the full text of the joke for those interested. In a bio this short, there's no need to include the joke verbatim, just to note that it was racist and his subsequent actions. Jokestress (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the reference includes, it matters what this article includes. I can understand not wanting to include the joke verbatim, but to also exclude any and all information about the content of the joke?  There's no justification for doing both. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please propose some text for discussion. Jokestress (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not wedded to any particular wording, but something like "a racist joke implying Obama's mother had sex with a dog" would be sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one of several interpretations and doesn't address the concern expressed about that. How about: In it, Obama asks about his ethnicity, and his mother replies "you're lucky you don't bark." That has the punchline and summarizes the joke without making interpretations. Jokestress (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As should be obvious from the discussion, I agree with Jokestress (as do others). I really don't see, Gamaliel, how you're addressing our concerns about the material. You appear to just repeat the argument that if it's reliably sourced and "relevant", it should be included. That's not a universally accepted construct at Wikipedia. At least address the problem with different reliable sources having different interpretations.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not clear that there is an issue with multiple interpretations. Some sources call it racist, other say that it has to do with bestiality --- these are not exclusive categories. A joke saying that Obama's mother had sex with a dog is certainly also racist. Since Bbb23 has never deigned to elaborate on what exactly the alleged multiple interpretation issue is, and how that issue dictates that the article will not describe the subject matter of the incident at hand, I can only guess that it is the pseudo-problem which I just described. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the interpretation issue, I don't really understand this multiple interpretation canard since the joke is pretty straightforward. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's what you feel my argument is, then I don't think you've actually been reading my comments or are perhaps responding to arguments from others. I think I've been fairly clear in discussing specifically why the current expurgated version is insufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I could support that text. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fix of dead ref
Just to let other editors know, in case this has to be fixed AGAIN, as of April 10, the previous link, which I am sure USED to be live, is now dead (probably moved by Great Falls Tribune)

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120229/NEWS01/120229014/Chief-U-S-District-Judge-sends-racially-charged-email-about-president

to include the relevant text, you now have to go to a blog record of the previously available article

http://mtlowdown.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/chief-us-district-judge-sends-racially.html

for some inexplicable reason a partisan editor seems to think this is contentious, and reverts together with gratuitous personal attacks--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is you who is making personal attacks, and it is you does not understand Wikipedia policy. A newspaper article --- online or not --- is a reliable source. A weblog post is not a reliable source. The fact that a link is dead makes no difference whatsoever. Do not remove references to a newspaper article and replace it with a reference to a weblog posting. That's replacing a reliable source with an unreliable source. Your other accusations --- that I'm stalking you, etc. --- are just nonsense piled on top of your other nonsense. Please stop it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK..... so, as other editors can see from the above paragraph, if I make the edit, I will be followed to the page and Goethean will just revert anything. All I care about ( and the reason for backing up on the Talk page) is so that there can be an actual reference on the page. It is there if you want to add it; better if someone else cleans it up (though at this writing, the weblog, live, ref is up), and that's the point of the post.

Racist, sexist, or obscene
On an unrelated note; was directed here by someone referring to SEXIST speech. Had not followed this particular story before, and after having to search for the actual quote, well, I don't get it. It is obvious that the joke is offensive, and sexist, but the racist angle, while it's easy to understand how someone COULD take it as racist, isn't as overwhelmingly obvious. It is an old Rodney Dangerfield (and probably others) joke, just "why don't I look like daddy" is personalized to Obama's mother, and the more specific "black and white" substituted. YES, there is now a racial aspect, but the whole "your mother/'yo mama" genre is never exactly PC. I think you really need the actual joke or quote in the description. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on guys - lets try and just work together and resolve this in the best way for neutrality and for the reader. @209: Thats a good point - wasn't the joke interpreted and cit-able that some people thought the joke was racist? We could refer to it as obscene joke ? You  really  can  14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

ZERO possibility of dispute that it is an obscene or "dirty" joke ZERO dispute that critics have CALLED it racist, or that, in addition to its primary attributes, some people could see it as racist, and that if the whole incident is notable, so is this.

To state in the article that it IS racist is to imply that WIKIPEDIA certifies as factual that it IS racist, and that is POV.

The joke, like all "'yo mama" jokes insults the MOTHER, and thereby, OBLIQUELY, the progeny. In this case, can be held NOT to violate BLP, since Obama's mother is no longer "L".

Again, doesn't say Obamas father was a dog, it specifically says his father was NOT a dog, just that he should be glad that his father ended up being his ACTUAL biological father, because, given the alleged sexual habits of the mother, it could have been anyone (ie including the dog - point of the joke is in essence that Obama's mother slept around).

