Jump to content

Talk:Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The lead

Kavanaugh has not pre-emptively recused himself from a number of potential issues. Why are Trump or Mueller related items highlighted in the lead? Seems like this should be removed, as it seems to go against BLP to highlight such a specific issue. I do understand this is a current event and likely changing rapidly. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

In case of a 50-50 tie

Since Senators can abstain from voting shouldn't this article simply say "in case of a tie" as the vote could theoretically be 48-48 (unless 50-50 refers to percentages rather than number of votes)? Emperor001 (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

50-50 also refers to 50%.- MrX 🖋 15:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, I couldn't tell if the previous author meant 50% or 50 votes. Emperor001 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
changed it 50 50 tie when talking about the senate implies votes not percent and also all ties are 50% 50% so it would still be redundant עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Prevalence of fake news/conspiracy theories surrounding the hearing

These two topics have received an incredible amount of media coverage and are certainly notable enough to warrant inclusion in the main article. Might flesh out at some point. In the meantime, dropping some sources on to the talk page here.

White supremacy hand signal coverage

"Abortion inducing drugs"/Kamela Harris

DirkDouse (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A number of these sources are not reliable and must be excluded. 71.193.207.45 (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the sources being of marginal reliability, these two stories were a flash in the pan. Every maneuver and machination of each side (and each side's media) arguing and spinning can't be covered. ResultingConstant (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
how is cnn and the wapo unreliable and they can hardly be called the republicans side media עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
These were major stories that received coverage and discussion from media outlets on all sides of the political spectrum. The subject of general hysteria surrounding the hearing is more than noteworthy; one of the main subjects of the hearing. As עם ישראל חי pointed out, even major left-wing outlets were criticizing inaccurate coverage of false stories that were being circulated by a substantial number of media outlets (which is why I titled this section "fake news/conspiracy theories" rather than something like "criticism of media coverage"). If there are specific sources there that seem questionable, there are plenty of other sources that can be pulled in instead. DirkDouse (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Secret Feinstein document

There is an intriguing story emerging about a secret document related to Kavanaugh. This may need to be covered pretty soon as it seem like it's pretty serious.

- MrX 🖋 18:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:GRAPEVINE stories about a letter which nobody has seen which supposedly says some unspecified allegations that happened during high school and has supposedly been referred to justice. This is about as WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPCRIME as you could possibly get. If he is charged with something or the letter is ultimately released and derails the nomination, then that obviously changes things, but right now its just rumors and posturing. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
We'll see. Who said anything about a crime? - MrX 🖋 19:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Why else would something be referred to the Justice Dept?ResultingConstant (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Because the FBI does background checks. The allegation is covered in more detail here: A Sexual-Misconduct Allegation Against the Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Stirs Tension Among Democrats in Congress - MrX 🖋 15:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
don't forget that feinstein had this letter before the hearings and could have asked him about it עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. The two policies you reference (two of your three policies reference the same policy) clearly do not apply. The matter is quite reliably sourced to the likes of The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and Politico. The allegations have since been specified throughout much of the mainstream media. So WP:BLPREMOVE does not apply. Furthermore, as a judge, let alone one now nominated for the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh is certainly a public figure. So WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. This matter will surely end up in the article in some capacity or other. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed a lot of this out of the article. It runs against BLP and WEIGHT to have such prominence on these details in this article. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Ford May Testify Either In Public or In Private

See here [1]2601:447:4101:41F9:9C29:D3:7532:FBA5, here [2] and here [3].68.47.65.239 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Breaking news / BLP concerns

There is currently one source (WaPo) with a new update regarding the allegations against Kavanaugh. We need to take extreme care in updating this article with respect to BLP and NOTNEWS about this information. Use this talk page before adding contentious material. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed about the importance of BLP and NOTNEWS in general. But when it comes to the material that Mr Ernie has tried to delete most recently [4][5], this comment is mischaracterizing the situation. The fact that Ford had told her therapist and husband about the matter years before Kavanaugh's nomination makes the accusations much more credible and less likely to be a politically motivated atttack. Which is why numerous reliable sources (not just WaPo, but also e.g. USA Today, CNN and besides that also Fox News) are reporting it. It falls under none of the four criteria of WP:BLPREMOVE, by a long shot. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@HaeB: Each of the three sources you cite (USA Today, CNN, Fox News) merely rehashes the WaPo report. Mr Ernie's statement, "There is currently one source with a new update regarding the allegations…," remains in full force, and we must stay cautious about putting all our eggs in one basket. KalHolmann (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
"much more credible"? Only if you believe her story - this could just as easily be some sort of confused fantasy, or a lingering grudge that for whatever reasons she brought out in 2012. Let's stay NPOV here.50.111.25.206 (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: Each of these three sources have independently made the call to treat the WaPo report as reliable and notable enough to rely the information to their own readers, which is a very common situation in news reporting (also for a lot of other information cited in this article). I think the above comments are conflating this kind of situation with the problem that we encounter as Wikipedians in a case where only one particular news medium has reported a particular allegation and all others have stayed away from it giving it credence.
(There is an all-eggs-in-one-basked situation one need to be wary of, described at Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Syndicated stories, but it doesn't apply here - USA Today, CNN and Fox are all independent of WaPo.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Kavanaugh and the other witness there have denied this story. The accuser herself can’t remember where the party was, how she got there, or how she got home (and her therapist got the story wrong too). Can we not just be cautious with allegations against people? Let’s follow the model that we did over at Sarah Jeong. There’s currently one original source reporting this stuff, so let’s please have some patience. It’s the least we can do. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This kind of personal theorizing and assessing of the credibility of Ford risks into veering into original research.
I think including Kavanaugh's denial may be warranted though.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it "risks veering into OR". It *IS* OR. Volunteer Marek 00:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This comes right out of the WaPo article. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to the assessment, not to what professor Ford and her therapist said or wrote (obviously I didn't assume you were doing first-hand reporting there).
Also I don't think the WP:OTHER suggestion is helpful here. Supreme Court nominations are regularly considered among the most important and most scrutinized personnel decisions in the United States, and a couple of tweets criticized as racist are not the same as an alleged sexual assault or rape attempt. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Merging sexual assault content to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

The matter of the alleged sexual assault is currently covered in three places at about the same level of detail: Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.

It appears likely that this matter will generate more coverage and therefore more content. Maintaining this in three places at once without contradictions is a WP:BLP challenge. I therefore propose that the matter is covered in the main at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, because this is the political context in which the matter arose and is discussed. The other two articles should each have a one-paragraph summary with a {{main}} link to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. Sandstein 06:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There would seem to be a similar model at Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination, Clarence Thomas, and Anita Hill -- where the subject matter appears to be covered in-depth in all three pages at the same time. Sagecandor (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
At least for now, readers looking for NPOV content about these allegations are almost certain to come first to Brett Kavanaugh, and that is where the detailed content should be. We should not expect readers to have to find the proper section and then have to go to another article to get the encyclopedic content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
At this hour, Wikipedia's Christine Blasey Ford BLP devotes only two paragraphs to the sexual assault allegation. As one of the top 10 editors of that page, I am confident it will not be onerous for us to accommodate subsequent developments without unduly weighting the article. Certainly we don't have to go into depth in covering Professor Ford's expected testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee—that is more properly a matter for Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination.
But I balk at Sandstein's proposal that the professor's page should be restricted to a one-paragraph summary with a {main} link. It is much too early to box ourselves into such an inflexible approach. I request that editors hold off on limiting in advance how the professor's page treats this important topic. Please, let's wait to see what transpires. KalHolmann (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, although it may be hard to implement in practice. I would also support from the standpoint of not having possibly divergent narratives in this fast-paced environment. To direct readers to the info on the controversy, this could be perhaps dealt with via a hatnote on both BIO pages, such as:
I do agree with Cullen that most people would be googling "Brett Kavanaugh" and going to the BIO pages; just look at the page view stats, the BIO pages vs this page: [6]. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Judge

