Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Archive 6

Thomas P. Griesa
Judge Thomas P. Griesa is in the news daily in Argentina because of his ruling on the case of the Argentine debt restructuring. The article is very short, and half of it is about that specific case. It would be a good thing if the article was a bit longer, and talks a bit more about his previous career Cambalachero (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a bit about Griesa holding Attorney General Griffin Bell in contempt in 1978. bd2412  T 15:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:United States courts and judges articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

United States Federal Building and Courthouse (Anchorage, Alaska) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for United States Federal Building and Courthouse (Anchorage, Alaska) to be moved to Old Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.


 * I removed the duplicate notification. Safiel (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

United States Federal Building and Courthouse (Anchorage, Alaska) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for United States Federal Building and Courthouse (Anchorage, Alaska) to be moved to Old Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Joseph Tyree Sneed, III listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Joseph Tyree Sneed, III to be moved to Joseph Tyree Sneed III. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposed U.S. Constitution WikiProject
Hi participants at WikiProject United States courts and judges! I am posting a proposed WikiProject called United States Constitution. This project will focus on articles related to the original text of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights; it should include the articles on all 27 amendments, clauses, Supreme Court cases interpreting constitutional provisions, the drafters, and so forth. We can't get the proposed WikiProject without your help! Since you are in this group, I think you would also be interested in this WikiProject. We need 6-12 members to get the WikiProject active. Please join and support today. Please put your name in the "Support" tab here: WikiProject Council/Proposals/United States Constitution. Thank you!  CookieMonster755   (talk)   20:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Florence Ellinwood Allen Good Article nomination
I have just nominated Florence Ellinwood Allen for Good Article status. It will take about 20 minutes for the bot to do its thing and list the nomination of the Good Article nominations page. Just posting as a heads up for anybody in this WikiProject who might be willing to review. Safiel (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility of Template:SCOTUS-termlist-entry
Please comment at Template talk:SCOTUS-termlist-entry. --Izno (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"The Honorable"
It looks like we have "The Honorable" in the infobox for Supreme Court justices, but not for other federal judges (e.g. Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, Alex Kozinski). Is that intentional? agt x 17:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Heads up on Robert J. Colville
Just be aware that the subject of the article Robert Colville is Robert E. Colville, a Pennsylvania judge, but he is NOT the Robert J. Colville that was just nominated today to W.D. Pa. Took me a moment to realize it was a coincidentally named individual holding a similar profession. So don't try to redirect or merge the upcoming article Robert J. Colville to that article. Safiel (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Notification of discussion
I have suggested expanding the notability guidelines for politicians to better cover judges, inspired in party by the thorough guidelines at this project. The discussion is linked in the section header. North of Eden (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:William J. Brennan, Jr.
There is a discussion about whether the article for William J. Brennan, Jr. should include a partial and incomplete list of his opinions, written between 1957 and and 1961. Comments from editors would be appreciated. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of WP banner placement
Should all the talk pages of United States federal courthouses be tagged with the WikiProject United States courts and judges banner? A good number of them are, but the majority of them are not. I should think it prudent to decide one way or the other rather than maintain the status quo. It seems that the courthouses fall within the scope of this Wikiproject. Therefore, I suggest they be tagged. What are everyone else's thoughts?  Ergo Sum  17:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, all federal courthouses absolutely should be tagged for this project. bd2412  T 18:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Error in FJC Bio
Just a heads up for an error in FJC Bio at this entry, http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=280&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na Judge Addison Brown, was nominated by Chester A. Arthur, after earlier receiving a recess appointment from James A. Garfield. The dates were correct as per the Congressional Record but the nominating President was listed as Garfield, who was of course dead for almost a month before the October 12, 1881, nomination date. I have emailed FJC to correct the error. Additionally, I have correct the Addison Brown article as well as the judicial appointments articles for both Presidents. Safiel (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - FJC is good, but not perfect. Cheers! bd2412  T 13:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note that FJC was very prompt and have corrected the error. Safiel (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Florence Ellinwood Allen Good Article review
Florence Ellinwood Allen is currently undergoing a Good Article Review. The reviewer's comments are available at Talk:Florence Ellinwood Allen. If anybody wants to lend a hand to bring this up to Good Article quality, please do so. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Court editathon on Friday Dec. 11
Wikimedia DC is planning to have an editathon on Friday, December 11 for content related to the U.S. Supreme Court. We'll be at the National Archives in Washington DC. It would be possible to scan documents of particular interest to get them in digital form on Wikisource, etc., if we know in advance what we want. Your participation and commentary are welcome! For event details see the event page or user-talk to me. --econterms (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks so much for organizing this editathon! There are so many SCOTUS articles that are in desperate need of creation or improvement (see, e.g. this list at Requested Law Articles). You may also want to post this notice at WP:SCOTUS and WP:LAW. Also please make sure editors follow MOS:LAW and WP:SCOTUS/SG, which provide style guidelines for SCOTUS articles. Per MOS:LAW, editors are encouraged to use the Bluebook citation style, which is now considered (for better or worse) the de facto lingua franca of American legal citations, when adding citations to SCOTUS articles. Editors are also encouraged to provide inline citations after every sentence that makes an assertion about the holding of a case; these citations should reference the page(s) of the United States Reports on which that holding appears (see also WP:CITEDENSE). Unfortunately, I won't be able to join you at the editathon, but please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions, and I look forward to seeing your contributions! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks!! Will do. --econterms (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Progress on cleaning up judges.
Cleanup of judge articles is being done along several fronts: Cheers! bd2412 T 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By appointing president: All judges appointed by George Washington through James Buchanan are done; working on List of federal judges appointed by Abraham Lincoln.
 * By district: Working on judges of the Northern District of Alabama.
 * Supreme Court Justices: Working through the list of Justices chronologically; done through Nathan Clifford.


 * Note On the general theme of cleanup, people need to eyeball judge links when they are doing maintenance on articles. I have recently discovered lots of articles in which links to predecessor or successor judges link instead to completely unrelated people, in several cases association football players. :) Safiel (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Elena Kagan
Input at this article, concerning whether or not Kagan should be numbered, would be helpful. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Succession boxes for federal judges (?)
Hiya, Johnny Law. An IP user is adding succession boxes for all federal judges to the bottom of all articles. See, e.g.,. Do members of WikiProject Law think this is appropriate? Personally, I think it's more bottom-of-the-page cruft and clutter. . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I absolutely think succession boxes are a good thing. It is nice to have a continuous record of the progression of judges in a seat. bd2412  T 23:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think succession boxes are particularly harmful, but doesn't the infobox already list a judge's predecessor and successor? Either way, I think we would still have a record of progression listed in the infobox. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that most of our articles on judges are missing an infobox. bd2412  T 16:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. In that case, we should probably continue using succession boxes to keep a record of succession in the articles. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Tie votes of the United States Supreme Court
New category, Category:Tie votes of the United States Supreme Court, please help populate with historical cases.
 * Category:Tie votes of the United States Supreme Court

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This article on the subject probably contains a number of cases. I would definitely not include the lists of opinions in this category, by the way. bd2412  T 20:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Um, why? Almost by definition, tie votes of the Supreme Court are not notable, because they do not result in any precedent. It's possible that a tie vote could occur in a case that is notable for other reasons, but that's not a defining characteristic that merits a category. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree. Tie votes are novel, and have the unusual implications of the Supreme Court having heard the case, and nothing binding having come of it. bd2412  T 20:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with above comment by, thank you for weighing in here with your expertise. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

US Supreme Court justices infoboxes
Which should we use, Nominated by the President? or Appointed by the President? within the infoboxes. At the moment there's inconsistency. Weeks earlier, I changed them to Nominated, but since that time Therequiembellishere has changed some of them back to Appointed. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer nominated. There are positions to which presidents can appoint office holders without requiring Congressional approval, and those are a better fit for appointed. bd2412  T 03:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It took awhile, but I've changed all the Chief Justices & Associate Justices infoboxes (again), to show that they were Nominated by the President, not Appointed. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorporating PolBot FJC entries into articles
In the wake of Horace Ward's death today, noticed that his PolBot info had never been merged into the article, which was in pretty rotten shape when I encountered it earlier today. Fixed and merged now, but we should probably be on the lookout for un-merged PolBot entries, particularly when the associated article is in as bad shape as Horace Ward was. Safiel (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have a list of those. bd2412  T 00:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ouch, didn't think we were that far behind. Safiel (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Federal judiciary of the United States listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Federal judiciary of the United States to be moved to Judiciary of the United States. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Misleading title of district-judges-by-circuits templates
Our articles on U.S. District Judges have a template at the bottom containing links to all the district judges within the judge's circuit. For example, an SDNY judge would have a template headed "Currently active district judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals". This title strikes me as incomplete and misleading, because the Second Circuit Court of Appeals does not include any district judges. If this template is deemed useful, a better title would be "Currently active district judges within the Second Circuit", using "Second [or whichever] Circuit" as a geographical designation, rather than referring to the Court of Appeals.

