Jump to content

Talk:Gonzalo P. Curiel/Archive 1

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

Ethnicity

Trump has accused Curiel of being Spanish or Hispanic. His parents are Mexican according to a quote in the NYTimes: "Things began to change in November 1999 with a series of secret meetings between the Americans and the Mexicans. The Americans included Mr. Chavez from the D.E.A., along with Gregory Vega, then the new United States Attorney in San Diego, and his chief drug prosecutor, Gonzalo Curiel. The Mexican side included Jorge Madrazo, then the attorney general, and two top drug prosecutors, José Patiño, known as Pepe, and José Vasconcelos.

According to participants on both sides, the Mexicans looked across the table at Mr. Chavez, Mr. Vega and Mr. Curiel, all born of Mexican parents, and the spark of recognition lit a fire.

It couldn't but help, Mr. Curiel said. We were working without the disconnect of interpreters and barriers of culture. When it comes down to it, this involves the country of our parents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/26/world/new-web-of-trust-topples-a-mighty-mexican-cartel.html?pagewanted=all N0w8st8s (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)n0w8st8s

I used this citation. Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I moved it to the "personal" section where such information belongs. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

About Donald Trump's criticism of Judge Curiel

An earlier recounting of Trump's May 27 criticism was removed from the article page, with the edit summary "Trump's name-calling does not belong in a biography. Perhaps this material may be suited for an article about Trump, Trump University, or the case." I found this convincing, and I have removed it again. I think we should state that Trump has criticized Curiel, but we should not repeat the actual criticism, for BLP among other reasons. I have clarified that Trump has criticized him repeatedly, not just at the May 27 rally, and I have removed Trump's accusation of "hater," as well as his repeated "he's Mexican, but that's OK" comment. (If it's OK, why keep bringing it up?) I think we should strive to keep this article as a biography and not a forum for mud slinging. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, nobody else has offered an opinion on this, and people keep re-adding it, so I guess the feeling must be that it should be there. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
For better or worse, this is probably one of the rare situations in which the making of the allegations is in itself newsworthy enough as to warrant inclusion because of the circumstances, even though they would otherwise be omitted. Of course we need to carefully distinguish between reporting the fact that Donald Trump said certain things (which there is an argument for doing) and suggesting in Wikipedia's voice that the allegations are anything other than Trump's allegations or opinions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
It needn't be very long, but "call for recusal" doesn't begin to capture what's been going on. A reader who knew Trump abused a federal judge for being "Mexican, we believe" could read the current entry and reasonably conclude that must have been some other judge. A few words should do the trick. This Wall Street Journal story might be a good citation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected

In light of some recent vandalism edits and the fact that this articles is a BLP, I have semi-protected the article for a week. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Current religion and ancestral religious heritage

Is Judge Curiel an American-born Mexican of full or partial Sephardic Jewish origin? The "Curiel" surname is almost always found either among Sephardic Jews (mostly Western Sephardim, less so Eastern Sephardim) or among Sephardic Bnei Anusim (Catholic-professing descendants of Spanish "New Christian" conversos from Judaism). That I am aware, very few of the Curiels (if any) are of a Spanish "Old Christian" (non-Jewish) Curiel lineage. Does anyone know of the judge's current religion and his ancestral religious heritage, with sources of course? Al-Andalus (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be original research. Sources are consistent in describing his parents as immigrants from Mexico, or simply as "Mexican". That does not mean they are not Jewish; there are plenty of Jews in Mexico. But if they are of Jewish heritage, it has not become a public issue, and is probably irrelevant in any case. We do not include ancestral or religious information in most articles about judges. Thanks for the interesting speculation, but I don't see a place for it in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
According to the New York Times, Curiel attended Catholic schools. His Judiciary Committee questionnaire provides nothing of interest on the question of religion at all. There's a field for religion in the infobox that's used, as far as I've looked, only for Supreme Court Justices. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bmclaughlin9, that might be a steer in the direction of finding out a bit more of the Judge's current religion, but even then it's not very solid evidence for that (much less for his ancestral religious heritage). Many non-Catholics (even non Christians) attend Catholic school, same with other educational institutions which are affiliated to specific religious orders. So not much can be duduced from his attendance of Catholic school, especially for someone of Mexican heritage like himself, since many non-Catholic Mexicans go to Catholic schools. As a side note, I even know of a US Muslim (both sides of her family were Muslim immigrants to the USA) who attended a Jewish school her entire school life to be exposed and grow up with a tolerant multicultural world view. Kudos to her parents. She now speaks fluent Hebrew. Anyway, I digress. The reason I asked about the judge is because so little is known of his family background, and it sparked my curiosity since his particular surname I have never seen among non-Jews or non-Jewish descendants. It's all irrelevant at the end of the day, as it doesn't affect his judgements or him as a person, but it just adds to gaining more information about his background. Al-Andalus (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Lack of information online