Have started page Mark Judge (writer). E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Should not Mark Judge be mentioned in this article? According to Professor Blasey, there were three people in the room: Blasey, Kavanaugh, and Judge. Both Kavanaugh and Judge deny that this incident ever occurred. Should not this be mentioned in this article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
He should be linked from this article. But but to his career of a modestly notable journalist and author of 2 books that attracted some attention (they are about his alcoholism as a young man, and his recovery,) I thought it a better idea to start a page. User:Joseph A. Spadaro, feel free to go ahead and link it where you think it appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:E.M.Gregory - he should be mentioned in the narrative (wherever it winds up) but should not have an article per WP:BLP1E. He is his own person but without what is this article’s topic had no article of his own — and if his article is limited to actually being about his life (I.e. excluding other than a 1 liner and wikilink to here)... ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Kavanaugh faces new accusations; Avenatti claims 'evidence' of 'targeting' women for gang rape

  • Chamberlain, Samuel (September 23, 2018), "Kavanaugh faces new accusations; Avenatti claims 'evidence' of 'targeting' women for gang rape", Fox News, retrieved September 24, 2018
  • Raymond, Adam K. (September 23, 2018), "Michael Avenatti Implicates Kavanaugh in Pattern of Teenage Sexual Assault", New York Magazine, retrieved September 24, 2018
  • Feldman, Kate (September 23, 2018), "Brett Kavanaugh and pals accused of gang rapes in high school, says lawyer Michael Avenatti", New York Daily News, retrieved September 24, 2018
  • Folley, Aris (September 23, 2018), "Avenatti says he has witnesses who can back sexual assault claims against Kavanaugh", The Hill, retrieved September 24, 2018
  • Abadi, Mark (September 23, 2018), "Michael Avenatti said he has 'significant evidence' that Brett Kavanaugh participated in sexual misconduct in high school", Business Insider, retrieved September 24, 2018
  • Everett, Burgess; Schor, Elana; Korecki, Natasha (September 23, 2018), "Kavanaugh confirmation in renewed peril after second assault claim", Politico, retrieved September 24, 2018, Avenatti told POLITICO he represents a group of individuals who can corroborate allegations involving Kavanaugh and his longtime friend in the 1980s. Avenatti said he'd describe just one of the individuals as a victim. He said the others were witnesses to the allegations.

Sagecandor (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Renaming to mention US Supreme Court

Hi friends! I propose we rename this to Brett Kavanaugh US Supreme Court nomination to clarify that this is talking about the United States. There are hundreds of Supreme Courts around the world and Wikipedia has a global audience, not just the US. I think that since the page got started without the "US" in it that we can add a redirect to Brett Kavanaugh US Supreme Court nomination from its current name. Anyone else in favor of this change? Thanks! -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

See names at Category:Nominations to the United States Supreme Court. Sagecandor (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Number 4?

https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/09/24/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-faces-more-allegations/ Casprings (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Lack of credibility and evidence

The current introduction does not include that Kavanaugh has denied the allegations. The only components present are that there is an allegation, that the White House has denied it, and that the two have been asked to testify. There should be a note that Kavanaugh has denied these allegations and there should be a discussion discussing the credibility and evidence presented by the accuser. Otherwise the reader of this article will not know how credible or evidence-based the claim is. Wikipedia is leaving out key details, which I hope is not an attempt of partisan bias. In order to make sure they are being fair to both sides of the debate, they should include important, left out details. These details include the following: - Kavanaugh's accuser didn't tell anyone about the incident at the time and did not go to the police. - Her first retelling of the story came in 2012, three decades after the alleged incident, in a spousal counseling session with a therapist. - She told the Washington Post that she doesn't remember key details of the night in question. - In addition, she doesn't remember the location or how she got to the party, or the date of the alleged encounter. - The notes of her therapist conflict with her statements about the evening as well. - Ford only came forward months after sending letters to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and contacting the Washington Post. - She originally didn't want to reveal her name or her story. - Feinstein didn't ask Kavanaugh about it in writing, or in closed or open hearings, and she didn't inform her fellow Democratic senators about the allegations; now she's reportedly attempting to prevent Republican senators from asking questions of Ford. Lawrencebeesly1912 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lawrencebeesly1912:, I'm not finding any evidence that Feinstein has been attempting to prevent Republican senators from questioning Ford. Can you provide a citation for that contention? I did find this, which is hardly definitive:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said Ford, who lives in California and has received numerous death threats, shouldn’t “be rushed" in her decision of when to testify. “Show some heart,” Feinstein said. “Wait until Dr. Ford feels that she can come before the committee.”[7]

That doesn't remotely demonstrate what you've alleged. I look forward to your response. Activist (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
That "preventing" allegation is just typical Fox News spin. Other sources were also repeating it, all of them fringe and unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey there @Activist! Thanks for taking interest in my post. First, thank you for providing a citation. Mentioning that Feinstein said “Wait until Dr. Ford feels that she can come before the committee.” means that she was trying to avoid the hearing proposed by Senate Republicans to hear from Ford and Kavanaugh. Using simple logic, this means she is attempting to bar Republicans from being able to question her. In addition, here’s an article from AP News: https://apnews.com/0cd952aedc474df893d50cb9bc9fb4e1

This article shows how Chuck Grassley is attempting to set up calls to Ford, and cites Feinstein’s rejection of such an idea. It appears she does not want members of the Republican Congress to talk with Ford.

Here’s another article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/17/feinstein-faces-gop-heat-for-sitting-on-kavanaugh-accusers-claims.html

A section from this article says, “The top Republican also accused Feinstein of refusing to help set up follow-up calls involving Kavanaugh and Ford, which he called "standard procedure" when there are updates to a nominee's background file.” "I asked Senator Feinstein’s office yesterday to join me in scheduling these follow-ups," Grassley wrote. "Thus far, they have refused. But as a necessary step in evaluating these claims, I’ll continue working to set them up." In response, all ten Democrats on the Judiciary Committee issued  a statement condemning Republicans for holding staff-level calls with Kavanaugh in the wake of the allegations, saying the FBI should investigate first.”

The abnormality of refusing to cooperate in setting up this call raises serious questions as to the Senate Democrats—notably Feinstein’s—actions. It appears they are trying to prevent Senate Republicans from speaking to her. I would love to hear your opinion on why it may be something else—great to hear your point of view! Just having difficult info drawing a different logical conclusion.

In summary, I think my entry should be changed. Instead of saying she’s “attempting to prevent Republican Senators from questioning Ford” it should read she’s “refusing to assist and public rejecting the idea of Republican Senators speaking with Ford, despite Republican Senators following standard procedure for updating a nominee’s background file.”

Thanks again for your interest! Would again love to hear your opinion on the updated section. Also, if you re-read your post, it has a slightly condescending tone. Let’s try to help each other present the most accurate, informative information to Wikipedia readers. No need for condescending undertones, we’re ‘’stronger together’’ as a team! Really looking forward to your response too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencebeesly1912 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of other RS which make it clear that this isn't about "preventing" it, so much as preventing the GOP from arbitrarily rushing the process without including all witnesses. Ford is willing to testify. She just wants a proper investigation with the FBI (as was done with Anita Hill. It took two days.) and including all witnesses, but Kavanaugh doesn't want an investigation. I wonder why. Instead, the GOP has been trying to rush it. Now Ford has at least gotten part of what she wants by waiting until Thursday. By then more can happen. There is no justification for rushing this. Monday was a totally arbitrary day. It's good Grassley finally agreed to wait. Not that anyone's testimony will make any difference: Lindsey Graham says "the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser won’t change his mind, no matter what she says." These men don't care about justice. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: So you've made a total of three posts in less than three days, Lawrencebeesly1912, since you first got an account, and you know all about Wikipedia already. Amazing! A regular savant! Activist (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

New woman comes out against Kavanaugh

New woman comes out against Kavanaugh - [8]. 46.70.206.132 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hearings at the judicial committee lasted 4 days ? seems wrong...

