Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::Their record of contributions makes it pretty clear that their motivations are not pure. Judge for yourself. ] (]) 00:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Their record of contributions makes it pretty clear that their motivations are not pure. Judge for yourself. ] (]) 00:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Please provide links to evidence of unpure motivations.--] ]</font> 23:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Please provide links to evidence of unpure motivations.--] ]</font> 23:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: Read Mr Ernie's mosta on this talk page. His intention is very obviously to downplay the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. If anything, the article does not put ENOUGH emphasis on the fact that Kavanaugh was never actually acquitted or proven innocent. The charges were dropped because the FBI investigation was sloppy. ] (]) 13:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: Read Mr Ernie's posts on this talk page. His intention is very obviously to downplay the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. If anything, the article does not put ENOUGH emphasis on the fact that Kavanaugh was never actually acquitted or proven innocent. The charges were dropped because the FBI investigation was sloppy. ] (]) 13:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure about Mr. Ernie's intentions. You haven't linked any evidence to support your accusations that he is downplaying the allegations and I can't see anything obvious on his talk page that supports your theory that his intentions are impure. I have however found statements by you that seem to show that you are seriously biased in your intentions. Such as these, , , {https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation&diff=prev&oldid=957708841 MAGA KIDS], , , . I'm pretty sure that it's you who have impure intentions. I'll be looking at maybe taking this up at ] since there are some serious ] and ] issues with many of your comments.--] ]</font> 18:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure about Mr. Ernie's intentions. You haven't linked any evidence to support your accusations that he is downplaying the allegations and I can't see anything obvious on his talk page that supports your theory that his intentions are impure. I have however found statements by you that seem to show that you are seriously biased in your intentions. Such as these, , , {https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation&diff=prev&oldid=957708841 MAGA KIDS], , , . I'm pretty sure that it's you who have impure intentions. I'll be looking at maybe taking this up at ] since there are some serious ] and ] issues with many of your comments.--] ]</font> 18:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Revision as of 19:19, 23 May 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brett Kavanaugh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Remove Mention of Sexual Assault Allegations in Lede
Snooganssnoogans - There is no need to have mention of sexual assault allegations in the lede. That topic is covered in depth within the article. This is similar to the decision to remove language regarding Justice Sotomayor's controversial sexist, racist "wise Latina" statements from the lede in her article. Indeed, the argument for inclusion of the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh are weaker.
1. The allegations against Kavanaugh were unfounded, unproven, and lacked credibility; Sotomayor's "wise Latina" staements were very real - she made the statements repeatedly in speeches to a number of groups. While there is a lot of doubt that Kavanaugh did anything wrong, there is absolutely no doubt that Sotomayor made the statements.
2. The conduct alleged against Kavanaugh was far in his past; Sotomayor's "wise Latina" statements took place while she was a judge.
3. In both cases, the improprieties were front and center during Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
In short, you cannot have it both ways - you argued that the controversial and very real "wise Latina" statements did not merit inclusion in the lede of the Sotomayor article, while you argue that the controversial yet unfounded sexual allegations against Kavanaugh need to be included in the lede for this article. The bottom line is that mention of the sexual allegations need to be removed from the lede in this article, or the "wise Latina" statements re-inserted into the lede in the Sotomayor article. GlassBones (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
What happens on other Misplaced Pages articles is irrelevant to what happens on this one. The "wise Latina" thing is a faux controversy which did not jeopardise her nomination nor has had any coverage since some opportunistic right-wing actors decided to make hay over it at the time. Rape is a felony, he was accused by several women, one of those women testified in front of Congress in a highly publicized manner, Kavanaugh responded by whimpering and lashing out at Democrats in front of Congress and the TV cameras, and his nomination was in jeopardy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
There was zero substantiation of any of the "accusations," several fell apart when looked into, and one appears to have been completely fabricated by an attorney recently indicted for extortion and fraud. But you still somehow seem to really believe them, all of them, to be true. Fortunately for us and for the law, accusations need to be substantiated, so people aren't thrown in jail due to mob excitement, but none in this case were. Regarding Ford's accusation, every named witness denied Ford's account, including Ford's friend Keyser, who was pressured to change her story to support Ford. Ford's lawyer admitted her client wanted an asterisk next to Kavanuagh's name. Kavanaugh knew he was innocent of the smears and fought them hard. The topic itself is notable enough for the lead, since that is what dominated the topic, but we need to present the weaknesses in the accusations a bit better. Character assassination shouldn't be rewarded on Misplaced Pages articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
If we want to get into comparisons, seems the better would be Clarence Thomas, where we definitely include Anita Hill in the lead, and have for almost a decade now. GMG14:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans -What happens in other Misplaced Pages articles is certainly relevant regarding the standard for inclusion of material in a lede. You keep calling the controversy regarding Sotomayor's "wise Latina" statements a "faux controversy" in a laughable effort to downplay the controversy, and you want to build up the allegations against Kavanaugh. Please, if you can, try to make your point without such obvious bias. We all know rape is a felony. But Kavanaugh was never charged with rape, much less convicted. These allegations against him, while controversial, were unproven, unfounded and in the opinion of many simply not credible. On the other hand, the statements by Sotomayor were also controversial, but in contrast to the Kavanaugh allegations they were indisputably real, and she made them repeatedly to a number of audiences. And - despite the controversies, both Sotomayor and Kavanaugh were confirmed. GlassBones (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The real issue is that the Thomas article lede should include mention of Anita Hill, the Kavanaugh article lede should include mention of sexual assault allegations, and the Sotomayor article lede should include mention of her "wise Latina" remarks. I was just pointing out that there seems to be a different standard applied to Misplaced Pages articles on conservative vs. liberal justices.GlassBones (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Eh, for the moment I can see why it is there. It is certainly not a huge part of his biography as Muboshgu suggests, but it is something. Almost a whole paragraph might be a bit much tough. PackMecEng (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
This article should be deleted; it's so biased. The Sexual Assault Allegations section is blatantly biased in favour of Christine Blasey's account. No mention that Leland Keyser stated she never even met Brett Kavanaugh before, let alone socialized with him and his friends and as far as she was concerned, neither had Christine Blasey. She stated months later that she doesn't believe the alleged attack happened. No mention of the scramble to hear her testimony as expeditiously as possible, Senator Chuck Grassley reported in the media offering to hear her testimony over the phone or Skype because Blasey claimed she was afraid of flying (because of phobias arising from the "attack"). Prosecutor Mitchell questioned Blasey about her surf holidays and long-distance flights to Hawaii and Tahiti and why hadn't she taken up their offer of remote testimony. She did not have a convincing response and many people believe the 'fear of flying' was a ploy to delay the hearings til beyond the midterms. No mention of her ex-boyfriend Brian Merrick's testimony under oath that she once flew in a turboprop plane with him in Hawaii without displaying any fear whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:60A3:8A80:4401:2B4:D96:5AE9 (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
New reversions
I've made some recent reversions attempting to pare down the Blasey Ford section. It was way too long given how long Kavanaugh's been in public life (WP:UNDUE). I think the current section still describes nearly all of the relevant details, after some of the superfluous was filed down. The other 2 allegations are only a paragraph each in length (6 paragraphs), so I think the new length maintains a decent balance. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The WP:UNDUE argument seems quite reasonable. Do you have evidence that the intent is to damage the article? Or is it just speculation?--JOJ04:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Read Mr Ernie's posts on this talk page. His intention is very obviously to downplay the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. If anything, the article does not put ENOUGH emphasis on the fact that Kavanaugh was never actually acquitted or proven innocent. The charges were dropped because the FBI investigation was sloppy. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
.svg)