Just checked the Internet a bit about this judge and found to my surprise very little in the news on him. Why? Has anythign been pulled? He has been in several important cases in his time yet the net news doesn't exist? 101.108.123.143 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association

Subject of this article was on a scholarship selection committee for a professional association in 2014. The link is to a primary source from the organization. A secondary reliable source, the Wall Street Journal, reported on the subject's membership here, as well as KSWB here. This seems like sufficient reliable sources to give the subjects membership weight in the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Trivial. Many professionals belong to associations and serve on committees. He probably belongs to a dozen such societies. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Such associations/participations are documented in the questionnaire Curiel completed for the Judiciary Committee, which is already cited several times in this WP entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content

The following content has been removed:

I think this is neutral and reliably-sourced. It would not be NPOV to strip substantive crtiticisms that Trump has made about the judge, and pretend that Trumps' criticism is solely based upon ethnicity alone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I didn't make it clear enough in the discussion above: I don't think we should have anything in the article about this association, which one of many he belongs to. Trump mentioned the organization in passing; one of his surrogates then confused it with the National Council of La Raza and claimed the judge is a member of a group that organizes protests at Trump rallies.[1] Alberto Gonzales should know better; he knows that "La Raza" is just a common term used by Hispanics, specifically Mexicans, to refer to themselves and that it's bull#### to pretend there is some connection between the two organizations or their goals. IMO to even mention it here would be to strengthen in some people's minds the (phony) link between the two. I just removed a paragraph about it; let's discuss it here per WP:BRD. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
You made it perfectly clear, no need to go over it again. The point is that if we don't have anything in the article about this association, then we should have nothing in the article about Trumps comments about Mr. Curiel whatsoever. The comments of Donald Trump are intrinsically tied to the Lawyers association, the fact that this association has called for a boycott of Mr. Trump is the main reason why he is questioning the ability of Judge Curiel to give him a fair shake. Either put the lawyers association + the Trump criticism into the article, OR remove both. You can't have one without the other. Jg2400 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not actually a fact. Moreover, Trump's claims about La Raza were false (see, for example, Trump wrongly casts California lawyers group as strongly pro-Mexican, PolitiFact). It doesn't do you a lot of credit to insist on including false smears in a biographical article. MastCell Talk 17:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
And by the way, when Trump or anyone mentions this organization, it is just another way of saying "He's a Mexican". This is not a substantive criticism. It is in no way different from Trump's other criticisms based on ethnicity. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Which organization are you referring to? Perhaps Alberto Gonzales should know better, and perhaps not. It's not our business to denigrate his remarks, or pretend they are not widely published. Please read WP:NPOV. Moreover, if we were to start an argument about whether Gonzales is right or wrong, perhaps it might be relevant that if you go to the website listed at footnote #5, you will find an explicit link to National Council of La Raza right here for all to see, so I would say that Gonzales is right, and you Melanie are wrong. All of the cited sources here that you've removed discuss La Raza, so please let's not be partisan here by whitewashing it. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
In the CNN article, Gonzales (a Republican and presumably a Trump supporter) defends Trump's claim that he can't get a fair trial from a judge with Mexican heritage. The comment about the organization is to support that. Here's what I suggest: leave it out for now, but let's see if the organization becomes more of an item in the news over the next few days - or if (as I predict) its mention is limited to 1) the Trump supporter who thinks the two organizations (La Raza Lawyers of California and National Council de la Raza) are one and the same, and 2) a Trump-supporting lawyer trying to find a reason to defend him. (Gonzales, of course, is one of the very few Republicans who could say "it's OK to discriminate against a Hispanic" without getting accused of racism himself.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
When you say "the organization", what organization are you referring to? The lawyers' association, or the National Council, or both?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The question stands. In your last comment (at 20:32) you said "the organization" twice. Which one is that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, I didn't see your question when I added that to my comment above. I am talking about the one he actually belongs to, of course - the La Raza Lawyers of California. The one that some people are likely to confuse with the National Council de la Raza because they both have La Raza in their name. So do the Centro Cultural de la Raza in San Diego, the Instituto Familiar de la Raza in San Francisco, and the Plaza de la Raza in Los Angeles, but that doesn't make them partisan or affiliated with an activist group; they are simply museums and other cultural things. Any Californian could tell you that "la Raza" is simply a term for "Mexican heritage" with an implication (as Trump noted) of pride in that heritage. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not personally suggesting that Judge Curiel feels one way or the other about National Council of La Raza. And I agree that the association he belongs to does not have any link to Centro Cultural de la Raza in San Diego, the Instituto Familiar de la Raza in San Francisco, and the Plaza de la Raza in Los Angeles. But the association he belongs to certainly does have a link to National Council of La Raza, and not just via the remarks of Trump and Gonzales, but also via their website for all to see. Judge Curiel may be completely unaware of that link. In any event, the organization that you want to see in more reliable sources — the La Raza Lawyers of California, or its San Diego affiliate — is mentioned in many reliable sources in connection with Judge Curiel, beyond the ones I cited. I will go get a bunch more, since they apparently will satisfy your request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I wasn't asking to see more places that mention his membership in the legal association, so save yourself the trouble. What I want is to let a day or two pass, and see if this is still in the news by, say, Wednesday, or if it vanishes overnight from the news. I also want to hear from other people. --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Before you added this, did you see the note immediately above, where it was already being discussed here whether to say anything about this organization or not? --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I saw that it wasn't in the article, and didn't imagine there was any reason for it not to be.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I just noticed that you restored the item to the article. Please don't do that; that is NOT the way it works here. Per WP:BRD, you boldly added the material, I reverted it, and we are now discussing. While we are discussing, and waiting for other people to chime in, it stays reverted. "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverts, because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring." --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you know that I removed the material at 20:53, long before this comment of yours. Previously, I did restore it, because I found your initial argument ("Gonzales should know better") to be frivolous and contrary to multiple Wikipedia policies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did know that you had removed it, but in your edit summary you said you were removing it "for a few minutes". If you like, I will strike the "Gonzales should know better" comment; it's not important. My opposition to including this information is based on my belief that a) it will vanish from the news so quickly that it is not worth including per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, and b) it is not substantively different from Trump's other comments; it is still about the judge's ethnicity. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, if Judge Curiel is a member of an organization that has links to the National Council of La Raza, then I think that would raise legitimate concerns about impartiality. Merely being of Mexican heritage would not raise any such concerns at all. Anyway, here's a revised version that includes more reliable sources:

I am glad to wait to see if this stuff goes down the memory hole, but I doubt it will, especially if Trump files a motion for recusal. Have a nice remainder of the weekend, Melanie.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I would object to using the RealClear Politics information because I don't find it to be a Reliable Source. As far as I know RealClearPolitics does not apply editorial standards ("fact checking and accuracy"); they are basically an aggregator. This piece appears to be opinion (possibly from a blog) and to contain some errors of fact. As for whether to include the rest of this information, let's wait a few days and see what develops - as well as what other people here have to say. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad to replace that reference, but might as well wait since we want to check this in a few days anyway.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Although it is appropriate that Trump's statements concerning the judge be mentioned, they should not be given undue weight. Trump University is just one of hundreds of civil and criminal cases on this judge's docket. I agree with MelanieN that further developments may shed some light on how this controversy should be treated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is an article by the president of NCLR, though she just says the two organisations are "different" so it may not be very helpful to determine affiliation. Using this page is also problematic because the list could just be their version of "External links". I think we also should have a page for La Raza Lawyers Association, which is currently a redirect to what I'm guessing is a splinter group. FallingGravity (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think the "California La Raza Lawyers Association" is probably the California chapter of the Hispanic National Bar Association, which was founded as the La Raza National Bar Association (hence the redirect; same organization, new name). It is usual practice here that local or state affiliates of national organizations don't have separate articles, unless the local affiliate is unusually notable per WP:GNG / WP:ORG. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I was the one who actually created the redirect based on the text of the Hispanic National Bar Association article. Unfortunately the text is referenced to a broken link and I haven't found any archive copies. FallingGravity (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks as if you are right and we will have to include some information about this. Because Trump is doubling down on it, [2] and furthermore he is confusing the two organizations - today he said that Curiel is "a member of La Raza". So we will have to include some information if only to correct that misimpression. Alberto Gonzales' quote that you listed above would be a great way to do that. (See, I told you that Gonzales knew the difference! 0;-D )--MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

How about something like this?

Trump has also accused Curiel of bias because of his membership in La Raza Lawyers of California, an association of Hispanic attorneys, saying "he is a member of La Raza".[1][2] Former United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a Republican, said Trump may be concerned that members of the attorney group may "represent or support" an advocacy organization called the National Council of La Raza, which has organized protests against Trump. Gonzales added, however, that "The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR."[3]