In the second paragraph of the lead section, we have this sentence: "... confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee began on September 4 and lasted four days, ending on September 7." That seems in absolute opposition to the fact that the hearings before the Judiciary Committee have not concluded yet? I'd change it myself, but I'm not familiar with these kind of hearings / proceedings, and so I wanted to check first. Thanks! Sean Heron (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is wrong. The hearings will continue on Thursday. We will only know it's over when the committee vote actually occurs.- MrX 🖋 12:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

3rd Woman

Should be hitting WP:RSe: https://twitter.com/michaelavenatti/status/1044960428730843136?s=21 Casprings (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ramirez Is Willing To Testify Before The Senate Judiciary Committee If Allowed

This has been confirmed by her attorney.[9] Please include this.2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Swetnick Is A Government Employee and Is Liable For Perjury if the Written Testimony Was False

She has been a longtime federal government employee and has a security clearance which would prompt an immediate investigation for potential perjury. See here[10] Please include this in the article as well.2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

1998 incident - Senate probes new misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh: NBC News

  1. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/senate-probes-new-misconduct-allegation-against-kavanaugh-nbc-news.html
  2. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/senate-probing-new-allegation-misconduct-against-kavanaugh-n913581

Sagecandor (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Something else to watch here: As more women appear, when is it time for a sub-page?

It appears we will soon have another. See: https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044006928416825344 and See: https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044013350873489409

When do we do a sub-page on this?Casprings (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably never. Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination is already a sub-page of Brett Kavanaugh. There won't be so much content to need a split. We certainly shouldn't split pre-emptively because Michael Avenatti promises a circus later this week. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Models exist, at Category:Sexual misconduct allegations, for consultation of organization and layout. Sagecandor (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think if you have three women you do something like Brett Kavanaugh sexual abuse allegations... are you saying this wouldn't meet WP:N? I think it is there now.Casprings (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
This article def needs a split: at the rate things are going, it seems most likely that the majority of this page will be about his assault allegations, and a jumbled mess as a result. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

And on the circus, if this is what he has: https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044032678951960576 .. Yeah, we need an article. Crystal, right now, but Jesus. Casprings (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It's probably best to start with a section about "Sexual assault allegations" and then spin off most of the content when it becomes large enough to create an undue weight problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The Avenatti claims should not be treated with any degree of WP:DUE until something comes of them. There is no question that the other allegations have WP:WEIGHT, but these other claims for which Avenatti is essentially the source should not be given any mention per WP:BLPGOSSIP until there is some sort of follow-through. Just because the media jumps all over something does not mean that Wikipedia editors need not show any restraint. Have we all forgotten that this Avenatti character also claimed to have three more women clients to come forward against Trump who he alleged were paid hush money, who never came forth?[11] Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course not, until he produces something and based on how WP:RSes view it. That said, if he has something credible and WP:RS's view it as that, of course it should be included. Casprings (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand whether you are agreeing with me or not. I am saying that we should have absolutely no mention of what Michael Avenatti alleges because 1) regardless of the fact that CNN and other WP:RS might run with it, as long as he's the one making the claim, he's essentially the source for it, and 2) he has made similar claims in the past and failed to produce. Furthermore, cables news networks and other otherwise reliable WP:RS will frequently run with stories like this that clearly would not make it to Wikipedia under WP:BLPGOSSIP. Therefore, I am saying that we should exercise caution in including anything that comes from Michael Avenatti. If Ronan Farrow said he had multiple clients saying the same thing, that would be a very different story. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I should've clarified. I'm saying the section that mentions a "third allegation," presumably the Avenatti one, should be removed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Think that while it is putatively part of the confirmations it belongs as part of this article. It does not exist separately and this article could not just skip it, so it should not be a separate article. The precedent of Clarence Thomas is that way. It also gets very iffy in scope if split off and messy arguments with content thereby offending everyone and informing none —- would it just be allegations and thus verge into an attack page; would it have to include counter-accusations of the women and veer that way; would it include protests; would it include the accusations of last-second reveals being just a slimy election move; etcetera ... Lots of such exist out there, but. Let’s just not go there at this time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2018

Add alleged victim's last name to allegations headings, e.g. First Allegation -> First Allegation (Ford), Second Allegation -> Second Allegation (Ramierez) , Third Allegation -> Third Allegation (Swetnick). Happyaspie (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest using the same headings as at the Brett Kavanaugh article:
  • Christine Blasey Ford
  • Deborah Ramirez
  • Julie Swetnick
Numbering the allegations is a bit odd. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 Done, have left the fourth allegation as "Fourth allegation" as there's no name at this point. Fish+Karate 10:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

More info on the use of a "female sex-crimes prosecutor" needed

I believe that the article should include information regarding the fact that a female sex-crimes prosecutor, referred to as a "female assistant," will take the place of the Republican senators. This is noteworthy because it has been strongly objected to by Ford's lawyer and the Democratic senators who will conduct the questioning. [12] Gandydancer (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I just added a brief mention of Rachel Mitchell to the September 27 section, but more development and sourcing is needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Misc. Kavanaugh Images

Mostly from meetings with senators.

Had been hoping to find something usable for a photo of the hearings themselves, but didn't turn up anything useful with the appropriate licensing/copyright. DirkDouse (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't CSPAN be free? Volunteer Marek 18:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
These photos are published by the White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/remarkable-career-photos-judge-kavanaugh-testify-senate/ Victor Grigas (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Arrests

How many anarchists have been arrested so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.47.42 (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

At least 277, according to the NPR source (article already updated with info as of a few days ago thanks to User:Leaky.Solar). DirkDouse (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the terminology you're using is appropriate. (People here would typically point out that Wikipedia is not a Soapbox - WP:SOAP - that is, it's not intended for people to proclaim their views or opinions). What you're referring to is Civil Disobedience. Sean Heron (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous allegations

Preserving here by providing this link. I believe it's better to stick to the named accusers for now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Re-removing; here's the diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Kavanaugh discussed it in his testimony today. Sagecandor (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Reorganising in a manner that promotes one side ? (edit by Leaky.Solar)

I guess I'd normally just undo (or reshuffle in some manner) this kind of edit, but since American Politics is under Discretionary Sanctions, and I certainly don't want to start any wheel warring or such, I thought it better to raise the issue here first: In this edit, User:Leaky.Solar introduced some welcome structure to the section, but at the same time pushed down all the support for Ford and the others that have brought forward accusations against Kavanaugh. (Plus I don't understand what the "Investigation" heading is supposed to mean / refer to). Dunno where exactly to go with that now... Maybe someone else here has some good suggestions :), regards Sean Heron (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The Investgation section seems to be for those advocating FBI should do more investigation. The other sections are supporting one of the people. Cheers

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Catholic magazine un-endorses Brett Kavanaugh, American Bar Association demands an FBI investigation

Sagecandor (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

America: The Jesuit Review concluded, "For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson." Sagecandor (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz: Postpone Kavanaugh confirmation until FBI can investigate accusations against him

Sagecandor (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Swetnick

Nothing useful here, some BLP problems here I think Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

<redacted>.--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The Gateway Pundit is not a reliable source. See WP:RS.- MrX 🖋 12:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

<redacted>.--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything we need to keep from this section, or can it be cut out wholesale ? Since it's basically just unsubstantiated snark, as far as I can tell (without looking into it). I'm thinking along the lines of WP:SOAP here (collapsing rather than cutting out might be a good alternative..). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed most of the details. It is an unquestionable BLP violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

American Bar Association

If anyone is reading this Wikipedia article, it seems really important to include that the American Bar association gave Brett Kavanaugh the highest rating saying , as Senator Graham pointed out, " “His integrity is absolutely unquestioned."

Also that the American Bar association has written (see Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-requests-to-delay-brett-kavanaugh-vote-until-fbi-investigates.html ) that the ABA has written to Chairman Grassley asking for an FBI investigation of Christine Ford's allegations before Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, writing about the Supreme Court, "It must remain an institution that will reliably follow the law."

I am going to have a go at adding this section, any valid editors welcome to modify or delete if not npov though I think it is.