Do others agree? If so, what's the best way to make this change? Are there other templates that should also be changed in parallel? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I consider District Court judges to be judges of the Court of Appeals to which appeals from their dockets would regularly be taken. I have no objection either way, though. bd2412  T 02:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the "Currently active district judges within the Second Circuit" designation - much more clear, much less misleading. Neutralitytalk 13:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Gonzalo P. Curiel listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gonzalo P. Curiel to be moved to Gonzalo Paul Curiel. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Andrew Miller (North Dakota) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Andrew Miller (North Dakota) to be moved to Andrew Miller (judge). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hillary Clinton Supreme Court candidates and Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates‎
In keeping with previous articles in this series, I have created Hillary Clinton Supreme Court candidates and Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates‎. It is a bit earlier than usual, but there is the unusual circumstance of a sitting vacancy on the Supreme Court, and sourced information out there about the leanings of the candidates. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I looked a little at the Clinton article and its sourcing. This is all speculation. Two IC which are used over and over again say Clinton has never said who she may nominate. Are we a encyclopedia or a weather forecaster?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is consistent with how we have put together all of the articles in this series. bd2412  T 00:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject United States - 50,000 Challenge
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't be in too much of a hurry to do anything with the articles of unconfirmed nominees
Just a heads up to not be to fast on redirecting or otherwise disposing of unconfirmed nominee articles. At least one such nominee, David Nye, has already been proposed by Idaho Senators to be renominated by Trump if he is not confirmed in the lame duck. There is a possible several other nominees will carry over from Obama to Trump. Safiel (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, we wouldn't delete the article if the subject was notable enough to merit an article in the first place (which federal judicial nominees often are). We would note in the article if the original nomination was not acted on (which would be true, even if it was resubmitted later). bd2412  T 04:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas E. Scott, Jr. listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Thomas E. Scott, Jr. to be moved to Thomas Scott (Florida judge). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama and associated Judge/Court articles
With all Judicial nominations expiring at noon today, I have purged List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama and have updated all the nominee and appropriate court articles to reflect that all nominations have expired. Safiel (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we are going to have to begin depending on the Congressional Record
Folks, it looks like we are going to have to begin depending on the Congressional Record for actual nomination dates, as, to this point, Trump has not been putting that information on the White House website as Obama used to. Go to https://www.congress.gov click on Congressional Record at the top of the page, find the appropriate date, and finally click on the Nominations section, which will always be at or very close to the bottom, never more than three from the bottom. Just thought I would pass that along for anybody not familiar with the online Congressional Record, as it appears we will now have to use it as our primary reference to the actual nomination of individuals. Safiel (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is also this page, maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is also a good source. Safiel (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, on the main congress.gov page, you can scroll down to "Nominations" under the Senate in "Current Legislative Activities," and that will take you to the list of nominations received by the Senate. TJRC (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The White House belatedly put up a notice in regards to the Thapar nomination, but lets see if they are consistent in the future. Safiel (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

FJC Bio just decided to **** us
FJC Bio just decided to change their entire linking structure, rendering our FJC Bio template useless. FJC Bio links are now in the format of: https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/martinotti-brian-r. The trailing period is part of the link and matches the name as given in the FJC Bio record. Somebody who has template editor access could probably change FJC Bio to feed the article name to the template, but if the article name is different from the FJC Bio name, the name will have to be entered into the FJC Bio template exactly as it appears at FJC Bio. Safiel (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * On the bright side, they have made some of the newer bio's slightly more comprehensive. Safiel (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably the easiest solution would be to go with the format   which would cause the template to render the FJC link given above. The other problem is, can the replacement process be automated or semi-automated. Safiel (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this need to be changed at Wikidata also? --Izno (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (Specifically, d:Property:P2736 and all of its uses.) If so, maybe it would be more valuable to clean Wikidata up and then always pull from there. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That I don't know, as I have never really messed with Wikidata, but some of the other editors are more familiar with that. Safiel (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

On a slightly different note
When placing or expanding succession box templates don't use  |-  between the template entries. Succession boxes are not wikitables, just templates chained together and no wiki table markup is needed. While it does not create any obvious visible error, it is simply not necessary. It will show up as bad syntax if you have syntax highlighting enabled. I have cleaned up most of the G.W. Bush and Obama judge articles in this regard, 500+ at this point. One other quick point, academic degree names should be given in long form in the article body, not abbreviated. I have made that change as well as I go along. Safiel (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official) to be moved to Tim Nolan (politician). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Draft:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump
I have created Draft:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump. Obviously it won't be needed in main space until January 20, 2017 at the earliest and I wouldn't be surprised if we get his Supreme Court nominee that day, but we should start incubating it now. I have PRODed a misguided attempt to create it in main space. Safiel (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Draft:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump is pretty much ready to move to main space on January 20th, 2017, save for minor vacancy updates to the lead and some minor tweaks to the lead. Safiel (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would wait until there is at least one nominee. It should not take too long after the 20th. bd2412  T 04:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: These are now at List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump. bd2412  T 02:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Start date in Supreme Court Justices infoboxes
There has been some dispute regarding the correct start date to use in the infoboxes of the Chief Justices and Associate Justices of the the Supreme Court. Evidently, oath date has been used, as opposed to commission date. Of course, this contradicts the almost 100% universal usage of commission date in the infoboxes of lower Article III Judges. In any event. commission date is the correct start of the term. While the individual actual assumes the DUTIES of his office when he takes the oath, he has the office the moment the commission is signed. I will shortly travel through all Chief and Associate Justice articles and change them to reflect commission date. If challenged, I will take this issue to RfC. Just a heads up here. Safiel (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you make a convincing argument, and I will support you if there is a dispute on this. bd2412  T 20:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just a note that I have gone through ALL 113 articles on Current and Former Supreme Court Chief Justices and Associate Justices, starting with John Jay and ending with Neil Gorsuch. All now reflect commission date. Now to sit back and see if this will have to go to RfC or not. Safiel (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you'll have to if you want it. Taft was in Montreal on the commission date. He wasn't in a position to accept the commission on June 30 and he went to Washington to be sworn in on July 11, which is what secondary sources say about it. He joked that he wouldn't be paid until he did. Should we list Marbury as a justice of the peace for DC? A commission was signed ... Then there's the case of Charles Evans Hughes, who confirmed by the Senate and with a commission signed, avoided being sworn in until the October 1910 term began so he could stay as governor of New York ... odd to say he double dipped for five months.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Hughes (as associate justice) is the key case here. He stayed on as governor for five months after the commission date.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The point I would make is that we have to differentiate between beginning of term and beginning of service. The Constitutional act of appointment (signing of the commission), marks the beginning of the term. The person appointed could choose to be sworn in and assume duties that day, or as is typical, they may defer for a period of time. As for Mr. Marbury. He WAS constitutionally appointed a Justice of the Peace and his term began when his commission was signed. He was illegally deprived of that commission by the actions of Jefferson and Madison and prevented from ever taking the oath and assuming his duties. The Supreme Court specifically ruled that his appointment was completed when the commission was signed. Also, consistency argues for using commissioning date. If you go through the vast majority of Article III Judgeship articles, commissioning date is used. The commissioning date is universally available via FJC Bio, while the oath date (assumption of duties date) generally is not readily available. We are getting into a situation where a relatively small number of recent Supreme Court Justices are done one way, while the vast majority of Article III Judges are done another way. Even if using the oath date was correct, it would be virtually impossible to consistently apply that standard throughout Article III Judges, as the oath date is not readily available and for many early Judges, the exact date may not be known. Safiel (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note It would be helpful to note that, as evidenced by my edit history, while I went through all 113 Justice articles last night, I made changes only to 30, meaning that 83 already reflected the commission date as the term start date in the infobox. And the 30 that reflected the oath date were very heavily skewed towards very recent and currently serving Justices. But the vast majority already reflected commission date to begin with. Safiel (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Or that such changes take place more easily with Henry B. Brown than Elena Kagan ... Seriously though in the six or seven years I've been watching the Scalia article and the two years I've been watching Taft, I don't recall any attempted changes to the term start date, although it's always possible there was (I'm not going to search through seven years of diffs on a busy article)--Wehwalt (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The question of commission date vs. oath date as the "starting point for Justice's service" is complicated and I don't think there is necessarily a "right" answer. The question is which date is more informative for the reader, and it is debatable. For what it's worth, the Supreme Court's own website uses the "oath" date for their historical list of Justices, see here; but note also the discussion beginning at p. 114 of this interesting article.

Note that it's more than a "joke" that a Justice doesn't start getting paid until he or she's taken the oath; when Clarence Thomas was confirmed, he took the oath at a hurriedly scheduled private ceremony, which received publicity at the time (the official explanation was that this was done "so his law clerks could start working" although cynics speculated "to 'clinch' that he's already serving as a Justice before any more allegations are made against him).

In addition to Hughes, Oliver Wendell Holmes might be considered an argument for the "oath date" theory. His commission was issued on December 2, 1902, but he took the oath as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice on December 8, 1902 and submitted his resignation as a judge of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court the same date. (See also the discussion here.) I'm not sure if it was legally theoretically possible for a judge to be a member of both of those courts simultaneously, but I am sure that Holmes didn't consider that he was. Similarly, I'm not certain whether any of the Justices who in recent years were promoted from U.S. Courts of Appeals finished up their work there before joining the Supreme Court. (I do know of instances in which some joined Court of Appeals opinions after they had been sworn in as Justices, but that seems to have been done under sitting-by-designation or Circuit Justice authority. Anyway, I digress.)

