Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:06, 24 May 2020

Warning: active arbitration remedies 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 Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: 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. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. 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 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. Biography: Politics and Government 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 supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Maryland High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States courts and judges High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: District of Columbia / Government High‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

A news item involving Brett Kavanaugh was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 October 2018.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Kalev Leetaru (April 29, 2020). "Biden vs. Kavanaugh: How the #MeToo Numbers Stack Up". Real Clear Politics.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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. GMG 14:06, 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)

Just gonna skip right over the Thomas thing then huh? GMG 20:27, 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)

No, we treat real controversies different from faux controversies. That's the difference. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Like it or not, the sexual assault allegations are a huge part of his biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 5 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)

There is no mention in the lead that no factual/proven evidence of the accusation was discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandfour (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Biased article

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)

Your reversions have only damaged the article, which appears to be your intent. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 03:50, 9 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?--JOJ 04:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Their record of contributions makes it pretty clear that their motivations are not pure. Judge for yourself. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please provide links to evidence of unpure motivations.--JOJ 23:19, 10 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)

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, Calling conservatives names, Trump Cultists, MAGA KIDS, Pushing Right Wing Agenda, Calling the President an Idiot, Trump lies everytime he opens his mouth. I'm pretty sure that it's you who have impure intentions. I'll be looking at maybe taking this up at WP:ANI since there are some serious WP:BIAS and WP:Civil issues with many of your comments.--JOJ 18:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop changing the subject. Mr Ernie has stated ON THIS VERY TALK PAGE, several paragraphs above that he does not believe the allegations against Kavanaugh and claims that they have been proven false. His edit attempted to trim down the section on the allegations, which would've diminished Misplaced Pages's coverage of them. It is obvious that he has an agenda here, and that his edit was in line with thay agenda. If you try to use an ad hominem against me one more time, I WILL report you. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you are referring to this edit from Mr. Ernie. Seems to be nothing said in that comment that doesn't match the facts and the reliable sources on this topic. Appears to be a civil comment and even though it does appear the Mr. Ernie questions the accusations against Kananaugh, it doesn't automatically make his intention here unpure.

That said, you have in turn, violated many Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in your short editing history with this ip account. You violated WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS, WP:UNCIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, and WP:RS, to name a few. And although most of this has occured on talk pages, it can be just as disruptive, especially when you are attempting to use Misplaced Pages talk pages to shame other users. You have no proof of an agenda by Mr. Ernie, you are just attempting to silence an opposing viewpoint. I'm assuming that the previous ip in this thread is also you, but I'm not so sure if you use other ips or whether or not you have a regular main account. A quick WP:CHECKUSER might be in order if it is determined that you are attempting to use Misplaced Pages for fraudulent reasons. Using mulitple accounts, especially multiple ip accounts isn't against Misplaced Pages policy, per se, but it is against policy to use multiple accounts to skirt guidelines or to use them as WP:SOCKPUPPETS to disrupt discussions. Again if this is determined to be the case, a person can be blocked or in extreme cases, even banned from editing Misplaced Pages. If you feel that you are being treated unfairly then by all means, file a report at ANI. It might save me the trouble. Otherwise, if you have anything useful to add to this conversation then please contribute in a fair and unbiased manner and do not accuse other users of malice or poor intentions without hard proof. All viewpoints are welcome. What is never welcome are unproven attacks against other editors.--JOJ 21:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Literally the only reason I'm using an IP is because I can't be bothered to make a regular account. Why would I go through the trouble of making multiple sockpuppets? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is the "Julie Swetnick" section required?

The section mostly states the obvious facts, ie, that this story, instigated by a lawyer currently in jail (or on temporary health-related leave), was not substantiated in any way whatsoever, and in fact the "accuser" herself stated that she had not in fact witnessed anything! This section should be deleted! If some kook aided by a known criminal lawyer, states some nonsense, never prosecutes it, and wikipedia automatically includes it in a bio, and even gives it a subsection of its own, well, that's borderline slander! How is anyone protected from this sort of BS? 46.109.139.100 (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Note, for comparison purposes, that Joe Biden's article still has no section called "Tara Reade". 46.109.139.100 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It was still part of the case. Also, there is no ongoing case against Biden. So far the Tara Reade allegations against Biden are nothing but that: allegations. And they will never become anything more, because they're just political grandstanding meant to exploit the MeeToo movement.46.97.170.78 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class law articles
• High-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Maryland articles
• High-importance Maryland articles
• WikiProject Maryland articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Mid-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States courts and judges articles
• High-importance United States courts and judges articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• B-Class District of Columbia articles
• High-importance District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject District of Columbia articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press