  1. ^ Flores, Reena. "Trump: 'It's possible' a Muslim judge would be unfair", CBS News (June 5, 2016).
  2. ^ "Trump Orders Surrogates to Intensify Criticism of Judge and Journalists". Bloomberg. June 6, 2016. Retrieved June 7, 2016.
  3. ^ Gonzales, Alberto. "Alberto R. Gonzales: Trump has a right to ask if Judge Gonzalo Curiel is fair", Washington Post (June 4, 2016). This is an opinion piece.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Pretty busy right this second, but will comment later today. In the mean time, please consider whether to include this information which seems pretty significant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that draft looks fine as far as it goes, except that I would include a footnote for the La Raza Lawyers of California giving a link to their website (especially since we don't have a Wikipedia article about them). Feel free BTW to mention in that footnote that the La Raza Lawyers of California website links to NCLR; such mention might be helpful though is not IMHO necessary. I think the new information I mentioned should be included; there's an important distinction to be made here....either (1) Trump thinks no judge of Mexican descent can be impartial in his case, or instead (2) he believes such judges could be impartial in his case but concludes from the treatment he has received that Judge Curiel is not among them. That is a very key distinction, and even if one disagrees with both attitudes, the latter seems far less obnoxious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I definitely agree that we should include Trump's latest comment, being a bit of an explanation or walkback. Although we need to keep his earlier comment that "he's Mexican, he can't be impartial" (in his own words, not a paraphrase like that) - and possibly adding his comment that Muslim judges might not be impartial either, since a number of sources picked up on that. I'm on the run right now, will work on it a little later. I think we'll have something worked out soon. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It would appear that Trump said (1), which even members of his own party had no alternative but to acknowledge as overtly racist, and is now saying that he was "misconstrued" and actually meant to say (2). It will be interesting to see how we choose to present this. MastCell Talk 22:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
We present it as we always present it: neutrally. I have been thinking about the "misconstrued" statement and I think it should go, not into the "La Raza" paragraph, but the paragraph beginning "Trump has repeatedly criticized Curiel" - the paragraph where he directly tied Curiel's "Mexican" ethnicity to an "inherent conflict of interest". It should be the last sentence of that paragraph and it should say something like "On June 7, Trump said that his criticism of the judge had been "misconstrued" and that his concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based on his ethnicity, but rather on the rulings that the judge had been making in the case."[3] --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is frustrating: while we have been laboring to come up with a consensus item about La Raza, somebody tossed into the article a completely undiscussed version:

On May 31, 2016, the conservative blog GotNews.com reported that Curiel was a member of the "La Raza". The Daily Caller published an article the following day linking the judge with the National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights group.[1] The Washington Post pointed out that Curiel was not a member of the National Council of La Raza, but the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. Luis O. Osuna, the president of the Lawyers Association, responded by explaining that the name translates to "the people and the power of people banding together for justice."[2][3]

  1. ^ Flitter, Emily (June 6, 2016). "Which 'La Raza'? Trump comments cause confusion over group's role". Reuters. Retrieved June 7, 2016.
  2. ^ Romero, Dennis (7 June 2016). "Dear Trump Fans: La Raza Is Not a Racist Term". L.A. Weekly. Retrieved 7 June 2016.
  3. ^ Ye Hee Lee, Michelle (7 June 2016). "Trump supporters' false claim that Trump U judge is a member of a pro-immigrant group". Washington Post. Retrieved 7 June 2016.

I think this version is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons (it quotes unreliable sources, it suggests there is something real to the "La Raza" connection, it doesn't point out that the La Raza stuff is coming from Trump himself, etc.) It was even worse before some of it got removed as POV. I am going to replace that version with the version we have "almost" agreed on here. First I will put in a link to the California L a Raza Lawyers as Anythingyouwant suggested. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia.  :-) Here is the full text of Trump's recent statement, courtesy NYT. As I mentioned above, either (1) Trump thinks no judge of Mexican descent can be impartial in his case, or instead (2) he believes such judges could be impartial in his case but concludes from the treatment he has received that Judge Curiel is not among them. That is consistent with the full statement, but it is not consistent with the notion that his concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based on his ethnicity. In other words, the notion that Trump thinks Curiel has let his Mexican heritage influence his conduct in the case, and the notion that Trump thinks that Curiel's Mexican heritage has to influence his conduct in the case, are both inconsistent with the idea that Trump's concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based on his ethnicity. I don't see where Trump has ever said that his concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based on his ethnicity in one way or another.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I hear you. 0;-D Trump's statement (while mostly just arguing the defense case for the lawsuits) does say "I do not feel that one's heritage makes them incapable of being impartial". I think that's as close as he's going to come to retracting his earlier (and still on the record) comments like "He's a Mexican! I'm building a wall!" Put both statements out there without comment, let people read them. --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I will put them both out there. Regarding "inherent conflict of interest", I have used my best google fu to find a transcript rather than a snippet, but can't find anything more than the snippet. So, what I'll do is put both of the statements you mention out there and in context, replacing the snippets, which will become kind of superflous anyway.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
All done for now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: above you mentioned:
it's bull#### to pretend there is some connection between the two organizations or their goals
is it a "pretend" connection that the California organization links to the National Council on their Affiliates page? That seems like a clear connection to me. Ranze (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Not much of one. That's not an "affiliates page"; actually it's a "links and affiliates" page.[4] The "affiliates" are other legal associations and are listed at the top. The "links" way down at the bottom are called "other Latino organizations", and they include NCLR along with other Latino organizations like the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. As somebody else suggested already, that's about the equivalent of a "See also" link on a Wikipedia page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Arrival of parents

I've reverted this edit by Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs). I'm not sure if the Washington Post pulled the original article or what, but [5] leads to an article titled "Trump says it's 'inappropriate' for ally Newt Gingrich to criticize his attacks on the 'Mexican' judge" by Jenna Johnson which does not discuss the arrival of Curiel's parents. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