Would a compromise possibility be to include both the "commission issued" and "oath taken" dates in the infoboxes, at least where they are materially different? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I would be absolutely fine with a compromise, by adding an "Oath" or "Oath taken" date field in Template:Infobox officeholder. That would actually be the best solution, with the Oath date field appearing just under the Term Start/Term End fields. In fact, that would be the best solution. Safiel (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with an oath date field. Cardozo has a five-day overlap with his service as Chief Judge of the NY C of A, by the way. Probably others.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are discrepancies or oddities, we can always drop a footnote explaining them. bd2412  T 20:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We might want to, in Hughes' case. The problem is this still leaves it with the term beginning on the date of commission.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue really is with the "In office" such and such dates. Nothing under there in the infobox really can qualify that statement.  Either we're saying someone's in office, or we aren't. Saying Hughes was in office when he hadn't taken the judicial oath and was performing the duties of another office pursuant to an oath there is a bit troubling. Communications being what they once were, I suspect there's more than one case of people being on the Supreme Court before they knew they were. Taft didn't know until after he was confirmed and reporters found him in Montreal doing an arbitration. I'd be willing to see a field added saying "Commission date" or the like.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I think if we went with Assumed office for the Term Start field and Began service for the Oath Date field, that might work. Safiel (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So instead of "In office January 1, 1711 - December 31, 1718" or whatever, what would appear? I would prefer "Commission issued" for "Assumed office" because although they had the exclusive right to the office once confirmed or recess-appointed, they hadn't taken it up yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The Three Musketeers (Supreme Court) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Three Musketeers (Supreme Court) to be moved to Three Musketeers (Supreme Court). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Notification of an Article for Deletion discussion
The following AfD was filed on a newly created Trump nominee article, Articles for deletion/A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. Safiel (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Blogging controversy at John K. Bush
There is a discussion in progress at Talk:John K. Bush regarding whether coverage of the blogging controversy in the lead violates WP:UNDUE. Safiel (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

John Davies (swimmer) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for John Davies (swimmer) to be moved to John Griffith Davies. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Full name of federal judges
I'm just posting this here to see if there's any guidance and/or directive regarding full names of federal judges.

Per nomination announcements I will use the full name of a nominee when creating an article, i.e. Claria Horn Boom only then to have the page redirected by another user to Claria Boom. I had said user tell me they'd rather use a simplified version of any name whenever possible, thus ensuring a lot of redirections--I still think it's unnecessary given the original article already exists...

Is one standard preferred over another? I note that most articles include at least a middle initial, if not a middle name. I'm just looking to see if there's any consensus or feedback on the issue.

Thanks Snickers2686 (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Is it WP:COMMONNAME you're looking for?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the move of Claria Horn Boom. Any move made without discussion can be reverted without discussion. It is up to the mover to demonstrate that the middle name is "unnecessary". bd2412  T 12:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Note to all regarding retirement vs inactive senior status
First of all, I will acknowledge that I have been guilty of this mistake on a couple of occasions, having since found and corrected those mistakes. But the error of mistaking inactive senior status for retirement has happened frequently. Make sure you refer to FJC Bio a few days after the supposed "retirement." To use the example of Jennifer B. Coffman, who did truly retire. Her FJC Bio, https://www.fjc.gov/node/1379291, indicates clearly that her service was terminated by retirement. If a court or the press announces the retirement of a judge, but his FJC Bio is not updated to include service terminated by retirement, then what has actually happened is that the judge has taken inactive senior status. The primary reason they take inactive senior status, rather than retiring outright, is that as long as they remain in senior status, they continue to receive the yearly cost of living adjustments. Once a Judge retires outright, his salary is locked in at the level it was at the year of retirement. Additionally, the only reason a Judge would need to retire outright, is if he plans to return to the private practice of law. Anyhow, posting this here, as the error is common enough to bear attention being brought to it. Safiel (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment This is an explanation I gave to an inexperienced user regarding the subject User_talk:Brodiesdadd. Safiel (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So as an inactive judge, does that mean they are still part of the court's composition, i.e. still listed on the court's Wikipedia page as in senior status but inactive or are they listed as retired and technically a former judge? (ex. Richard W. Roberts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snickers2686 (talk • contribs) 12:31, August 16, 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment They should be listed as inactive. There was some confusion with Judge Richard W. Roberts and it appears he is in inactive senior status, rather than retired. Judge Henderson signed his disability certificate the same day he stepped down. I will go and fix Judge Robert's article. Safiel (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices push to finish.
There are 1,655 drafts left to be completed at WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices. Let's have a drive to get these done! Maybe in the form of a contest or competition? I'm open to any ideas, but I really want to make progress on this list. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I added C. Alan Lawson back in December when he was put on the Florida Supreme Court. He may not be there long, I suspect before Trump leaves office, Lawson will be a Federal judge in some capacity. Safiel (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, good add. The list of missing justices is necessarily somewhat incomplete, but it has the vast majority of articles to be made. bd2412  T 18:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, though, I could really use some help with this. It's a bigger task than I can bite off in any reasonable time frame. bd2412  T 17:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Malcolm M. Lucas listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Malcolm M. Lucas to be moved to Malcolm Lucas. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Robert G. Klausner deleted via PROD
Robert G. Klausner was deleted via WP:PROD. I have filed a request for undeletion at Requests for undeletion. Might want to check if any other of our articles were deep sixed via PROD. Safiel (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article and added references to some recent notable cases, which the prodder would have known about had he done a modicum of WP:BEFORE. bd2412  T 04:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

List of federal judges appointed by Ronald Reagan
I have completed a major rewrite of List of federal judges appointed by Ronald Reagan, including 100% rewrites of the Court of Appeals, District Court and Trade Court judges tables. Also rewrote the lead to clarify this particular list covers Article III judges only and corrects some numbers. Tables are now fully sortable, including by court. Safiel (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is good work. Now, about those other lists of judges by appointing president... bd2412  T 05:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I will likely do Carter's list next. Fortunately, after Carter, going backwards, they start getting shorter. Safiel (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plan. bd2412  T 05:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources for DOB
I'm coming to the project because I'm not sure if there's been consensus on this issue. When a federal judicial nominee's questionnaire is made pubic by the committee, is that an acceptable source for providing their year of birth or does it violate WP:PRIMARY? Personally, I've used it in the past as a reference without citation and no one's raised an issue. I wasn't sure if that was an acceptable source or not.

Secondly, if it is a decent source, does it need to be cited every time for each nominee/judge or not? Arguably the questionnaire will only be available for a single congressional term before it becomes a dead link and thus a non-viable source. Is that still acceptable or do we forego the citation altogether?

Thanks for any feedback. Snickers2686 (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Appointer or Nominator
Note I posted the following to the user indicated, but I am going to copy this to several other users for their reference. Safiel (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A previous edit summary of yours (User:JoeM3120) read as such, "Federal judges are nominated by the president and condfirmed by the Senate, not appointed.". Your statement is in error from both a Constitutional and statutory point of view. There are THREE Constitutional steps. 1. Nomination, when the President sends the person's name to the Senate. 2. Confirmation (i.e. advice and consent) of the Senate is given. 3. Appointment. Once the Senate consents, the President APPOINTS the person to office by granting them a commission which is evidence of their appointment. The Senate's consent does NOT put the person in office and the President can, if he wishes, decline to appoint the person once Senate consent is given. It is the act of the President in appointing (granting the commission), that actually puts the person in office, NOT the action of Senate in giving advice and consent. Therefore, appointer is the more appropriate field and all arguments to the contrary are clearly in error. Additionally, both the Constitution and all federal statutes clearly use the word appoint. I am not going to revert at this time to avoid edit warring, but I intend to push this issue further in other venues. Safiel (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey C. Mateer listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Jeffrey C. Mateer to be moved to Jeff Mateer. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Stuart Kyle Duncan listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Stuart Kyle Duncan to be moved to Kyle Duncan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