There. A structural and grammatical analysis of a 'yo mama joke. The things I do for Wikipedia.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I made an edit in an attempt to remove the factual as in wikipedia voice racist statement - You  really  can  16:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

MUCH better--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Much better?! Were there any commentators who thought that the joke was not racially charged? (Apart from our self-appointed resident expert 209.6.69.227.) I think nearly every media outlet described the joke as racist. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, absolutely absurd. There is zero ambiguity to this issue.  Unless you can cite a mainstream commentator who did not see the joke as racist, you are creating ambiguity where no ambiguity exists and inserts POV into the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You still shouldn't present it as if fact - and you cant cite your addition of universally either - its plenty to say that commentators opined - that is the NPOV BLP position. You  really  can  16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to suggest an alternate wording you prefer which does not create NPOV-violating ambiguity. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The neutral version I created that you WP:edit warred to remove -  On February 20, 2012, Cebull used his official courthouse email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a joke about President Barack Obama which commentators asserted was racially charged. - Whatever - you are unable to cite your version anyway and adding a template to the section won't change that.  You  really  can  17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So I take it you are unable or unwilling to suggest alternate wording which does not create NPOV-violating ambiguity? Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "unable or unwilling" is just your attack comment - very disappointing from an administrator - As a completely uninvolved neutral wikipedia editor attempting to comply with policy and guidelines, that version is the most compliant I can see. - whatever - I am well used to bla bla with partisan editors here and you will never be able to cite your version  and sticking whatever template you want to the section just demeans it value and authority to the readers - so its a win win situation.  You  really  can  17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You aren't addressing the issue at all, you are just falsely complaining about being attacked and using that as an excuse to make your own attacks. When you want to discuss the issue instead of playing these games, let me know. Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Give over - I am happy with the citation required template and the section template - they degrade readers interpretation of the section and considering the uncitability of the content and my objection to your addition seems a reasonable position.  You  really  can  17:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is a source to quote stating it was "universally" viewed as racist, there's no way to state that without engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Cebull's response specifically addressed allegations of racism, so there's a good reason to refer to that the description. It is probably not "obscene" in the legal sense, though if someone called it that, I suppose we could say that, too. Rather than get into specifics, we could say it was widely considered "off-color" or "offensive," which covers all the ways people took issue with the joke (race, yo mama joke, bestiality, and other interpretations). The dispute tag, the word universally, and the citation needed tag should all go. Jokestress (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And the issue of ambiguity? I see your point, but it would be nice if someone addressed the underlying issue. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * [personal attack removed] You  really  can  18:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources can be included which say (the undeniable fact that) that the joke was racist. The article can say that the joke was racist. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its all opinion - and the partisan opponent ones are not neutral - it all needs attributing and not presenting as if fact in wiki's voice, which was the original policy violating problem - You  really  can  18:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * this is opinion? It is a news story. this is opinion? this is opinion? this is opinion? this is opinion? Tell me when to stop. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, Its all opinion - stop or don't  - its irrelevant - it still needs attribution and it is often partisan also - [personal attack removed]  You  really  can  19:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Youreallycan has proposed a fine solution above in bold. There is no ambiguity in his phrasing and no ambiguity in the summary of the joke. Some people characterized is as a sexist joke or a bestiality joke first and foremost rather than a racially charged joke. Cebull says it is an anti-Obama joke first and foremost. Jokestress (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Youreallycan needs to learn the difference between news reporting and opinion. There is a difference. One hundred newspaper articles saying one thing and nothing saying the opposite is not "just an opinion". This is idiocy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "news reporting and opinion" - is intermingled. - We still need to attribute it - the press is clearly opinionated and partisan, no one disputes that. Idiocy is in in the eye of the beholder - You  really  can  19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * note - sadly - to avoid a report I have had to replace content that I do not support in any way that was inserted by User:Goethean - diff - You  really  can  19:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A HOPEFULLY helpful edit (copied from dispute page) There is a little conflation of point a with point b going on, and setting up straw men. There is unanimity that the email COULD be interpreted as racist (though a bit of a stretch, a defensible one), justifying the racist or racially-charged label. That does NOT mean that it can ONLY be considered racist. It also does not mean that Cebull INTENDED of thought of it as racist WHEN HE SENT IT. Quite the contrary, he denies this. Agreement on a, disagreement on b and c. When you say he "sent a racist email" you imply both that the email was intended as racist and can ONLY be regarded as racist. The first is denied by Cebull, and therefore needs a disclaimer to get to NPOV, the second needs something, such as a desciption of the interpretations (which would be long and cumbersome) of the text of the actual joke (so that people can make up their own minds). Probably a better wording is "Cebull used his court email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a vulgar joke about President Obama's mother that commentators later pointed out, could be considered racist".--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Including Charter v. USDA
User:Bbb23 removed a notable case, Charter v. USDA, from this bio.. Per the sources in the deleted material, the ruling was covered in books, academic articles, and the Associated Press: Checkoff program ruled constitutional for Montana beef. The ruling and its later being vacated by the Ninth Circuit are part of a notable protracted battle over the constitutionality of commodity checkoff programs. It also shows Cebull's involvement in the legal interests of the American livestock industry. I'd like to include it and disagree with its removal. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, Jokestress already added one case to the article that was subsequently vacated by the Ninth Circuit. I haven't decided whether that belongs in the article. Second, the issue is whether the decision is notable with respect to Cebull, the judge, not whether it's notable because of ancillary political issues. Thus, a decision of a district court judge might be notable because it breaks new ground and is either upheld on appeal or is not appealed and therefore becomes that judge's interpretation of the law in that one area. There are other possibilities for notability of a judicial decision, but I don't think this is one of them. I might add that generally district court decisions are not notable. That said, if there is a consensus for reinserting it, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd argue both rulings are more notable and substantive than the 2012 WP:BLP1E outrage du jour that skews the article without the rulings. Whipping out my WP:CRYSTAL, the Ninth Circuit will find that he showed poor judgment, as they did with Kozinsky over his racy humorous image collection, and that will be the end of this tempest in a teapot. This article should cover his career in proportion, and not devolve into WP:RECENTism. Jokestress (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're really conflating two issues. If you want to argue that the e-mail incident isn't sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the article, that's fine (although you'd get precious little support for it), but determining the noteworthiness of a decision is a different kettle of fish and would be evaluated differently. As for your crystal ball, you may be right, but the Ninth Circuit might go a little further than the Third Circuit (not the Ninth) did with Kozinski. Cebull's conduct was deliberate, whereas Kozinski's was arguably inadvertent.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The email incident should certainly be included, but in proportion to his 40-year legal career. Any time someone like Linda P.B. Katehi is in the news over a perceived outrage, partisans fall all over themselves to turn their bios into a overdetailed coatrack that blows the incident out of proportion within the scope of their career. The guy forwarded a racist Obama joke from his work email, then apologized and initiated an inquiry. That's about all there is to it until the inquiry concludes, despite all the outrage generated by the media. His notable rulings are equally significant in summarizing his life and career. Jokestress (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up that I posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges, asking anyone over there to comment on the notability decision issue. I don't know if anyone will, but they have broader experience in the district court judge articles on the project than I do, and what kinds of decisions are considered notable. I've posted messages there before, and sometimes it grabs someone and sometimes it doesn't, but I figured it couldn't hurt to get another opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't have a crystal ball but considering his unremarkable career it seems entirely probable that the email will be his most significant legacy -- 50 years from now he will be remembered as "the racist judge from Montana". Dlabtot (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but (1) I don't see how your comment is helpful and (2) what basis do you have for saying he has an "unremarkable career"? In the legal profession, becoming a federal district judge is a remarkable achievement all by itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "I don't see how your comment is helpful" - well done Bbb23, don't feed the troll. You  really  can  04:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