A very messy citation. I tried using the author's name to track it down. Laurie Kellman writes for AP. And here she writes "born in Indiana to parents who came from Mexico in the 1940s". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Not sure exactly what happened here. In the past, WaPo has sometimes changed around articles without leaving any indication of a change or correction. [6][7]. Here's a new reference that I just found: King, Gregory. "5 things to know about Judge Gonzalo Curiel", CNN (June 6, 2016): "His parents, both immigrants from Jalisco, Mexico, were naturalized citizens. Curiel's brother, Raul, told The New York Times his father first entered the country as a laborer in Arizona in the 1920s."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The CNN source is extraneous; it goes back to the same New York Times article which is quoted elsewhere. Both the New York Times and the Times of Northwest Indiana used Raul Curiel as a source; I think the Times of Northwest Indiana's claim about the Bracero program is stronger inasmuch as it doesn't appear (as written) to rely on Raul's recollections. Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Notice that not only is the date different but also the town. Probably best to include both dates and both towns, until some reliable source explains the discrepancy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
CNN for whatever reason gave the state (Jalisco) instead of the town (Mascota), but it's in the same place. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, good catch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, I'd put in both dates until a reliable source explains the date discrepancy or is more definite about the correct date. The Bracero Program involved migrant labor, so it doesn't sound like a correct vehicle for immigration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's any ambiguity to resolve. Admission in the Bracero program doesn't preclude prior entry to the United States as contract laborer; I think the thrust of the NW Times is after the program's enactment Salvador permanently settled in the US. It's also possible that the author of the article used the term anachronistically; the term "Bracero" is pretty well known. The circumstances of Salvador's naturalization aren't clear; correct or no, it doesn't have much bearing on his son. I'm loath to have our article describe an ambiguity where no reliable source has described one. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, if there's no ambiguity to remove then there's nothing inconsistent about mentioning the 1920 stuff. But note the NW Indiana source doesn't merely say he permanently settled after the program's enactment, it says "His father came to the U.S. through the Bracero Program" which sounds a little bit less reliable than the 1920 date because the Bracero program was for temporary migrant workers rather than for permanent migration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the wording is strange, but there's nothing better to go on. The NY Times account is sourced straight to Raul. For all that, the entire background of the NW Times may be sourced to Raul as well. I don't think the sources disagree per se, but they've been written in such a way as to make it appear that they do. Dropping the dates altogether might help. How about this?

Curiel was born in 1953 in East Chicago, Indiana, the youngest of four children. His parents, Salvador and Francisca, emigrated from the small town of Mascota, Mexico. The two married in 1946 and later became American citizens. Salvador had worked as a laborer in Arizona before moving to Indiana to work in the steel mills.

That can be written from the existing sources, and elides the dates problem. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why you want to remove "which is a small town near Puerto Vallarta, in the state of Jalisco". If you elide immigration dates in the main text, please put the matter in a note for anyone who's interested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I took a crack at it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It was late and I couldn't get the wording right in my head. Your change looks fine to me. Mackensen (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

National Council of La Raza

I don't think this assertion is supported by its citations, unless being included in a sidebar listing a miscellany of organizations is sufficient.

"Regardless, the National Council of La Raza was associated with the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association in its endorsements page.[28][29]" Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@MastCell: it would seem better to just reword the sentence rather than erase it. Couldn't we use the SDLRA site itself as the source? Ranze (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please remember

This article is a BLP about the judge. It is not the article on Donald Trump, on Trump's presidential campaign or controversies arising from it, or on the Trump University class action litigation. While a section about the Trump comments has a place in this article, it should not utterly dominate it. For example, extensive discussion of which politicians criticized or defended Trump's comments probably belongs elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. Maybe we should remove the following as not really being about Curiel at all: "Trump's comments on Curiel's ethnicity was condemned by some across the political spectrum; Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan called it "the textbook definition of a racist comment".[24] Meanwhile, Senator Mark Kirk declared that he cannot support Trump because he believes that Trump's comment toward the Judge is "not only dead wrong, it is un-American."[25] Several other politicians defended Trump's comments; Governor Chris Christie told reporters that he believed that Donald Trump was not racist because Trump was simply expressing his opinions and that he was not a "pre-programed robotic politician".[26][27]" Everybody OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. This information is featured in the "Trump University" section of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, since this controversy relates to the Trump presidential campaign and how politicians view him currently due to these statements. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. And even there we don't provide such a level of detail. It takes just a little patience to summarize and arrive at an appropriate level of detail. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent addition to the article: Clinton speaking fees???