"Justice on" or "Justice of"?
Some articles say that a given judge or Justice X "is a Justice on" their given court, while others say that the judge or Justice "is a Justice of" their given court. Is there a preferable usage? I would think uniformity of style across our articles would be good. bd2412 T 03:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been changing to "Justice/Judge of" which is a more grammatically correct usage. Safiel (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and am changing the rest that I can easily find to "Justice of" now. bd2412  T 19:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Return of Nominees en mass
Just a heads up, Democrats objected to holding most nominees in status quo, thus they will be returned to the President at 12:00 noon, January 3, 2018, when the 1st Session adjourns sine die and the 2nd Session begins. I believe ALL Article I and Article III Judicial nominees will be returned, if there are exceptions, it would be just one or two individuals. Most likely, the return will be listed in the Congressional Record for January 3rds, which will be publicly available on the morning of January 4. So we won't be able to make any "sourced" updates until then. Only Trump knows when he will send his renominations, though it is safe to assume that Mateer, Talley and Petersen will NOT be renominated. Safiel (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ryan Wesley Bounds listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ryan Wesley Bounds to be moved to Ryan Bounds. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of federal judges appointed by Jimmy Carter currently in work
Just a note that I am currently performing a major overhaul of List of federal judges appointed by Jimmy Carter. I have completed the new table for Court of Appeals judges and am currently building the new table for District Court judges. I also made some factual corrections to the lead, reflecting the three Article III specialty court appointments made by Carter. I re-positioned the three judge photos in gallery format per that used on the Ronald Reagan list. I centered the photo's, but that is a matter of subjective opinion and others might prefer them justified to the left. I expect to finish the District Judge table and the specialty courts table in a week to 10 days. Just giving a heads up. Safiel (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the centered pictures look good. bd2412  T 18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, Carter's list is done, will move on to Ford's list next. Safiel (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ford's, Nixon's and LBJ's lists are now done. Note that with the addition of sidebars to several of the lists, I have removed the free standing Presidential portraits, as they are somewhat redundant and also for formatting purposes. I have also been updating leads to reflect Article III specialty court appointments that were not previously counted. In the case of Nixon/Ford and JFK/LBJ, I have moved a couple of judges between articles, to the President who actually issued their commission (appointed) them. I will do the JFK list before turning to other stuff. Safiel (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you have done a great job of improving these. bd2412  T 20:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. JFK is done. BTW, found ANOTHER curve ball. Two district judges recess appointed and nominated by Eisenhower in his final days but confirmed under and appointed by JFK. Thank God the recess appointment has gone out of use, probably for good at this point. What a pain in the ass that was. Both Eisenhower and JFK loved recess appointments. That meant having to move all those damn reference notes from the old to the new table which slowed the process down quite a bit. I will include those two judges on both lists as a shared appointment, since Eisenhower recess appointed them. Safiel (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States
I have started Draft:Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, a fascinating topic brought to my attention by a recent aborted DYK hook falsely stating that an article subject had appeared as an expert witness before the U.S. Supreme Court. An article on the actual (rare) instances of individuals appearing as witnesses before the Court will be much more worthy of appearing as a DYK topic. bd2412 T 20:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks good. How much more has to be added to it before it can be moved to mainspace? – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 03:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The last sentence seems a bit speculative, though. Did the court really say that?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They quoted a statute to that effect in a footnote. bd2412  T 04:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

All Presidential list articles updated
Just finished List of federal judges appointed by George Washington and I have gone through all the lists. Primarily, I was concerned with improving the quality of the judge tables. However, I have also improved the accuracy of the lists, as, due to weaknesses in FJC Bio, some judges were attributed to the wrong President and a number of judges were jointly appointed. Additionally, I created three previously non-existing lists. All Presidents except (for obvious reasons), William Henry Harrison now have lists. I made George Washington's list truly comprehensive, by adding the names of all his Article IV territorial appointees. With this done, I am going to return to concentrating primarily on individual judge articles. Safiel (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

National Judicial College
Just a note that I have moved National Judicial College from draft to article space. A number of our Federal Judge articles link to it, as a number of Federal judges have attended that institution. It needs work, if anybody here is interested. Safiel (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

get with it
Hey User:Safiel, User:Wehwalt, User:BD2412, others, could you all please stop with the blatant discrimination, and help out on List of courthouses in the United States. Sure, it's mostly county-owned courthouses, and some state ones, but I don't think it's nice how you neglect us. Our crimes can't be so easily pardoned. What is it with your exclusionary policies, are you trying to blame immigrants or deplorables or what? --Doncram (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try to recruit a class of students who are learning about Wikipedia, and have them write drafts for class credit? bd2412  T 21:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Harumph, i was trying to work up some kind of insulting challenge, or a joke, or something witty, or i don't know what, and i get all tangled up, and then you go making a perfectly polite suggestion that sounds kind of reasonable. Grr.
 * Well, maybe I should just go with the point that "United States courts and judges" arguably already includes county courts in the U.S., notwithstanding some narrower definition here. Can you just go along, and may we just loosen the scope defined for this WikiProject?  The Wikipedia coverage of Federal courthouses and judges and so on is really good now, thanks to your work, I must admit.  It wouldn't be very much more to take on, just a few hundred or thousand articles. :) --Doncram (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your request is reasonable, and our project does cover state-level courts and judges. Allow me to make a more concrete proposal. We have WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States state judges and justices, a project to create articles on everyone who has served as a justice of the highest court of a state, beginning with drafts for all the red links. I can make a comparable project, creating a draft page for each missing courthouse, and we can then start plugging relevant information into the drafts, and move them to mainspace when they are done. It may be easier to recruit people to improve existing drafts than to start new articles from scratch. bd2412  T 02:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the need to put things into draftspace, but if you have some approach which would generate drafts or mainspace articles I am all ears. I have basically been working on NRHP-listed ones, using the Elkman tool where possible (currently it helps for places NRHP-listed before some date in 2014).  In the past you used some different source for creating Federal courthouses;  i am curious what you might want to do for county ones, how about create an example one or two to talk about?
 * I am not sure if you might think that every county's modern courthouse should get an article, and/or every past courthouse. I am sure that the individually-listed NRHP-listed ones (some being past courthouses, some being current) are all notable and should get articles.  Also I think ones that are included as contributing buildings in an NRHP-listed historic district should at least be included in the list-articles, though the link perhaps could go to coverage within the corresponding historic district article.
 * It probably would help to get some more eyeballs on the list-articles of county courthouses by state. There are some different practices in state-level lists split out from (or preceding) the nation-wide list-article.  One state lists every county in the state and focuses on each one's current courthouse, whether old or not, i.e. asserting at least "list-item notability" for every modern courthouse.  And it omits all the old county courthouses in that state which are NRHP-listed and wikipedia-notable individually, but which are not current courthouses.  Most of the state lists (all the ones included directly in the big list, not split out) include all individually-NRHP-listed courthouses and some historic district ones, but few modern ones, so they do not cover all counties in the state.  The various separate state lists should be compared, there may be other practices too.
 * Basically it would be good if county and state courthouses could be covered by this wikiproject; there is not any sustained focus on them anywhere else AFAIK. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, I should say: Numerous NRHP editors have systematically created articles on all NRHP-listed places in a state, and the creators of the separate state-level lists of courthouses have obviously put in sustained focus. For one example, List of county courthouses in Georgia (U.S. state) is very well-developed now, with tables covering past and current courthouses, seemingly developed mostly by User:CaptainStegge. I should have said something like:  I am just not aware of any sustained central discussion about courthouse list-articles and individual articles and notability issues.  Though there have probably been mentions at least within wt:NRHP.  Anyhow, I think it is more likely that there is capacity for discussion here rather than there, but notice should be given there and editors who contributed to the existing list-articles should be given individual notices, if any proposal about standards and notability is forthcoming here.  (Whew, wiping brow.) --Doncram (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will look over the Virginia courthouses when I get a chance. I recall a coffee table book on the subject, I'll see if I can get it next time I'm at the library.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. Virginia is a state where all NRHP topics have gotten articles, and the current list-article section about it is all or mostly NRHP listings, and now all are bluelinks (after I just connected a couple links), and there are certainly counties and independent cities (Virginia has many of those) who have no representation.  Right now I am liking the Georgia list-article example, which seems comprehensive but is not calling for creation of separate articles for the modern courthouses.  But with split rows, it looks complicated, not sortable. --Doncram (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Update on cleanup of Article III Judges articles
I just completed all judges from Jimmy Carter. So to this point, I have done all judges from Obama back through Carter and am now moving on to Gerald Ford's appointments. For the most part, my cleanup is structural in nature, for example adding section headers and cleaning up infoboxes and succession boxes. I have had to WP:NUKE the content of a number of articles, either as copyright violations or as original research violations, in which case I have restored the FJC Bio/PolBot text. If it looks like a copyvio, it most likely is a copyvio (or original research). I would suggest that other editors, if they see suspicious material, be WP:BOLD in removing it. Also, I suggest trimming back excessive family/genealogical material, even if it is properly sourced. While basic family material is fine, extended family material is discouraged unless referring to an independently notable relative. Safiel (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Side note Note the following change:


 * (Incorrect) ... and a joint J.D./M.B.A. degree from Columbia University in 1962.


 * (Correct) He concurrently received a Master of Business Administration from Columbia University and Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School by way of participation in a J.D.–M.B.A. program from Columbia in 1962.