Actually, no I won't but someone please decide soon because the voting members of Congress will be waking up soon. Createangelos (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I can understand your concern (I have similar qualms making changes :P ). Did you see that in the "Nomination" section, it already says that the ABA gives Kavanaugh their highest rating (whatever that means) ?
I guess the point that the ABA asked for an FBI investigation might make for a good addition - not sure where I'd fit that in though (I don't think I'd make a separate section for it). Actually, come to think of it - under "Support and investigations" there is a heading "investigations" where according to what I got as a reply above, statements supporting an investigation are mentioned. I guess that might be an appropriate spot?
Regards, and don't over worry on making additions (I don't think others do either :P ), Sean Heron (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Createangelos and Sean Heron, should be added to the article, such an addition to ABA statement is unprecedented in United States history. Sagecandor (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, good that I waited. Now I see that it was the president of the ABA somehow speaking on behalf of the ABA, rather then reporting on a resolution.Createangelos (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Senator Flake wants the floor vote delayed for a one week FBI investigation

Despite the fact that Kavanaugh made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Flake made it clear it would not proceed with his support until after the floor vote is delayed for one week to make room for an FBI investigation.2601:447:4101:41F9:19F9:F6EE:D3E:6B13 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this update. Sagecandor (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I why user Obsidi made an edit mentioning Flake and then erased it. I also sent a message to this user and have so far received no response. I would like to see Flake's FBI investigation request restored please.2601:447:4101:41F9:19F9:F6EE:D3E:6B13 (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed my prior edit as it included a committee vote, I hadn't realized someone else had already added that (I thought it was just the vote to not delay the committee vote). I added back in Flake's request as well as the Senate Republican Leadership's agreement to that request. -Obsidi (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Swing vote Senators Lisa Murkowski (R) and Joe Manchin (D) have backed Flake's request as well

This is very interesting. Here are at least two sources backing this[13][14]2601:447:4101:41F9:19F9:F6EE:D3E:6B13 (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  • OBE - not a good idea to chase events and this seems wrong, but no edit was proposed and the above is OBE by actual results. It has been referred back to FBI for limited period of up to 1 week investigation. Not stated as a delay in vote. Not clear to me as yet what date the full senate vote would tentatively now occur. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Order of Jesuit's America Magazine has withdrawn its support for Kavanaugh

They had been major supporters of his nomination for Supreme Court Justice since July and felt that he would overturn Roe v. Wade[15] Here is also the original article from yesterday.[16]2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

ABA Has WEIGHT, but this seems not due any mention. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

New Article with new victim

This article has two major points. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

  1. It has another victim that names him during college. A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that's not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.” She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. “I wasn’t going to touch a penis until I was married,” she said. “I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.” She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there.”
  1. Brings into doubt Mark Judges story. After seeing Judge’s denial, Elizabeth Rasor, who met Judge at Catholic University and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that “ ‘no horseplay’ took place at Georgetown Prep with women.” Rasor stressed that “under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t reveal information that was told in confidence,” but, she said, “I can’t stand by and watch him lie.” In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, “Mark told me a very different story.” Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated. But Rasor was disturbed by the story and noted that it undercut Judge’s protestations about the sexual innocence of Georgetown Prep. (Barbara Van Gelder, an attorney for Judge, said that he “categorically denies” the account related by Rasor. Van Gelder said that Judge had no further comment.) Another woman who attended high school in the nineteen-eighties in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Georgetown Prep is located, also refuted Judge’s account of the social scene at the time, sending a letter to Ford’s lawyers saying that she had witnessed boys at parties that included Georgetown Prep students engaging in sexual misconduct. In an interview, the woman, who asked to have her name withheld for fear of political retribution, recalled that male students “would get a female student blind drunk” on what they called “jungle juice”—grain alcohol mixed with Hawaiian Punch—then try to take advantage of her. “It was disgusting,” she said. “They treated women like meat.” Casprings (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, this is an interesting development. It should make for a lively week ahead.- MrX 🖋 00:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Sagecandor (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Technically, you posted too much from the newspaper article - this is a copyright violation. An Admin should have addressed this - in future, please be more careful.104.169.41.8 (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Spin off: Brett Kavanaugh sexual abuse allegations

I would suggest it is time to get this started. The WP:Weight in this article is already too large and keeps growing. It is time for a Wikipedia:Spinoff.Casprings (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I realise the article is still developing, but you seem to have suggested this (multiple times?) above already. To the point - the hearings, at the moment, are about little other than the sexual abuse allegations (whether that is warranted, or to your or my liking is not the point - that's the way it is) - and have overall been a highly significant issue as well. So cutting them out of here would not be giving them their due weight. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not in favor of a spinoff at this point. The material is not very lengthy, and I don't think we should make it so by adding more detail. If other accusers come forth, we may have to consider creating a new article, but at this point it fits well here.- MrX 🖋 12:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. WP:Spinoff refers the reader to WP:Article size.
  2. WP:Article size says: Total article size should be kept reasonably low, because many readers use low-speed connections including dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections. The text on a 32 kB page takes about five seconds to load for editing on a dial-up connection, with accompanying images taking additional time, so pages significantly larger than this are difficult for older browsers to display.
  3. This article, Brett Kavanaugh sexual abuse allegations, is currently at 77.6 kB.
  4. This article would seem to be over the size limit recommended, per WP:Article size.

Sagecandor (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sagecandor, see WP:SIZERULE, which says that having "< 40 kB" of readable prose size means that "Length alone does not justify division"; the readable prose size of this article is 27 kB. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Still will start to load slower on pages, and is over double the recommended size for better loading. Sagecandor (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is part of the confirmations, so belongs here. As mentioned above, any separate article with scope outside just confirmation process gets into difficult questions on what scope and has a lot of yucky bits - counter accusations against the women, claims that stage-managed late appearance is just a slimy election move, bits about it being Stormy Daniels lawyer, protests in various venues ... and no NPOV means including all the mud in due WEIGHT. The parts outside confirmation scope belonging to this article are not significant and problematic, so let’s not go there for now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Mark's comments. Plus, let's face it - some of these accusations are so bizarre they beggar the imagination.104.169.41.8 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Rhode Island , 1985 allegation

CBS News is reporting another allegation out of R.I. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-judiciary-committee-asked-kavanaugh-about-2-new-claims-of-sexual-assault-1998-1985/ Happyaspie (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  • EXCLUDE — it apparently was asked about in the confirmation process, but minimal coverage so think leave it out for now based on WEIGHT. At most it would be a 1 liner just mentioning asked of other suggested allegations, and what could one say? Just seems not much can come from “anonymous letter about an anonymous person and an anonymous friend” that “contained no names, no address, and no contact info”. Nor from a phone call of someone who says he beat up somebody in 1985 and recognized photos now as being him. (Without evidence of photographic memory, that a brief encounter is visually remembered 33 years later... ). Precedent from Trump allegations was to not show at least one of the accusations on credibility concerns, so these might be excluded if judged as crank reports — but here seems WEIGHT is too low to need to look at it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude, and exclude anonymous allegations in general. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude. Fringy stuff is coming out without any substance at all. 104.169.41.8 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Floor vote now officially delayed, as GOP Senators have now agreed to ask for an FBI probe of Kavanaugh

While there is currently no update on the White House's position, GOP Senators have finally caved in to demands for an FBI probe.[17] The Senate Judiciary Committee will now ask President Trump to order the FBI to commence with the probe.[18]2601:447:4101:41F9:19F9:F6EE:D3E:6B13 (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC) The floor vote has been delayed as well.[19]2601:447:4101:41F9:19F9:F6EE:D3E:6B13 (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It’s an investigation of one week, not necessarily a vote delay. Flake said investigation and could delay vote “up to” but not more than a week... but he doesn’t set votes, and there was no reported vote schedule. Would need to have a prior fixed vote date and a new vote date to know if the vote itself gets delayed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
However, now that Mitchell has consented to delay, it is a delay.104.169.41.8 (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes,and I have since then seen Reuters say delay to the end of the following week (5 October?) before further discussions, so they say delay of at least one week (not Flakes “up to” one week). The length of time that discussions will then take is TBD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hearing

This section needs to be much expanded... maybe even deserves an article of its own, since it was pretty historic. Volunteer Marek 05:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Think it should remain here — it’s a large part of the confirmation, and does not exist as any separate topic outside the confirmation, and neither bit is going to be as meaningful with the context split up. I think this principle would shift only if size becomes an issue, so until and unless the content here forces a split, no. Markbassett (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Worst polling ever sentence.