All editors on Wikipedia should remember our core principle to assume good faith. Name-calling and insults directed towards other editors are in fact strictly forbidden and such behavioral breaches can be punishable with sanctions. My basis for saying he has an 'unremarkable career' is this article as it stood before Judge Cebull became famous as a racist judge with a poor sense of humor and worse judgement:  - simply the barebones entry from the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. Other than his appointment to the bench he simply never did, said, or wrote anything worth remarking upon. Until recently. Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so it's clear, I didn't call you any names; indeed, I thought my comment was very polite. And your follow-up doesn't support your statement about his allegedly "unremarkable career," either.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was perfectly clear. It wasn't your comment to which I was referring. I thought that was also clear. Back to the topic, what do you find remarkable about his career? Dlabtot (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. As I said, there are a lot of lawyers in the U.S. Only a very small percentage of them become judges, and an even smaller percentage become U.S. district court judges. That is therefore remarkable in and of itself. Since becoming a judge, I can't tell you what he's done because I haven't researched it, but I believe many of the district court judge articles on Wikipedia have very little information other than the basic biographical information obtained from the FJC official bio. I suppose I also felt that your statement was a bit of an unwarranted slam against him (even though you probably did not intend it that way).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, nothing remarkable in his career as a judge other than an offensive email. My career hasn't been remarkable either - am I 'slamming' myself? No, I'm just stating the reality. Dlabtot (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Any rulings on which legal analysts have remarked in secondary sources are by definition remarkable. Charter v. USDA is one of those cases. I agree that every mention in the local news where he presided in a drug trial etc. is not remarkable, but we have several books and articles that discuss his ruling in the context of commodity checkoff programs. Below is the proposed text:
 * In a 2002 case brought by natural beef producers the Charter family against the United States Department of Agriculture, Cebull upheld the constitutionality of the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985, a government-mandated commodity checkoff program for the United States beef industry. The Charter family objected to being forced to pay into the fund, thus associated against their will with political and economic positions taken by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the primary checkoff contractor. Cebull ruled that "The federal government created and controls the beef checkoff program. … Because the government may utilize private speakers to disseminate content-oriented speech, the [Beef] Act does not violate the rights of free speech or association." The ruling was vacated and remanded by the Ninth Circuit in 2005.
 * Those remarks and reports by Kaiser, Bohrer etc. make Cebull's involvement in that case worth mentioning in his bio. Jokestress (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on the secondary sources presented here, inclusion seems appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A BLP noticeboard report has been opened

 * - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard has been opened by User:Goethean - please consider joining in there. You  really  can  19:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)