 * J.D./M.B.A. is not a degree, it is a program that leads to obtaining the J.D. and M.B.A. concurrently. Just pointing this out as I have seen this mistake made both in judge articles and a number of articles outside the purview of this project. Safiel (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are nuking apparent copyvios, make sure they are not merely derived from another copyright-free source. bd2412  T 16:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the text that I have removed was very unlikely to have been from a free source. In several cases, what I removed were 100% copyvios of copyrighted sources that would have qualified for CSD G12 if these had been brand new articles. There has also been a side issue of COI and POV related to my removing text. In many instances, the IP admitted to a COI relationship in making the edits. In some cases where the situation was ambiguous, I have rewritten the material. The cases where I removed material were pretty obvious copyvios of non-free sources. I should also note that I have left the source links on the pages, so if a future editor wants to make a proper attributable addition of material, the source is already there. Safiel (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have previously added blocks of text to some articles from official court biography pages and other such sources, but I see that you have not disturbed any of those. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Please be sure you are keeping WP:TRUTH in mind. Simply because you know that something in a well-sourced article is wrong is not sufficient to justify inserting something that is not found in any source. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note that I insert FJC Bio text in instances where I remove substantial text. That is fully sourced by FJC Bio. Safiel (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Problem with sort template in our List of judges appointed by ...... tables: DON'T try to fix :)
Just a note, the problems you see on the Judges tables in our list articles are due to an edit made today on  . Until that edit is fixed or reverted, the problem will persist. I have notified the editor of the problem, but he is currently offline. Only an Administrator or Template Editor will be able to fix the problem or revert the edit. Bringing this to your attention, so you don't try to make futile edits to the lists themselves. Safiel (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers! bd2412  T 19:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Safiel (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. It should be noted that nesting sortkey functions like: at row 31 in List of federal judges appointed by Ronald Reagan is NOT correct usage of these functions. dts already generates a sortkey, and should therefore not be a sortkey for a sort parameter. If you want to properly override, use data-sort-value on the tablecell, like described in Help:Sorting. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct. It was kind of a "hack" on my part. Fortunately there aren't a great deal of those instances, so I will go ahead and redo them properly soon. Safiel (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

David Lycurgus Middlebrooks Jr.
Just a note. FJC Bio indicates David Lycurgus Middlebrooks Jr. is still alive. Quite a few sources online indicate he died on March 26, 1997. I have emailed the Federal Judicial Center with that information and I will see if they change his listing accordingly. Currently, he is listed as deceased in the article, per the preponderance of evidence that FJC Bio is wrong. The Federal Judicial Center has responded quickly in the past when I have pointed out errors, so I believe the entry will likely be fixed this week. Safiel (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Update Didn't take long at all. https://www.fjc.gov/node/1385096 His entry has been updated to reflect his death. Only took 21 years but even the FJC finally catches up. :) Safiel (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Federal judge photos
Okay, I have a question. If you upload a photo of a federal judge from a court website, is that considered public domain? I always added the right documentation and citations. Is the right reasoning? A host of photos I added to the judges for the District of Puerto Rico just got deleted without any discussion and now the editor who started said discussion says my other uploads need to be investigated for copyright violation....how is it a copyright violation? What am I missing? Snickers2686 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are in the right. Official photos of federal judges from court websites are in the public domain. Where is this discussion? bd2412  T 23:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The thread is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jaime_Pieras_Jr.jpg BUT it wasn't open for maybe more than three hours and then closed and the files deleted, there was no discussion at all. It was closed by an administrator, but I don't get how that administrator saw it as a violation. I'm so confused! Snickers2686 (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have requested undeletion of all of the files. You can comment in those discussions. bd2412  T 01:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your explanation seems simple and straight-forward enough to me. I appreciate it. Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently there is a copyright notice for the District of Puerto Rico website, although copyright notices are not also appended to the individual portraits. bd2412  T 16:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So if they are paintings, illustrations, etc of federal judges used by the court then they aren't considered public domain because they're copyrighted by the artist? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For this particular court, for these particular paintings, this appears to be the case. The court should have posted a notice to this effect on each judge profile page where such a portrait is used, but there is a centralized notice. bd2412  T 16:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Manual of Style and accessibility issues in Infoboxes

 * The guideline for font sizes in infoboxes reads as follows:
 * Reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly, and are usually done with automated page elements such as headings, table headers, and standardized templates. Size changes are specified as a percentage of the original font size and not as an absolute size in pixels or point size. This improves accessibility for visually impaired users who use a large default font size.
 * Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections. In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook).
 * Unfortunately, one editor, NOT from this WikiProject, took this guideline a wee bit too literally and started deleting size wrappers from degree initials in infoboxes. Subsequently, some users in this WikiProject have picked up on this and done the same thing.
 * While we should avoid unnecessary font reductions, it is NOT utterly verbatim, we are merely charged to be cautious. Using the small font size I believe IS permissible, but admittedly, it is on the borderline of causing issues with visually impaired users. On the other hand, using no size reduction with the degree initials creates an awkward appearance.
 * Therefore, I have changed to using a midsize font size as follows  (B.A)  which renders as (B.A.). I believe this to be an acceptable solution and a 92% setting will not encumber visually impaired users. Safiel (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Above is the infobox with small, medium and no reduction for comparison. At midsize, the degree initials are the same size as lower case characters in the institution name. All in all, I believe using midsize splits the difference perfectly, maintaining accessibility while eliminating any awkward appearance. Safiel (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, remember that a visually impaired user will typically be using a considerably larger default font size, so what they see will be significantly larger than what we are looking at here. Safiel (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The infobox font-size is already set to 88%. 0.92 * 0.88 ~ 0.81. I would avoid even this difference. 97% is just about the best number you can set it to. --Izno (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeffrey Uhlman Beaverstock listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Jeffrey Uhlman Beaverstock to be moved to Jeff Beaverstock. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Commission date vs. Oath date...
Hey gang! I have a question based on a discussion I came across. There's been a discussion on Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Ronald Reagan regarding when a Judge (or Justice in this case) begins active service. The Justice in question is Antonin Scalia. FJC has him receiving his commission on September 25, 1986 (source) and the Supreme Court website says he took his judicial oath on September 26, 1986 (source). Scalia's term start was changed to September 26, 1986 within List of federal judges appointed by Ronald Reagan but his page, Antonin Scalia, still lists his term as starting on September 25, 1986 (as per the infobox). Conflicting dates. So my question is, to provide continuity among all the lists and judicial pages, which has controlling interest: the commission date and the FJC or the oath date and a court website? Snickers2686 (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest having a discussion at Scalia's talk page rather than on other pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on cleanup at Template:Infobox U.S. federal court
Please see the discussion here on whether to condense and reform many parameters.  Ergo Sum  04:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Stanley Matthews (lawyer) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Stanley Matthews (lawyer) to be moved to Stanley Matthews (Supreme Court justice). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.


 * Note: the move has been carried out as proposed. bd2412  T 01:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

List of state supreme court justices
Looking over the various lists of state supreme court justices, these are highly inconsistent in their structure and content. I would like to make them as uniform as reasonably possible. bd2412 T 01:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of current judges of the United States courts of appeals for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of current judges of the United States courts of appeals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of current judges of the United States courts of appeals until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Charles R. Breyer listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Charles R. Breyer to be moved to Charles Breyer. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Notice of RfC on Brett Kavanaugh
If you would like to give your feedback on whether certain polls should be included in Brett Kavanaugh article regarding his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, please respond here: Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Numbering for Appeals Judges
What are the numbers besides the lists of the judges on the lists of appeals court judges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nature mr allnut (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The numbers reflect the overall seniority of the judge in the history of the particular court. For example, if a judge has the number 35 next to his name, that means he is the 35th judge to serve in the history of that court. Safiel (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok. Do you think we should have a discussion on the usefulness of this data? It's useful in the sense that you understand who started before who, but the data on their service dates already provides that. It also gives indirect data on how old the court is and how many judges have served previously, but I think that data isn't relevant to the central purpose of the table. I think at a minimum we should consider including some sort of explanation of what the number means. Still, I feel the numbers are distracting, confusing, and largely unimportant. That is not to say I don't appreciate the hard work others put into it. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nature mr allnut (talk • contribs) 16:11, November 8, 2018 (UTC)


 * Note Discussion moved from User talk:Safiel to this location that is more appropriate. Safiel (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * For the convenience of the community, I have moved this discussion to the WikiProject talk page for United States courts and judges, where it will be accessible to a greater number of users who may wish to comment on this proposal. I will reply to your last post in just a little bit. Safiel (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the number should remain. They help to organize the lists and if necessary, an explanatory note could probably be added. Safiel (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they are fine to have. I would be open to suggestions to changing their placement in the table or otherwise explaining them so as to avoid any confusion. bd2412  T 04:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "They help to organize the lists". I agree with this. But I think that the year they began their judgeship would be a better way to organize. Its more meaningful than the number. It's also easier to *quickly* understand.

Numbering for Appeals Judges
What are the numbers besides the lists of the judges on the lists of appeals court judges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nature mr allnut (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The numbers reflect the overall seniority of the judge in the history of the particular court. For example, if a judge has the number 35 next to his name, that means he is the 35th judge to serve in the history of that court. Safiel (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok. Do you think we should have a discussion on the usefulness of this data? It's useful in the sense that you understand who started before who, but the data on their service dates already provides that. It also gives indirect data on how old the court is and how many judges have served previously, but I think that data isn't relevant to the central purpose of the table. I think at a minimum we should consider including some sort of explanation of what the number means. Still, I feel the numbers are distracting, confusing, and largely unimportant. That is not to say I don't appreciate the hard work others put into it. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nature mr allnut (talk • contribs) 16:11, November 8, 2018 (UTC)


 * Note Discussion moved from User talk:Safiel to this location that is more appropriate. Safiel (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * For the convenience of the community, I have moved this discussion to the WikiProject talk page for United States courts and judges, where it will be accessible to a greater number of users who may wish to comment on this proposal. I will reply to your last post in just a little bit. Safiel (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the number should remain. They help to organize the lists and if necessary, an explanatory note could probably be added. Safiel (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they are fine to have. I would be open to suggestions to changing their placement in the table or otherwise explaining them so as to avoid any confusion. bd2412  T 04:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "They help to organize the lists". I agree with this. But I think that the year they began their judgeship would be a better way to organize. Its more meaningful than the number. It's also easier to *quickly* understand.