I added to the article a consensus-agreed-upon paragraph about Curiel's membership in the California La Raza Lawyers Association. One of the sources used for that paragraph was Alberto Gonzales. Then another editor added to the paragraph an additional, unrelated comment from Gonzales, stating that Curiel had appointed a law firm to the case which had paid speaking fees to Bill and HIllary Clinton. I removed it with the edit summary "removing irrelevant, guilt-by-association link. If you think this should be included, please explain why at the talk page". The other editor restored the material, without explanation or edit summary, and in violation of WP:BRD. I don't want to get into an edit war (which would be doubly inappropriate because this is both a BLP and an article about current politics, which could be subjected to Discretionary Sanctions; although that has not yet been invoked for this article I think we should still be careful not to get into revert wars). So I am leaving it there and bringing it here to the talk page for discussion. I posted a note at the other editor's talk page suggesting they do the same. In my opinion this is totally irrelevant; it's not anything Trump himself said, just a passing comment by one of his defenders, and not anything that has been picked up by anyone else; and it's guilt-by-association, a blatant attempt to suggest causality where none has been shown to exist. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The controversy is about Trump and his statements about the potential bias of Curiel. The article from Gonzales is being used to point out that Curiel's "La Raza" connection isn't affiliated with NCLR while simultaneously attempting to discredit the accusation of judicial bias (a non-neutral position); however, Gonzales thought it was important to maintain objectivity and included the information that the law firm assigned by Curiel has substantial financial connections to the Clinton family. Additionally the paragraph after the quote in question states: "...his (Trump's)concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based on ethnicity alone, but rather on rulings in the case." The quote I included from the Gonzales article serves to highlight one of these questionable rulings for the sake of neutrality.FauXnetiX (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to not just include negative things that Gonzales said about Trump, but it appears that FauXnet picked the wrong positive thing. A more appropriate positive thing would be "his (Trump's)concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based on ethnicity alone, but rather on rulings in the case".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The reason I included the additional quote from Gonzales was to substantiate the remarks. Can't have the article attempt to discredit a person's statements without being willing to support accuracy in their statements as well. Neutrality is the goal, correct? Didn't want to subtract what was already part of the wiki article.FauXnetiX (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Would there be any problem swapping what you inserted with "his (Trump's)concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based on ethnicity alone, but rather on rulings in the case"? That's better than nothing, right? It solves the problem of giving a neutral description of Gonzales's remarks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the speaking fees to the law firm, and Curiel's appointment of the law firm, because both occurred before Trump announced for President, as Gonzales himself says. Instead, I expanded the Gonzales quote: "The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization". Before my edit, these two bits of information were presented in reverse order, but here we have the actual quote which suggests that even though the two groups are unaffiliated there still might be representation or support. I think that's an improvement, and more accurately reflects what Gonzales was saying.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem now is that the wiki article is providing an inaccurate quotation. I think the best solution is to just quote the paragraph. I think it's the most objective and neutral piece I've read on the topic. Follows: "But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable. Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump’s aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization. Coupled with that question is the fact that in 2014, when he certified the class-action lawsuit against Trump, Curiel appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to represent plaintiffs. Robbins Geller has paid $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Trump’s likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, and to her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Curiel appointed the firm in the case before Trump entered the presidential race, but again, it might not be unreasonable for a defendant in Trump’s position to wonder who Curiel favors in the presidential election. These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered. Regardless of the way Trump has gone about raising his concerns over whether he’s getting a fair trial, none of us should dismiss those concerns out of hand without carefully examining how a defendant in his position might perceive them — and we certainly should not dismiss them for partisan political reasons." FauXnetiX (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Thta's way too long of a quote. See WP:Undue weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
But do you see my point about the objectivity of the article?FauXnetiX (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The Gonzales quote we give now is this: "The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization". To me, that seems neutral, because it first takes some of the air out of Trump's tires, but then puts it back in; first it says there's no affiliation or membership, but then suggests there might still be representation or support.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
But that isn't a quote, and to attribute words to someone that they did not say or write is dishonest and possibly illegal depending on what is being claimed that they said/wrote. That's why I wrote the quote the way I did in my original edit.FauXnetiX (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a serious accusation. The quote is straight from the Gonzales column. Check again.[8]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
My fault I was looking at the wrong section, but it isn't an accusation. It's a fact and it isn't a vague statement with no context.FauXnetiX (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There are two questions here: whether to include anything about Clinton speaking fees, and how to fairly and accurately represent what Gonzales said about the La Raza connection. IMO the first question is easy: No. It's irrelevant to the La Raza connection which that paragraph is about; no other source has mentioned it; it amounts to guilt-by-association; and it (as the lawyers say) assumes facts not in evidence. But I do think we need Gonzales, preferably in his own words, to clarify the difference between La Raza Lawyers and the National Council of La Raza, because that is what the paragraph is about. That is a distinction that has been muddied in reporting and comments ("He is a member of La Raza"), and it's our job as an encyclopedia to have our facts straight. So let's put the clarification, and the reason for Trump's concern, in Gonzales' actual words. My proposed paragraph:

Trump has also accused Curiel of bias because of his membership in La Raza Lawyers of California, an association of Hispanic attorneys,[28] saying "he is a member of La Raza".[29][30] Former United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales commented in an op-ed piece that "Some of Trump’s aides have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization."[31]


Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The Clinton part needs to be included. Since the firm was appointed by the judge and it has big money ties to the Clinton family it needs to be indicated. Gonzales thought it was important enough to include for impartiality. It's not guilt by association. It's highlighting an area of potential bias. From the wiki: "On June 7, 2016 Trump said that his criticism of the judge had been "misconstrued" and that his concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based on ethnicity alone, but rather on rulings in the case.[32][33]" The Gonzales article points to one of the decisions that could indicate a potential bias and must be acknowledge. It was important enough to include the preceding statement, so the Gonzales quote that elucidates that topics in that statement must be included.FauXnetiX (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not up to us or our opinions to decide what is "important enough to include". It's up to what Reliable Sources do. If this allegation becomes a major issue, reported widely by Reliable Sources, then of course we will include it. At this point it has been raised only once, in an op-ed piece. That does not qualify for mention here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll hold you to that.FauXnetiX (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Try to address my entire statement. Thanks.FauXnetiX (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Shorter version of Trump material

In response to Brad's comment here, suggesting that the Trump University coverage was excessive, I've taken a shot at shortening it substantially. I think this newer version focuses more on Curiel, contains less extraneous material related to the gamesmanship of the Presidential campaign, and better reflects reliable sources. (The previous version was sort of disgraceful, in that it studiously ignored WP:WEIGHT in describing the response to Trump's comments, but I think this problem can best be solved by simply excising a he-said-she-said narrative and presenting the immediate details relevant to Curiel's oversight of the case). I also don't think we need to spend a long paragraph detailing a false, politically motivated assertion about Curiel's membership in various groups. I'd be interested in any thoughts about whether this version is, in fact, an improvement. MastCell Talk 17:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay I know this isn't a chat page, but the missing link in much of this discussion is that Trump has been winning a lot in front of Judge Curiel. Certainly on the Makaeff/Low case. (Don't know about Cohen v. Trump.) Sure it's just one lawyer's assessment, but it's detailed and might prove enlightening. HERE. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"La Raza Lawyers" section

User:MastCell just deleted the whole paragraph about Judge Curiel's membership in the California La Raza Lawyers, even though it has been extensively discussed here at the talk page, a clear implication that something about it should be in the article. There was no consensus to remove it; nobody even suggested removing it. I strongly believe we need to have something in the article about that. It is clearly ABOUT the subject himself, not a side issue about the presidential race. It is something that has been extensively discussed in the news and in public forums, often with false or misleading information like "He belongs to La Raza". This page is getting 20,000 to 30,000 page views a day; a lot of those are people coming here to find out whether what they have heard about Judge Curiel is true. It is part of our duty as encyclopedists to make sure that true, verified, neutral information is in the article. I am going to restore the brief, neutral version of this information that I proposed above. It can certainly be tweaked, but before it is removed again, please propose removing it here and obtain consensus to do so. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of this is well handled elsewhere on WP Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Trump_University. Short and to the point. No back and forth. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the removed material ought to be kept somewhere at Wikipedia, because it carefully documents reliable sources. We could start a new article (e.g. Trump v Curiel but probably it could go in an existing article). I agree with MastCell that there was an undue weight problem here, though not as bad of a problem as he indicated given recent expansion of other parts of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I dunno; as I said above, I think that devoting an entire paragraph to a false smear by the Trump campaign isn't a great use of space, although I understand the correct-the-record argument. I wrote the shorter version as a proposal, as the "B" in WP:BRD; I'm not married to it if the consensus is that we should mention the La Raza stuff here. I do think that if we cover the La Raza stuff, we should be clear (and in line with reliable sources) by saying that the insinuation of bias is unfounded (cf. PolitiFact), and that the Trump campaign incorrectly conflated (either intentionally or unintentionally) the CA La Raza Lawyers Association with the National Council of La Raza, a separate organization. We should use a better source for this than Alberto Gonzales. MastCell Talk 18:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Melanie has now simply added a paragraph, nothing excessive, that covers the matter well. Gonzales was a very high-profile contributor to this whole kerfuffle, so I don't see any problem including him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the Gonzales piece would never be accepted as a "Reliable Source"; it's an op-ed. But in this case I thought he clarified the distinction so well, and included a disclaimer for "balance" (he is a Trump partisan after all), that it was worth using him and no-one else. It was also in my mind that Trump partisans might be more inclined to believe this information coming from Gonzales rather than from the mainstream press. Not a good reason, I know. If somebody suggests a better source I'm open. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
If the Gonzales piece had been at his own blog, without coverage in reliable sources, then we'd probably omit it here. Even if it had been at WaPo without coverage in other reliable sources, we'd probably omit it here. But it was widely covered in reliable sources, so include. And if we excluded it, doing so probably wouldn't shorten this BLP because we'd have to put in some equivalent material so as not to leave the discussion dangling.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
This is no incorrect conflation. The California Lawyers group lists the National Council on their affiliates page. Gonzalez is spreading a falsehood in saying the two are unaffiliated. Ranze (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
An affiliation often means an official or close connection, so if there's an unofficial or loose connection then it might not be considered an affiliate but rather, as Gonzalez said, a "supported" organization.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It is neither "affiliated" nor "supported". To repeat what I said above: Read what that page is called. It is not an "affiliates page"; it is a "links and affiliates" page.[9] The "affiliates" are other legal associations and are listed at the top. The "links" way down at the bottom are called "other Latino organizations", and they include NCLR along with other Latino organizations like the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. As somebody else suggested already, that's about the equivalent of a "See also" link on a Wikipedia page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: the San Diego page says "community", that is a strong word. Think for example the impact if WWE had a link to the KKK in a 'community' page. Or really, any link at all. I don't see why people keep minimizing this. Things do not need to be officially affiliated or have inter-mixed administration for a connection between them to be noteworthy. Ranze (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
It should definitely not be completely removed, and @MelanieN: has done a good job at providing a well researched and neutral content, even if initially rejected when I had suggested it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hispanic National Bar Association