@ContentEditman:, you have now reverted negative BLP information on to this page [20] what I believe is blatantly false information unsupported by even 3 of the 4 sources you cite for support (that Kavanaugh has "the lowest polling rating of any Supreme Court nomination since such polls have been taken"). I remind you that per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. and If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. I would also note that the sentence doesn't occur on the main Brett Kavanaugh page. Lets go through each of those sources cited:

  1. The Fox News source says it is the lowest "going back to 2005." Obviously polling was done before 2005.
  2. The Washington Times source you cite says he has a higher polling than Robert Bork.
  3. The NY magazine (assuming that is a RS) says the "worst numbers for the poll going back to 2005." While noting sources that say Robert Bork (before 2005) had worse polling.
  4. Only the USA Today source cited supports the sentence (and it doesn't mention how it came to that conclusion).

This was explained in the edit which removed the sentence you reverted[21]. Other reliable sources such as fivethirtyeight say that, the Fox News polls has Harriet Miers with a higher poll rating, and the Gallop polling has Robert Bork with a higher rating.

Can you please explain why you think this sentence is WP:Verifiable? -Obsidi (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


This has several sources that are reliable and proper. This also has conscious here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh#Polls Since these are WP:RS and there is conscious it should stay. ContentEditman (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the sources support the statement you have added. And consensus on a different page about different text in a different context is irrelevant. -Obsidi (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I started just adding after “since polling began” the date “in 2005”. But on second thought deleted the line as failing WP:LEAD - editing into the lead before any such content in the body. It is also a bit WP:OFFTOPIC since polls are not part of the article’s topic nomination process. It would have to be shown to be having some effect e.g. to voting, and to show WEIGHT of coverage. Right now, it just seems a factoid or side note. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This has wide consensus already on main page for Kavanaugh. If you want to edit the language that is one thing but removal would be against the consensus and can get you banned for edit warring and editing against the consensus. ContentEditman (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I edited the language to match the Washington Times since a complaint was brought up about the language and matching the reference. They have polling data going back to 1987 and compared it to Bork. "He has had the lowest level of support in Gallup polling for any potential justice since Robert Bork, the last nominee to be voted down by the Senate in 1987." ContentEditman (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, there, you solved the WP:Verifiability problems. But don't claim "wide consensus" that doesn't exist, that is WP:Disruptive editing.
  1. The talk on the main page concerned this sentence "Polling has shown that Kavanaugh has the lowest approval rating of any Supreme Court nominee in the modern era with the exception of Harriet Miers." That is not the the text on this page. The current text on the main page is "Between September 10 and 16, 2018, Kavanaugh had the highest opposition (42%) of any of the eleven Supreme Court nominees Gallup has polled about since Robert Bork in 1987." You cannot claim consensus for your preferred text when it has not been considered by the community.
  2. The text on the main page is not in the WP:LEAD, as such the context is different. Additionally, this page has different WP:WEIGHT considerations than the main page. As such, any consensus on the main page, even if it existed, would not apply to a different context such as this one.
Now that you have fixed the WP:V problems, in my opinion, lets discuss the WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD problems. From a WP:LEAD standpoint the lead should be a summary of its most important contents. I don't see where polling is discussed elsewhere in the article and as such it should not be in the WP:LEAD. I think there are substantial WP:WEIGHT questions, given that polling it appears to be irrelevant trivia, and so per WP:NOTEVERYTHING Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. . -Obsidi (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • User:ContentEditman - Just that it is not a lead bit for here. Thank you for pointing out it is from his BLP, but it lacks consensus there. And I note 2005 seems to refer to Harriet Miers had lower numbers. But changing the line to have “since Harriet Miers in 2005” and “according to Gallup” with link to the poll, so it ceases to be misstating ... does not fix the deletion reason of failing WP:LEAD. It is justnot proper to put things into the lead summary of article that are not a major part of the article — and this was not in the article at all. Frankly, this is only conveying that at this time, a Trump nominee of conservative bent under accusation polled poorly. Rather a small detail and not surprising or informative, so more a minor mention if anything. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC on sexual threesome "Devil's Triangle" ongoing here

RFC relevant to this page. Casprings (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Reports of Kavanaugh's testimony on his drinking behaviour being untruthful

There's people claiming both sides (both that his description of his drinking habits at Yale was truthful and that it was not), but the fact itself (ie that it is disputed) still could be included in the article, I think. Reporting is here for example.

Names I've seen claiming he was a heavy drinker: Most prominent in reporting - Chad Ludington (eg in the nytimes article I linked above) Others: Lynne Brookes & Dr. Elizabeth Swisher (likely not a reliable source, just where I saw the names).

Names claiming his description was truthful: Chris Dudley (also in the nytimes article). I'm sure there's more, just not stumbled over any yet.

Regards Sean Heron (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Converting portions of the article lead to section leads

The current former article lead is was getting pretty long, and very important sections do not yet have leads as of this writing. I've just copied the final three paragraphs of the current article lead down as a new section lead for the #Sexual assault allegations section of the article. It now seems sensible to trim some of the newly duplicated prose from the article lead, with the caveat being that other prose should also be trimmed. It appears as though the sexual allegations portion of the current article lead makes up about 60% of the prose (which seems about right, at the moment). -- RobLa (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Just had a look at the article's lead, looks pretty good to me ! Sean Heron (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! I forgot to update this comment right after I made the changes, but we call compare it to the old version at rev 862055662 from yesterday immediately before I made the change. -- RobLa (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Kavanaugh Was Questioned by Police After Bar Fight in 1985

Seems important to the article: Kavanaugh Was Questioned by Police After Bar Fight in 1985 https://nyti.ms/2xUsgvG?smid=nytcore-ios-share Casprings (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

How is that important? I was a witness to an armed robbery, doesn't make me an armed robber. -Obsidi (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Because he clearly lied to Congress about his drinking.Casprings (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how this demonstrates that he lied about anything. -Obsidi (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be a good example. If you were questioned over an armed robbery because it was alleged you were the getaway driver, this is much more than simply being a witness regardless of semantics over whether we can call you an armed robber. And it is alleged that Kavanaugh was more than a witness. However this does seem too minor to be included at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead photo

@Volunteer Marek:, regarding this edit, what makes that photo WP:UNDUE? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The photo seems back, of him and family with Trump in the rose garden nomination presser. ???? Maybe an oops transient there? It seems an appropriate one to start with, no reason I can see to pull it. Also.... As it was present since 11 July, I think it is “long-standing” content so by some discussions it is a de facto consensus that would require TALK to remove. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It's basically a propaganda photo making it UNDUE for the lede. Volunteer Marek 05:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
It's historically relevant and every other page has one. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
It is a photo of the nomination occurring, that makes it the most relevant image for this page. -Obsidi (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
What's "every other page"? And photos from the hearings are probably more relevant. Also, why are people restoring it after it's been challenged? Volunteer Marek 04:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems like the general consensus is to keep it since you're the only one who has a problem with the image for some reason. Would you mind explaining in detail why you think the image is propaganda? It seems completely neutral to me. Databased (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Calling this photo "propaganda" is complete nonsense. This is an article about "Brett Kavanaugh's SC nomination," and the photo is of him being nominated. His calling the photo "challenged" is transparent WP:GAMING - he's trying to say it's "challenged" so that editors have to go through a whole rigamarole in the talk page to revert him. Future attempts to remove it, clearly contrary to consensus, should simply be treated as vandalism. It's a shame that such disruptive edits divert time and energy from other contributors who are making real improvements to the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Check out the other SCOTUS nomination pages. Most of them have that photo at the top. Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Kagan, Alito. The Harriet Miers and John Roberts pages have it the body. Even the Robert Bork article has a photo of him with Reagan at the top. (Is that from his nomination press conference?) We could add the photo of Obama with Merrick Garland to that article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