Failure of the Thomas Farr nomination
Due to my heavy opposition to this nominee, I am recusing myself from making content edits to the Thomas Farr article. Senator Scott has announced his opposition and the nomination will likely fail. Can a neutral editor take action? Thanks. Safiel (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging users who might be interested in making the edits. Safiel (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is a news link: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article222386255.html Safiel (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Safiel, I was out of the house when you pinged me and couldn't edit the Farr article. Taking a look at the article now, it appears to be updated. Thanks for your honesty in declaring your biases regarding the subject of the page. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't want to violate WP:NOTAFORUM but I do want to elaborate a bit on this. It is not really my bias or biases at question here. If it was, I couldn't edit half the articles here. :) The problem is that my opposition to Mr. Farr went so far that I donated money in opposition to him and actively lobbied Senators against him. The fact that money changed hands from me to another party in relation to Mr. Farr raises the issue of WP:COI. I have personally opposed some nominees by Bush, Obama and Trump, but never to the point of either donating money against them or actively lobbying against them. I have proceeded to edit (and in many cases created) those articles and I would challenge Jimbo Wales himself to find any evidence of bias in my edits. :) With Mr. Farr, the issue essentially comes down to an active WP:COI between myself and Mr. Farr. Just wanted to clarify my reasons for the curious. Safiel (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Good to know. Thanks for the elaboration. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 21:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Missing judges project update
I have moved WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States state supreme court justices to WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices, to reflect the addition of a section on missing judges of the United States Tax Court. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"Inactive" judges on lists of current judges
The lists of appeals courts judges on their respective pages includes judges listed as inactive. Why are these judges included? Does inactive mean something different then retired? If so and if inactive judges are considered "current", then do these lists exhaustively include all the other "inactive" judges. If inactive effectively means retired, I suggest we eliminate these judges from the lists.Nature mr allnut (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Inactive" judges are semi-retired; they are still legally able to hear cases, and often do. This differs from a judge who has retired completely from the bench, for example to work for a private firm, which would preclude them from acting in a judicial role. bd2412  T 02:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would note that many inactive judges are inactive only in the sense that they do not hear cases or maintain chambers. However, many continue to participate in administrative roles. Some act as law clerks for their colleagues. Some participate in the various committees of the federal judiciary. And in some cases, such as Maryanne Trump Barry, there is a distinct possibility that they might return to active service. Barry might return to service if Trump loses in 2020. Until they retire outright, they should absolutely remain on the list and be marked as inactive. Safiel (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense.
 * Complete departure from the federal bench (giving up one's lifetime Article III entitlement to compensation) is correctly referred to as resignation rather than retirement but the Federal Judicial Center unfortunately completely ignores this critical distinction and casually treats it as identical to the choice of "inactivation" by a Senior Judge, while treating "retirement" as distinct from assuming senior status despite the fact that until the "senior judge" title was introduced in 1958 nobody ever referred to the assumption of that status as anything but "retirement". LE (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair use photo review
I just uploaded File:Walter Angus Keeling.jpg for use in the article Walter Angus Keeling. I haven't uploaded a fair use file in a long time, so if somebody wants to eyeball it and make sure its done right. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of party from scotus justice pages
In a series of edits this afternoon, removed the party affiliations from infoboxes of the four Supreme Court justices who had them, writing. "Deleted party affiliation. Not relevant for a member of the independent and non-partisan Judiciary." (Breyer, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Ginsburg) It seems to me this is a a problem and not correct.

While it would be nice to believe we have an independent and non-partisan Judiciary, and perhaps we strive for it, there is considerable debate as to whether we actually have it. It would be hard to claim we are 100% there (probably the debate centers as to whether we are 50% there or 90% there or where in-between). The reality is that the party of a Suspreme Court justice is relevant to understanding and analyzing their work, and thus clearly belongs in the encyclopedia. So then, should it go in the Infobox? I would say that because it is a consistently reportable fact of considerable interest to many readers, there's a good argument for putting it in a consistent place in every article, and that means the infobox. However, perhaps under the label "party" is not so great, because it implies some kind of official status, which might not be relevant (perhaps the justices in question are registered members of the parties in their home districts (original research example: Breyer is a Registered Democrat in Cambridge, MA), but that's not really what we mean. Instead the value is in the rough ideological shorthand that a party provides. So maybe we'd be better off with "party of appointing President" or somesuch. And perhaps this is maybe then a discussion better had at Template Talk:Infobox officeholder (redirects from Template:Infobox Judge)?

My preference would be to bring this back in some form, consistent across all 9 justices, although I'm not sure what the best form is. Thoughts? jhawkinson (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can think of two options. One would be to list the party affiliation of the nominating president, as this has been a pretty good indicator for the last half century or so. The other would be to note party affiliation in the article, to the extent that there are reliable sources that specify this information. bd2412  T 22:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * For the most part, I think the party affiliation of the nominating president is effectively what we have, and that the two are consonant. Presidents nominate Supreme Court justices from their own party, I don't know of any exceptions in recent memory. Of course party information should be in the article somewhere, but the question I'm posing is whether it should be in the Infobox. Again, my strong inclination is yes, but I'd really like to hear from before reverting the change.


 * Also, I had not noticed initially, but the same editor made a series of similar edits in Oct. 2017 (Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts, Breyer, Thomas, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kennedy). That's notable since that Breyer appears in both. It looks like his party was re-added on 22 Jan 2018 by and then immediately reverted by . And then re-added again on 5 Oct. 2018 by . It would be good to hear from those editors on this as well. jhawkinson (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about this on the talk page for Ginsburg. I tried to find it just now, but it looks like the page archive is difficult to navigate now (side request" would anyone here be able to fix it?). I am against listing party affiliation in the infobox. Some justices have more overt ties to the a political party than others. Should we list party in the infobox if their only tie to the party is from their voting registration? To me, that seems to be elevating a trivial fact. We've also seen recent justices like Stevens and Souter move fairly far away from the party of the president who nominated them. Offhand, I don't know if either ever formally changed their political affiliation. I think having the name nominating president in the infobox is enough about their political leanings. Knope7 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * you mean these?:


 * Political Party
 * {|class="wikitable"


 * Given that federal and SCOTUS judges have to give up membership of political parties upon confirmation, is it a good idea to specify the "political party" of a judge in the infobox? —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  14:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What does "membership" mean, and why do you think membership is what the infobox field means rather than affiliation? What makes you think that a Supreme Court justice cannot be registered with a particular political party or even cannot be a "member" of a political party? Bear in mind that the code of conduct for federal judges does not apply to Supreme Court justices. Is there a special "rule" with respect to the justices?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * }


 * Infobox
 * {|class="wikitable"


 * As many of you may have realized, this article is currently under GA review. For that reason, I would like to settle any disagreements here. Currently, there are two issues with the infobox.

First, what educational institutions should be mentioned in the infobox. I see Justices Thomas and Kennedy were cited as examples, but I think both neither are designated as Good Articles. The infobox says education, not where she's received her degree. For that reason, I would lean towards including Harvard. Also, for the concern that someone may not realize she did not receive a degree from Harvard, that is explained in the article. That's also the reason why a citation is not needed in the infobox to show she graduated from Columbia.

Second, is political party. I believe this has been an issue in the past with the consensus being not to list the policial affiliation of Supreme Court Justices. It does not add to the article to have that listed. Again, the article is clear she was appointed to the bench by Democrats.

Please feel free to share any thoughts on these issues. Knope7 (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As the GA reviewer, I would like to hear other editors thoughts on whether the infobox should be very clear that she graduated from Columbia - given the fact that this is a BLP. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think BLP requires us to leave Harvard out of the infobox. It is not defamatory or an invasion of privacy to point out she attended Harvard. Her time at Harvard is reliably sourced and mentioned in the article. I think it's an issue up to consensus based on my reading of template:infobox person.


 * The editors involved in this issue were and, so I am notifying both of them. Knope7 (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * She went to Harvard. The education parameter is for schools the subject went to, not only graduated from. There's no reason not to include it in the infobox. BLP has zip to do with anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have restored the version of the infobox with Harvard. Knope7 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, just wanted to make sure. I will follow Bbb23's advice on this. I see we have a second opinion on the GA review. He left a few notes as well, just ping me when you are done working through those and we can pass the article. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * }


 * jhawkinson (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the question is, more accurately, is party affiliation important enough to contain in an infobox. An infobox is not a repository for all otherwise notable information but rather a selection of the most important at-a-glance characteristics of the subject of the article. For Supreme Court Justices, party affiliation can be somewhat misleading. Justices are more accurately described by a judicial philosophy - which often lines up with party but not always. I think that including party in the infobox conveys to the reader that there's partisanship at play here. For all the criticism of SCOTUS justices and whether they're truly independent, the fact remains that all of them are eminently qualified jurists and are way beyond just being political figureheads who will do whatever their party wants. Maybe put it elsewhere in the article if you really want, but not the infobox. In my opinion, putting it in the infobox is inherently misleading. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would recommend not including party affiliation in the infobox. I think Knope7 nailed it: Listing the president who appointed the justice should be sufficient. Another reason to keep it out of the infobox: What do you with justices like John Paul Stevens? He was appointed by a republican president but is viewed as one of the most disappointing appointments (from a conservative perspective) because of his strong tendency to move with the Court's liberal wing. See HoldingAces (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a brief couple of notes regard the United States circuit courts as they existed from 1869 to 1911

 * All United States Circuit Judges who served between 1869 and 1911 on any numbered circuit served upon the United States circuit courts for that particular circuit. For example, if they served on the First Circuit, they should be listed as serving on the United States Circuit Courts for the First Circuit. Circuit Courts should be plural in the pipe for the link, as each judge held multiple circuit courts throughout the year. For example on the First Circuit, the judge would hold the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maine, the United States Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, etc, etc. Safiel (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have encountered two primary errors. The pipe linked being given in the singular, rather than the plural. FJC Bio confirms that the plural is correct. Termination of the circuit courts being given as 1891, rather than the correct 1911. The Evarts Act of 1891 did NOT abolish the circuit courts. It established the Courts of Appeals and the judges served concurrently on the Circuit Courts and the Courts of Appeal being 1891 and 1911. I have corrected virtually all Circuit Judge articles in error, with the exception of Grant's appointees and some Supreme Court Justices who had circuit judge service. I will have these completely likely within two weeks. No need for anybody to take action, I just want to get this information out so that these particular errors are not made in the future or if a non-project member does make the error, that it is quickly corrected. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of correct usage, for a judge that served pre-Evarts Act to post circuit court abolition:


 * Colt was nominated by President Chester A. Arthur on July 2, 1884, to a seat on the United States Circuit Courts for the First Circuit vacated by Judge John Lowell. He was confirmed by the Senate on July 5, 1884, and received his commission the same day. Colt was assigned by operation of law to additional and concurrent service on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on June 16, 1891, to a new seat authorized by 26 Stat. 826 (Evarts Act). On December 31, 1911, the Circuit Courts were abolished and he thereafter served only on the Court of Appeals. His service terminated on February 7, 1913, due to his resignation. Safiel (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Circuit Court and District Court List Articles
Hi,

Can someone explain to me why these articles exist?


 * List of current United States Circuit Judges
 * List of current United States District Judges

I understand it puts all judges in one spot, but...it just restates what the individual court pages already have. What's the point?

Snickers2686 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with these existing, so long as they are kept up. Putting all judges in one spot is basically the point by itself. bd2412  T 17:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Appointment vs Elevation
Is there a consensus on the proper term for promotion from federal district court to federal appeals court? While reviewing district court tables for consistency, I changed “appointment” to “elevation” where appropriate. My edits were sometimes reverted. I then began changing “elevation” to “appointment”, and then those edits as well were sometimes reverted. I think that one term should be used for uniformity. I think that it should be “elevation”, as that’s the term used on each judges’ individual page.Dlambe3 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I would also go with "elevation" for these. bd2412  T 20:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Elevation" makes sense to me. You're going from one level of the judiciary to the next. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think "elevation" makes the most sense. It seems to be the term of use in scholarly articles such as this. Marquardtika (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Every district court page, until recently, used "appointment to" for the reason a judge's service was terminated. I was reverting some of your edits,, because I was under the impression the pages were now inconsistent with each other (my apologies if I messed up some of my reverts). That being said, either of the options seem fine to me, as long as the format is consistent across the pages. Until we reach a consensus, I'll refrain from modifying the parameter. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 23:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think I prefer "appointment" actually, but I don't mind too much either way, as long as we're going to deliberately pursue consistent terminology. I would, however, like to suggest two caveats, if the decision is made to go ahead with "elevation": (1) I think the "elevation" language should be used only in cases where the new appointment is to a court with appellate jurisdiction over the former position. So appointment to a Court of Appeals (or the Supreme Court) from a district within that circuit would be called "elevation," but if someone were appointed to, say, the DC Circuit from a federal district court in New York, I'm not sure I would want to call that an "elevation." And if someone were appointed to a state Supreme Court from a federal District Court, that should definitely not be characterized as an "elevation." (Maybe I'm worrying about scenarios so exotic that they haven't actually occurred.) (2) As I understand it, this discussion is limited to creating consistency in the tables across this project. Obviously, it is often appropriate in the prose text of our articles to describe a sitting federal judge as being "appointed" to the Circuit Court, and it would probably sound unnatural and forced to insist on describing all such appointments as "elevations," so I just think that this decision should not foreclose the use of whatever language sounds best in prose text. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would consider any appointment of a judge of any U.S. District Court to any U.S. Court of Appeals to be an "elevation". However, I would agree that movement from a state court position to a federal court position, or vice versa, is lateral, and not an elevation. bd2412  T 20:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Notes and References
I have a question. I'm noticing that a lot of the "References" sections are being switched to "Notes" on court pages. Are notes and references the same thing? I was under the impression that they weren't. A note was more like a footnote and a reference was an actual citation from another source. Am I wrong? Thanks in advance. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is switching "References" to "Notes"? "References" is the standard for anything conveying a source. bd2412  T 18:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, take a look at any of the district court pages. I mean some genuinely have notes, but then there's other times where footnotes appear after a table but there's no subheading. And then you scroll down to the end of a page and it says "Notes" for most places where "References" would be. It just looks weird to me. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I just knocked out a bunch of these. bd2412  T 21:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will chime in a wee bit late here, I have encountered the same thing during my cleanup of historical judge article, of which, by the way, I am now all the way back to James Madison, I can actually see the light at the end of the tunnel. I have been switching notes to references where ever I have encountered it. Safiel (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A note if you ever try to contact the Federal Judicial Center...
Hey,

Just a heads up if you ever try and contact the Federal Judicial Center about outdated information or a judges' death, this is the response I got: "I appreciate your help, but you don’t need to notify us of the deaths of judges who are still on active or senior status. As part of the federal judiciary, we rely on the official notifications we receive from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Although we attempt to keep our data as current as possible, our database is meant to be a historical record rather than a reflection of current events, so we prioritize ensuring our information is accurate over making immediate updates"

So I take that to mean even if you find a news article about a judge's death, just assume they know already. I've e-mailed them about deaths in the past and haven't had an issue, but then too, I didn't know they were notified by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts so. The historian seemed a little put-off that I would e-mail him about it so I think I'm gonna hold off from now on.

Snickers2686 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have actually notified them of a judge's death, David Lycurgus Middlebrooks Jr., he actually died in 1997, but in 2018 FJC Bio still had him listed as alive. In that case, they were appreciative. I would wait at least a month after a judge's death, before trying to contact FJC Bio, as typically the updating of FJC Bio for a judge's death is usually delayed at least a week. Safiel (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * While we are on this topic, just a note that I am still trying to find proof that Herbert Allan Fogel is deceased, as I have reasonable suspicion to believe. FJC Bio lists him as still alive, but after his resignation from the bench and subsequent imprisonment for DUI, he lead a rather incognito life. I don't have anything solid or reliable enough, either to submit to FJC Bio, or to update his Wikipedia article. If I do find something, I will notify FJC Bio and update his article accordingly. Safiel (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Update to previous comment Shortly after posting the above, I found an item of sufficient proof and sent it to FJC Bio. Since it was late Friday, likely won't hear anything back until Monday. Hopefully, sometime early next week, I can put poor Mr. Fogel to rest, at least as far as his Wikipedia page goes. Safiel (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Herbert Allan Fogel deceased
Just a note, FJC Bio has updated its entry for Herbert Allan Fogel for his 2002 death and I have updated Wikipedia accordingly. Safiel (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

County courthouse list-articles
In previous discussion here there was some willingness established for this WikiProject to be involved.