FBI Investigation Update

We have a section about the FBI investigation. This article has a good summary of what's going on so far.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/03/who-fbi-has-spoken-kavanaugh-inquiry-who-it-hasnt/?utm_term=.0b1d10c177cd

It may be better to just wait until the report is finished or released. The current section is very NEWS-y, but that's to be expected. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

As I guess everyone now knows, the report has now been finished. A complicating factor is that there's a fair chance we're only going to hear very limited snippets of what the report says filtered by politicians [22]. Given the currently highly divided nature of US politics, I'm not sure if we're likely to get a very good picture. While this is the norm for these sort of reports, they don't generally receive nearly as much attention as this one has. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
[23] Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Rachel Mitchell

I'm having a bit of a back and forth with Valoem on my talk page, about Rachel Mitchell's memo to the Senate Republicans, and it'll probably be better to discuss this here where more people are watching and will comment. Valoem wishes to give more importance to her memo and state its conclusions prominently apparently because it is an official government report? Which it is not. While her conclusions can be stated here, there is no indication that it is of especial importance to be given a lot of WP:WEIGHT Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I am saying this letter certainly hold enough weight to be included in the article per NPOV. It is an official letter from a public committee hearing. She believes there is not enough evidence and pursue further charges. It was not worded correctly and could be reworded, but certainly it warrants inclusion in these articles. Valoem talk contrib 13:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not disputing that it warrants inclusion in this article (and I have not removed it, just trimmed and reworded as you've said) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fine to include her memo. Her participation was a big part of the Ford hearing. Surely her summary and recommendations are appropriate to include. Here is a good piece by a WaPo columnist about the impact of the memo - titled "Rachel Mitchell expertly eviscerates the case against Kavanaugh." Mr Ernie (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty clear that we should not use primary sources (especially things like court records, legal filing, and other public documents) to make assertions about living people. Citing secondary reliable sources that discuss the document might be reasonable, but Wikipedia should be upfront about the origin of the document: it's not a legal finding, it's a partisan report. It would be a pretty mind-blowing tactical error if the prosecutor chosen by Republicans to write this report had torpedoed their nominee.
Regarding the editorial the Mr. Ernie mentions: some sources have been critical of Mitchell's work (this) and others have praised it, but the perceptions fall largely along partisan lines. If analysis of the report's impact is included, it should cover the controversy without overemphasizing one viewpoint. Nblund talk 21:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The report should be included as her opinion (as it is a prominent enough opinion that it is worth mentioning), it should be attributed to her and not in WP voice. -Obsidi (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Time to archive

We should start archiving when talk page exceeds 75 KB (per WP:TALKCOND), we are currently at 85KB. Trying to get consensus on the parameters. Given how active this talk page is, I'm suggesting that threads are stale 14 days after the last comment. I would suggest the following parameters: 

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(14d)
| archive             = Talk:Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 150K
| archiveheader       = {{aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 2
| minthreadsleft      = 2
}}

-Obsidi (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. 14 days is probably only going to cut 5 or 6 threads at the moment, but it'll start to make a dent and given the activity it's IMO fine to hang around the 75 KB mark. While I don't care that much, I don't personally see the need for 2 for minthreadstoarchive. This is a fairly active page, but not so active that archiving one at a time will make that big a deal, remembering that it's only once a day at most. It'll probably be better to get them off as soon as the time is up, to reduce ill advised followups as many of do at times. Nil Einne (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on the lack of further commentary and since this is something we should preferably deal with soon, I've gone ahead with the original proposal. I believe it may take up to a day for anything to happen even if there's still stuff covered. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also added the automatic archiving notice. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this is reasonable as well. 68.33.74.179 (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

President Trump apologizes to Kavanaugh on "behalf of our nation"

Here is some additional info regarding the Supreme Court nomination:

  • Trump apologizes to Kavanaugh on 'behalf of our nation,' says judge 'proven innocent'. In October 2018, President Trump stated during the White House ceremonial swearing-in for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, "On behalf of our nation, I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure," and added that the confirmation process was based on "lies and deception." He further stated "You, sir, under historic scrutiny, were proven innocent." Trump offered this "unusual apology" to the Kavanaugh and his family due to his experience during the confirmation process.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-apologizes-behalf-nation-kavanaugh-says-he-was-proven-innocent-n917956

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/president-trump-apologizes-to-brett-kavanaugh-and-his-family-at-ceremonial-swearing-in-as-supreme-court-justice

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-kavanaugh-20181008-story.html

~ Bought the farm (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Cloture Vote

Vote for cloture was passed, 51-49.

Source page:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-clears-crucial-senate-hurdle/ar-BBNXLDT?ocid=ientp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aridantassadar (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't fix this because the page is protected, but the reference to the "nuclear option" as "a rule change made by the Senate Republican majority in April 2017" is factually incorrect, as can be seen by visiting the linked "nuclear option" article. Should read "a rule change made by the Senate Democrat[ic] majority in November 2013". (Not sure on the style for "Democrat" vs "Democratic" majority, and honestly, not sure about "rule change" - isn't it more an abuse of existing rules? But I guess that's more germane to the other article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalopeura (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I would add the word have to line that ends with footnote 167

Under 'Hearing' section, third paragraph starts with sentence 'After the hearing Mitchell produced a memo stating "there is no clear standard of proof during the Senate confirmation process" and said she would not press charges against Kavanaugh.'

I would change that to 'said she would not have pressed charges' since I'm quite certain she had no jurisdiction to 'charge' anyone. Or explain if that is her direct quote then use the term (sic) to indicate it is what she said but show also that the statement is offbase in that legally she has no ability to press any charge(s).

Regardless, I believe many readers will misinterpret that section of the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.191.153 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Changes Needed

Senate Confirmation Process "His nomination is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds 11 Republican members and 10 Democratic members." Julie Swetnick https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/swetnick-walks-back-her-initial-sworn-statement/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-if-julie-swetnick-lied-she-should-be-tried-for-perjury-and-sent-to-prison There is a mountain of evidence showing this person is not a trustworthy source. Alan Dershowitz is a Liberal Democrat. A little more could be added here. The last part of the article needs major revision. Including the final vote added. The final 3 heading needs revision. Easeltine (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Done.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Daniel.Cardenas, those are not RS. They are extremely partisan. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Forget that. I assumed you had installed those sources. Carry on. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
National Review is partisan but reliable, much like Huffington Post, Slate, Salon, ore Daily Beast. Let's not discard a reliable source simply because it's partisan. Washington Examiner, on the other hand, is not reliable. 107.211.130.74 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I trust you are sharing your personal opinion with us but that's not how we determine whether a source is determined to be a reliable source. We typically would have some extensive discussion at RSN, probably also with an RFC if we, as a community, had reached such a conclusion. I glanced at RSN and forgive me if I missed something, but I don't see any such conclusion there. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Polls - part of opposition or part of nomination ?

Silly but -- having trouble sorting out whether the below is reflective of opposition and in timeline, or is part of Nomination process at the end.

In September 2018, Kavanaugh had the lowest polling rating of any Supreme Court nomination since Robert Bork in 1987. snip Refs: Fox News Poll: Record number of voters oppose Kavanaugh nomination Kavanaugh support slips as public believes accuser Polls: Kavanaugh's Popularity Hits New Lows After Ford Accusation Brett Kavanaugh faces unprecedented opposition to Supreme Court confirmation

Discuss please, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion


  • This is not an opposition group or piece, it is a general poll and part of the process that shows what level of support someone has.