Well, help is needed now on standards for formatting, scope of "Lists of courthouses in STATE" type articles (include coords or not, include modern, not-separately-notable courthouses, and if so show redlinks or not). Currently an i.p. editor is adding a lot, causing issues, at List of courthouses in Nebraska. At Talk:List of courthouses in Nebraska, i am trying to have discussion, but there has been no one else participating. Could anyone here please participate there, and we could later bring back more general discussion to here, say if an RFC is needed about more general standards? --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard S. Arnold article deleted
For what appears to be a copyright violation, the Richard S. Arnold page was deleted. Is there any way to restore it, sans material that violates copyright? – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 16:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't tell what on the page was not a copyright issue, so I have restored the page with just the FJC bio information. bd2412  T 17:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 03:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have basically only re-stubbed it, though. It could use a lot of attention. bd2412  T 04:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I thought I got all the copyright **** out of all the articles our little pal Billy ****ed with. Hell, I nuked greater than 100 judge articles basically back to stubs or we would really be ****ing hurting. Trouble is, early on, I was perhaps more lenient than I should have been. I soon got to the point were the minute I saw Billy's name in the edit history NUKE. I apologize for not doing enough to save this article when I worked on it. Damn. Safiel (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, if you see the name User:Billy Hathorn in an article's edit history, NUKE his contributions without delay. He was banned by the Wikipedia community for repeated and brazen copyright violations. If you see an edit by him, just assume it is a violation and nuke it. Safiel (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is looking much better now. bd2412  T 02:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of presidents who appointed judges without consensus
has repeatedly removed the names of presidents who appointed judges from court articles (example diff) and refuses to engage in the discussion I started at Talk:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eleventh_Circuit. He make the claim that "Operation of law is consistently used on federal court articles." when dlambe3 made these changes himself! While operation of law may of course be mentioned, it is false and unhelpful to the reader to ignore that a president did actually appoint these judges, and there is no consensus to remove their names from the "Appointed by" column. Comment would appreciated. Reywas92Talk 18:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. To me if you have both operation of law and the appointing president listed that just makes it more confusing, in my opinion. In the case of Eleventh Circuit judges prior to 1981 even the FJC says they were reappointed; it doesn't list (or re-list) the President who originally appointed them. Snickers2686 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that not what footnotes are for? I just don't want the original appointer removed altogether, that could go in a footnote but this editor simply removed context and has refused to engage. Reywas92Talk 00:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the removal altogether. No one becomes a judge of a particular court by operation of law unless they were already a judge on some other court, and there by presidential appointment. Both the appointing president and the president who signs into law the legislation changing the status of the judges involved, are significant here. bd2412  T 00:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Report has been made at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring regarding this issue. I sincerely apologize for taking part in an edit war and regret that this happened on multiple pages, but I made multiple attempts to discuss this issue and Dlambe3 refused take part in reaching a resolution. My position is that the table should have the appointing president in the "Appointed by" column with the details of operation of law and reappointment to the new court in the footnote, providing the reader with the most information, but am open to further discussion and finding consensus in the best way to present this. Reywas92Talk 04:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Law
Let's use our content to build up Portal:Law some. bd2412 T 03:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

D.C. Superior Court
Does anyone have an opinion on whether judges of the D.C. Superior Court are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages? I know they are appointed by the president but I don't think they are Article III. I created Carmen Guerricagoitia McLean and Jonathan Pittman awhile back. I was thinking of creating pages for other D.C. Superior Court judges but wanted to get some feedback here first (I also posted this at Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump). Marquardtika (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would consider all judges appointed by the President to be notable. We have all the Court of Federal Claims judges, and I'm still working through all the old Tax Court judges. bd2412  T 17:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I was thinking. I'm going to get to work on creating some stubs. Marquardtika (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I posted at Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump, I agree with including them. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There appears to be consensus for adding the D.C. Superior Court nominations/confirmations to the article, and I encourage you to do so. Also, I just saw that the Senate confirmed three such judges by voice vote today. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think there will be sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources for all DC Superior Court judges, so I’m good with this project. Neutralitytalk 16:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. thanks for starting to create pages for those judges. Please check out this new page I created List of Superior Court of the District of Columbia judges. It already has 15 of the courts judges will add the remaining shortly. (Shemtov613 (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry for all the pings you're receiving from us, but it also might be a good idea to include Trump's District of Columbia Court of Appeals nominations to the List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump article too. The Senate also confirmed Joshua Deahl to the court today. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a note regarding nominees who are currently Judges of the State of Florida
John L. Badalamenti was created today for a new nominee to the M.D. Fla. Badalamenti is currently a State Judge and has an official photograph available. As a note, any images by the Government of the State of Florida are in the public domain. Use   to license them properly on Commons. I have already uploaded and added Badalamenti's photo. Safiel (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration on article for Greeley Webster Whitford, Chief Justice of Colorado Supreme Court
Began a new article for this gentleman as I was working on his WikiTree profile. Wanted to request some assistance/collaboration as I'm fairly new at this. Work in Progress: User:Azurerae/Greeley_Webster_Whitford --Azurerae (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A draft has already been initiated at Draft:Greeley W. Whitford. I'll merge them. BD2412  T 19:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II to be moved to Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Another BH article
Another article made by Billy Hathorn has been tagged for CCI, so I was wondering if anyone could make the replacement at Talk:Morris S. Arnold/Temp. Most importantly, I think we should get all the federal judge articles Billy Hathorn made and clean them up too. ミラP 16:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have created the article in the temp space. Safiel (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the copyvio and moved over the new article. Thanks. bd2412  T 14:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Tom Stagg was also cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:3C20:E1BF:C207:355F (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I will get to it. Safiel (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Safiel (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, excellent work. bd2412  T 03:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Adrian G. Duplantier was cut as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:20D9:CA5E:FC95:C021 (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Albert Tate Jr. was also cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:B90A:5A88:6185:9652 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Magistrate judges
I have a question. I've been noticing a relatively new user adding magistrate judges to court articles. I directed them to the consensus on magistrate judges in this project discussion as well as WP:NOTABILITY. Their logic is because MJ are members of the court, they should be included and all my edits undoing their edits have been reverted. What course of action should be taken? To my knowledge, this user isn't/hasn't made any pages concerning said magistrate judges, only listed their names. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose there's no great harm to listing them on the pages for the courts. BD2412  T 00:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Andy Oldham listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Andy Oldham to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Category:Courts and tribunals with year of establishment missing
While populating the subcats of Category:Courts and tribunals by year of establishment, I have also been populating Category:Courts and tribunals with year of establishment missing.

Most of the articles in Category:Courts and tribunals with year of establishment missing are US state courts, but there are some federal courts in there too. This may be something which this project might want to resolve.

Hope this helps. If not, sorry for the intrusion. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It should actually be fairly easy to determine when most federal courts were established. Those of statewide jurisdiction are almost always established at the time statehood is granted; those that are subdivided will have legislation establishing the subdivision. BD2412  T 02:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Mentioned in an essay
Just a heads-up that I have mentioned this WikiProject and its notability guidelines in an essay, here. Comments (on the essay talkpage, or here if preferred) would be welcome. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Our notability guidelines are, of course, subject to consensus-based change. Lately, I have been tinkering with a lot of articles on state senate members, and some of them seem to skirt the bottom of what can be considered notable. Although I would rather restrict coverage of state senate members, I can't see a lot of difference in general notability. Perhaps a more refined standard can be developed parsing state appellate courts by characteristics relevant to notability. BD2412  T 02:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've recently become aware of notability questions relating to state appellate judges and strongly believe we need to work to ensure those judges are clearly recognized as inherently notable so we don't lose any more important articles to subjective interpretations of notability. As individuals they wield enormous power in state governments and are at least as notable as any state legislator.  It's a brutal process to dig through court opinions and news coverage and academic journals and state government reports to try to find the right combination of facts to meet the totally subjective threshold of "[judges] who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states."  Most of the time, for state judges below the "supreme" level who did not serve in the state legislature, it doesn't matter what content you find, the result in AFDs is, "well, this judge had an opinion that was cited by the Supreme Court, but it's just this 1 case and its not on a topic that seems important to me, so..."  I've been troubled by the lack of attention paid by media and society towards the judiciary for years, and I really think Wikipedia should be a place that sets a standard in favor of preserving and collecting information about these incredibly consequential and connected (though often lesser-known) state officeholders. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Duncan listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kyle Duncan to be moved to Kyle Duncan (judge). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

William S. Stickman IV has an RFC
William S. Stickman IV has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Trying to reconnect (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy to be moved to Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposed category rename
A proposal is being discussed at Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 26 to rename existing "Supreme Court of [State] justices" and "[State] Supreme Court justices" categories to a "Justices of the... [Court Name]" format. You are welcome to participate there. BD2412 T 20:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

John Marshall Harlan (1899–1971) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for John Marshall Harlan (1899–1971) to be moved to John Marshall Harlan II. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates to be moved to Barack Obama Supreme Court nominations. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Stanley Matthews (Supreme Court justice) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Stanley Matthews (Supreme Court justice) to be moved to Stanley Matthews (judge). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Attorney and jurist
I have a question. Several judicial articles, both federal and state judges, start the lede with "(Insert name) is an American lawyer and jurist..." Now, I understand most judges were lawyers at some point, but I didn't think a judge could be a lawyer while serving as a judge. So that's my question, is it right to say "a lawyer and judge" in the lede when it should just say judge/jurist? Per the [https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#:~:text=A%20judge%20should%20not%20practice,member%20of%20the%20judge's%20family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges], Canon 4A5 states: "A judge should not practice law and should not serve as a family member’s lawyer in any forum. A judge may, however, act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge’s family." so to me that suggests that applies to any sitting judge, just not a federal judge. Do opening paragraphs need to be changed? Does it make a difference? Thoughts? Snickers2686 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is technically possible for a person to become a judge without ever being a lawyer (in my work on old-timey judges, there are a surprising number who started out as physicians). Strictly speaking, I don't think someone who becomes a lawyer ever ceases to be a lawyer unless they are disbarred or resign from the bar; they may just cease to practice law. Incidentally, I prefer to avoid using the word "jurist" unless we are describing someone known for legal scholarship. BD2412  T 00:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Judges are still lawyers (except for the minority who aren't), even though they do not practice law independently of judging (except, of course, to the extent that legal scholarship counts as practicing law, which is something some judges engage in and publish; but that's not what the Code of Conduct refers to). As for the Code of Conduct's applicability, no, formally it does not apply to state-court judges; it may inform them and many states have codes of conduct that may be suggestive or even binding on their judges. The introduction is pretty clear about that ("This Code applies to … [long list]"). In sum: the lede paragraphs do not need to be changed. jhawkinson (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)