@Markbassett: You are also in violation that you must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article per discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. You need to self revert without consensus. ContentEditman (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

ContentEditman - thank you for contacting me, however note technically we both have only done one revert and I opened a TALK section at the article, so not a 1RR claim. Suggest just state your placement logic and accept where others say this belongs. I do note 30 September we were involved with similar material that was in LEAD see TALK [[24]]. However now I am discussing simply moving the one line up a section.
Polling is simply not part of the nomination process. I shifted it up to the preceeding 'Opposition' timeline as the only section that seemed a possible placement for talking public opinion. Let folks say where to place it (if at all) and move along. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: You did 3 edits, 2 cumulative and obvious reverts when you knew this was discussed on the talk pages before. Your multiple edits do not have consensus and should be reverted until its gained. ContentEditman (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
ContentEditman I'm not aware of a previous TALK similar to this other than the 29 September Worst polling ever sentence of User:Obsidri, from you reverting it back into lead and issues of editing into LEAD without article content, plus side-noted it as having issues of factually incorrect and poor cite, and then question of WEIGHT. I agreed and snipped it out of lead and you then reverted it back in on 30 September, Obsidri removed it again and you then put it down lower. I only noticed it this week as looking misplaced and shifted it up a section without alteration. I'd tend to regard the earlier one as a LEAD or Delete discussion, but can see if you view it as an ongoing where-does-thisgo discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
ContentEditman, this article is not under the restriction; Brett Kavanaugh is under the restriction while Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination isn't Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter, This is a Sub-article and is considered under it. "The article Brett Kavanaugh, along with other pages perceived at the discretion of an administrator to have a high potential for continuous disruption and which relate to topic of post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS)." Sub-articles related to the main in line also fall under it, hence the "along with other pages perceived" added to the post-1932 politics. ContentEditman (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
ContentEditman, this article is under discretionary sanctions, but not under the specific page restriction of 1RR which has to be specifically and separately imposed by an admin for each page Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter, This topic was started on the Brett Kavanaugh Talk page and Markbassett was part of that. He was not happy and came and started to edit war on this Sub-Article. They are directly related and covered by the post-1932 politics and he is aware. ContentEditman (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination#Worst_polling_ever_sentence and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh#Polls added ContentEditman (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Markbassett: I'm not sure what you mean by "nomination process." Strictly speaking, most of the page is about what happened after Kavanaugh was nominated, i.e., about the process to get him confirmed and appointed. The reaction of the public, as expressed by demonstrations and opinions voiced when polled (e.g RealClearPolitics), is also noteworthy and should be included, maybe as a new section "Public reaction" or "Public response" following "Responses from notable organizations and persons." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Space4Time3Continuum2x - I should have more properly said "nomination & confirmation process" or just "Confirmation process" as I was referring to the title for part of the article, viewing that as being the place for official actions of the President and the Senate. (See Google and Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States).
I put it at Responses/Nomination/Opposition, in between an August item and a 2 October item, Here
Another editor wants it at the bottom of Responses/Senate Confirmation process, here.
Welcome any views you might have on this. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I made some bold edits to the section. Having two sections with the same title was confusing, and the one under Responses by Notable Persons and Organizations had content that was either duplicated elsewhere or was not about this particular nomination/confirmation. I plan to expand the newly named "Public reactions and responses" section - there were many of them and they are ongoing, but I don't have the time right now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

SC judges Ginsburg, Kagan, Thomas (Responses from notable organizations and persons)

Expanding on edit summary for deletion of paragraph: They're are not so much "responses" to this particular nomination, but rather all three judges talking about how the confirmation process in general has changed (although I'm not altogether sure about Thomas; he was mostly quibbling about Senator Booker's choice of word). Kagan's "tit-for-tat" quote in context: But Kagan said that for the last four Supreme Court nominees, herself included, each only received a smattering of votes from senators of the opposing party. “There is so much tit-for-tat that goes on in these processes,” Kagan said. “Everybody has their list of times that they’ve been wronged. The Republicans have their list, and the Democrats have their list, and they seem to be over time ratcheting up the level of conflict rather than trying to find ways to ratchet it down.” (Examiner) Ginsburg compared recent confirmations with hers in 1993 and Scalia's in 1986 (HuffPo). Also, all three made their remarks before the sexual assault/harassment accusations were made public and before Kavanaugh threw a temper tantrum and pretty much voiced a conspiracy theory when he was interviewed again at the end of the September. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Feinstein action (or lack thereof)

I haven't been involved in the editing of this article, but a reader wrote to Wikimedia (ticket:2018100810006758 ) noting the omission of the fact that Feinstein was in receipt of the forward complaint on July 30 yet "sat on it" for weeks. This is a major issue, as it led to several subsequent events. I think this needs to be incorporated in this article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick - if you have an edit in mind, propose it or just WP:BOLD do it. Caution that you will need good cites for this and it must be in due WP:WEIGHT of how prominent the coverage said this - and use the phrasing they did. The "sat on it" is a bit negative way to phrase holding it, so may or may not be the WEIGHT view on events, just follow the cites. But please be restrained in whatever. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I fail to understand why so much article space has been devoted to the three accusers' stories in the Brett Kavanaugh biography when their accusations are thoroughly explored here. For comparison, imagine a Barack Obama biography with an enormous amount of space devoted to "birther" conspiracy theories and his relationships with Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. We don't need such an extensive review of the allegations in both articles. 107.211.130.74 (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I also feel much of this is not really biographical material - parts are not a life choice by him or enduring effect on his life - and belongs instead at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. If you have a specific edit in mind then go ahead and propose it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Markbassett, I've made the conscious decision to stay away from politically sensitive articles as much as possible, so I'll start with thanks to any editor who does have the gumption to wade in. I posted, not because I noticed this issue, but because I'm an active OTRS agent, trying to help field inquiries and requests from readers. Ironically, it is not uncommon that someone writes in telling us there is some problem with such and such an article, and I have to bite my tongue and not tell them what I really think — that if they care, they should become an editor and actually edit, not just point out problems. So I sort of feel bad that I'm essentially doing that myself. I do appreciate the challenges of editing this article and I understand it would make your life a lot easier if I proposed a specific edit with solid citations or actually made that edit myself. However, I felt the person who contacted us was making two excellent points (which I'm going to paraphrase in my own words). For many subjects we have a single article, so anything relevant to that subject belongs in the article. We have here a situation where we have one article which is a biography about the subject, and a separate article about the nomination process. As is done in many parallel situations, the narrow subject matter (the nomination), ought to have a thorough discussion of the relevant issues. The biography of the person should have a very abbreviated summary — probably a paragraph, coupled with an internal link identifying that there is more information at a related article. If we follow the standard approach which I see repeated in hundreds of situations, I think it is likely that we would have in-depth discussion of the various allegations in the nomination article, while the biography itself would obviously mention the nomination, but if the allegations are mentioned they would be an extremely minor point. Do you disagree?
In the context of the nomination article, the decision by Feinstein (which of course must be characterized neutrally) had significant ramifications, and the omission is not just an omission it's an egregious omission. Again, I fully understand your request that I help by providing proposed edits, but this nomination was one of the most watched events in history, so I am certain that there are some editors who know exactly what I'm talking about but are brave enough to help fix it. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Sphilbrick - thanks for the background. I'm also not inclined, at least not casually. There may be WEIGHT of coverage in the narrative about her, something like 'Feinstein was criticized by Republicans senators for sitting on the letter, alleging that she had timed leaking it as an exploitation to generate election support."' Grasley and Graham said it in the big broadcast of 27 September hearings, and McConnell and Trump have echoed it repeatedly, so reports and analysis are out there. It's not something I would want to just edit it, it's more something to start a RFC to TALK through. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Markbassett, We don't typically start an RFC until his been substantial discussion without resolution. So far, I've made a suggestion you not inclined to work on it but that is far, far short of the usual amount of discussion that precedes an RFC. if you don't want to work on it, that's fine, but so far I see zero editors making a case that it doesn't belong in the article. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think we need to respond to the email author; if they feel strongly about this, they should register an account and participate. Separately, Feinstein did not "sit" on the letter; she did not share it at Ford's request who had asked that the letter not be shared. In any case, there should be an edit / content we should be discussing, not a request via email. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course she "sat on it". Ford asked that it remain confidential "until we have further opportunity to speak". Feinstein chose not to talk to her. Had Feinstein talked to her, they could have discussed options. One option, of course, is to make it public which Ford might not have found desirable. But another option would be to hold a confidential hearing within the committee, which might have led to an FBI investigation without a time constraint. With it may have been other options, but will never know because Feinstein chose to "sit on it". This isn't hypothetical or supposition. No one disputes that Feinstein had the letter. No one disputes the Feinstein could have called Ford as for desired. No one disputes that Feinstein failed to reach out to Ford. That failure, coupled with the leak, directly led to the sequence of events that were so painful for Dr. Ford. Someone owes her a big apology, but that's a personal view. This article ought to be chronicling this significant sequence of events.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
How do you know that Feinstein and Ford never spoke? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, Is that a serious question? Feinstein has been asked about this issue multiple times. if she actually had talked to Ford, and still decided to sit on it, that would be even bigger news. I hope you are not going to argue that the Senate actually had a secret briefing and kept it so secret that we don't know about it. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
According to WaPo: The writer “strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision,” Feinstein said. Also: Ford and her attorney, Debra Katz, have said they believe Feinstein handled her letter appropriately. source. How has Feinstein acted inappropriately? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, I watched every minute of the hearing. I don't recall Ford ever mentioning that she had a conversation with Feinstein prior to the letter being leaked. On the chance that I missed something, I just reviewed her testimony and she didn't mention it. She did mention that Feinstein had sent her a letter, but she did not mention any discussion with Feinstein to determine how the issue should be handled. I don't have Mitchell's questions and answers at my fingertips but I recall Mitchell asking if anything had been omitted in responded in the negative. It is incomprehensible that Ford could've had a telephone conversation with Feinstein to talk about how the letter should be handled and Ford somehow managed to not mention it. but you are trying to get me to prove a negative. I obviously cannot prove that Ford and Feinstein did not have a conversation, but we do know that Feinstein received the letter, we do know that Feinstein did not share it with the committee, and there is zero evidence to support the suggestion that Feinstein might've wanted to share it but Ford insisted that it not be shared. Her own statement indicates that she wanted confidentiality until such time as she could talk to Feinstein. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Feinstein withheld the letter from the committee at Ford's request. How is that inappropriate? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, The source you provided sheds no light on whether Feinstein had a conversation with Ford as requested. Ford asked for a conversation. Did it happen? I don't know, but if it did happen it's important information that should be shared, and if it didn't happen, serious questions ought to be asked of Feinstein. The scenario you suggest, the Ford shared potentially explosive details with Feinstein on 30 July, asked to speak to Feinstein (presumably to discuss next steps), and Feinstein decided to do nothing for six weeks is astounding, if true. One doesn't have to know whether the conversation took place to reach the factual conclusion that the letter wasn't shared for six weeks, and that decision led to the unprecedented delays. I seriously can't understand why this isn't in the article. do you have any reason? Are you arguing it isn't newsworthy? This is possibly the most newsworthy event since 9/11, in a failure to share the letter for six weeks is an integral part of it. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, Please reread what I have explained earlier. Ford's letter on 30 July said she wanted it to remain confidential "until we have further opportunity to speak". That's a quote from the letter. the quote does NOT say please keep this confidential forever. It says until we speak. I don't know whether Feinstein did talk to her and has chosen to hide that information, or whether she decided it would be better to not have such a conversation and hold the letter until such time as it might be needed. I'm not suggesting that the article needs any supposition, but it ought to discuss this important chain of events. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

From WaPo: The writer “strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision,”... Again, how were Feinstein's actions inappropriate? Are you suggesting that Feinstein should have shared the letter over Ford's objections? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, Now you're making assumptions. How do we know that Ford objected? Do you now know that Ford and Feinstein talked and you have knowledge of that discussion? aAgain, because it doesn't seem to have sunk in yet, Ford wanted it to remain confidential until such time as she talked to Feinstein. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further"... seems pretty clear to me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, Well, that statement can be included in the discussion. Are you willing to help me craft appropriate language? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
To put it bluntly: Based on what sources? How do we know that Ford objected? Do you now know that Ford and Feinstein talked and you have knowledge of that discussion? How do we know that she didn't? How do you know that they didn't (or someone on Feinstein's staff and Ford didn't)? All we have are reports on Grassley, Graham, etc. speculating on Feinstein's coulda/shoulda. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018

Change 1982 to something along the lines of "Early 1980's" because Ford herself stated that she didn't know the year. LaneM (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The 1982 statement is reliably sourced to BBC News. That apparently was her best guess as to the most likely year. We also give her "early 1980s" statement to the Washington Post. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice: RfC at Brett Kavanaugh re: polls

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#RfC_--_polls_on_nomination. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Add criminal investigations for false accusations?

Three people: Michael Avenetti, Julie Swetnick and Judy Munro-Leighton have been referred from Criminal Prosecution for making false statements and impeding a congressional investigation. Should this be included in the article? 2603:9001:3C03:5400:B0B4:A1B5:DEFE:3BE0 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Not without reliable sources. And consider this a reminder to be neutral when discussing living people, even on talk pages. Bradv 00:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


USA Today, New York Post, Business Insider, and Fox News [25] have reported about it, there are more media sites reporting about it too. It's reliable and notable and shouldn be included--2001:8003:4023:D900:E178:79B9:A50F:6007 (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Straight from the United States senate--2001:8003:4023:D900:E178:79B9:A50F:6007 (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

A section for the other allegations?

After Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick, there were further allegations - some of them oddball stuff like the Rhode Island boat fight, and anonymous letters, but they were widely reported by mainstream news sources and I would guess that they were part of the nomination story and experience for millions of people. Even just a line that deals with the additional accusations very quickly would be better than nothing. There is a new issue with a person called Judy Munro-Leighton coming out today too. Landivisiau (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Judy admitted that she made up the accusations and has been referred for criminal investigation. 2603:9001:3C03:5400:B0B4:A1B5:DEFE:3BE0 (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I have added a section about Judy Munro-Leighton, sourced to USA Today and Snopes. No idea about the others. — JFG talk 10:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Elisabeth Rasor's comments in the New Yorker

I removed the two sentences from Elisabeth Rasor from a New Yorker article. It is double heresay. It is unreliable third and fourth party heresay and nothing more. It violates BLP to repeat it. Rasor quotes Mark Judge, who she claims described actions that Judge and Kavanaugh might have done with some women who might have been Ford. It is the worst in heresay. Do not re-insert this third/fourth party heresay until there a concensus and rationale to keep such BLP violating information in the article. --CharlesShirley (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It's spelt consensus. We don't research the claims to determine their authenticity - we go by our reliable sources. Do you have a reason to believe that the New Yorker is an unreliable source for this allegation, and why? Is this allegation not notable enough to include? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
PeterTheFourth I did not use the word concensus in the article so you are correcting a misspelling in an edit comment or talk page. So that correction on your part is clearly anal-retentive. Yes, you are right we don't research claims to determine their authenticity, but you miss the point. It is heresay and it is fourth party heresay. It is four parties removed from the claim. It is pure speculation. Now, I will engage in the royal "we" as you did pedantically above: "We don't engage in speculation". I have to ask you did you even read what the underlying reliable source even says? The Ronan Farrow article does quote Elisabeth Rasor, but the quote is about Mark Judge, not Kavanaugh AND the quote is not about Ford or any of the other women talked about in this particular article. The Farrow article specifically states, "She [Rasor] said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated." This article is about Judge Brett Kavanaugh. It is as simple as that. Now, I am going to ask you again to follow the proper protocol and remove the quotes and get concensus on the talk page or until you can find a reliable source that specifically states that Elisabeth Rasor is discussing Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who is the subject of this article. Next time, please spend less time correcting my insignificant spelling errors and more time focusing on what I wrote on the talk page, where I made it abundantly clear why the information must be removed from the article as a BLP violation. By keeping the quote in the article it gives the false impression that the quotes are about Kavanaugh and they aren't. The quotes are libelous and must be removed immediately as a BLP violation. --CharlesShirley (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Consensus I agree with CharlesShirley; you are ignoring the spirit of WP:BLP; just because an allegation appears in a "reliable source" doesn't mean it has to be included in the Wikipedia if it results in an unsubstantiated smear on the article's living subject (in this case, very clearly fails the hearsay rule). JustinTime55 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination/Archive_1&oldid=1005747550"