On the other hand, the La Raza Lawyers of California is (I believe) the state chapter of the Hispanic National Bar Association, which did call for a boycott of Trump companies because of what Trump has said about Hispanics. So if we want to make something out of the fact that Curiel belongs to the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, which is the local chapter of the La Raza Lawyers of California, which is the state chapter of the Hispanic National Bar Association, which issued an anti-Trump press release - well, it seems kind of like a game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but it could be added if enough candidate or press attention gets paid to it (which has not been the case up to now). --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree Curiel is probably not affiliated with Kevin Bacon. ☺️ But if Curiel specifically says he's directly a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA), then that apparently removes two degrees of separation between Curiel and the boycott of Trump by the HNBA.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
His questionnaire states that he's a lifetime member. How he reacted to this boycott while overseeing a Trump trial is anyone's guess. Perhaps we should wait until the courts decide if this makes him biased rather than making this connection ourselves. FallingGravity (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It's up to the reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I encourage Ranze to study WP:RS and WP:BRD. We need to use solid sources here, and the sources need to be especially reliable when we make controversial claims. Most of the following are not especially reliable:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: please explain why statements directly from the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the Hispanic National Bar Asociation are not a reliable sources regarding the statements these organizations have made. You can't get any more reliable than that. Ranze (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Just about to quit Wikipedia for the day, so forgive my brevity. Yes, they are reliable as to what their own positions are, but we also have a policy WP:Undue weight which requires us to divvy up this article according to how widespread information is in reliable sources. If only an organization itself cares about its own statements, then that point of view (POV) is not widely available in reliable sources. But, if you can find a newspaper article reporting about the organization's statements about itself, then you can make some headway here. This is just a brief response, but I think it's the gist of the problem. Also see WP:Primary (an organization's self-published statements about itself qualify as a primary source whereas Wikipedia prefers secondary sources). There are no absolute rules here, and we can make exceptions, but the proclivities of other editors do have an impact. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
A lot of these statements are already included in the articles about the organizations, so do we really need to bring them up again in an article about the judge who happens to belong to them? It looks a lot like guilt by association, and I think that's why Wikipedia has the WP:Undue weight policy. 66.219.216.195 (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The San Diego and California (city and state) organizations in question do not have articles. I put in red links to illustrate this. It would be interesting to create them to establish notability if we can agree on what name is most prominent. Due to that, it is necessary to explain here the extent of their connections to each other since that is a popular matter of discussion in relation to the article subject. Ranze (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: it isn't just the organization itself that cares though, the statements they have made are the subject of popular discussion in the media and should be addressed. Wikipedia's preferences for secondary sources is in relation to making interpretations, not the expression of raw facts, which is best done with primary sources. For example it is perfectly fine to show that group A lists group B as "community" via a primary source, but to interpret what the word "community" means would take a secondary source. I have not interpreted the word, just shown that it has been used. Ranze (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
If the statements they have made are the subject of popular discussion in the media, then you should be able to cite the media without having to cite the primary source. Another problem is WP:Synth; if you quote an organization's statement about itself and its relationship to other organizations, and the statement does not mention Judge Curiel, then it becomes an issue of synthesis. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: the secondary media sources bringing up these topics are already cited. They are cited to show the relevance of the data (their center in a tornado controversy) but we should still cite the primary sources to show the raw data which is the hyperlinks between the organizations. The statements do not have to mention Curiel, the relationships between the organizations are already on-topic with Curiel since their relationships have been made a topic of criticism about him. Ranze (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I think the matter is adequately covered by this edit that I made today. Ranze, when you ask for too much, you often get too little.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Degrees of separation

This should clear up the question about any affiliation between the lawyer's groups and the National Council of La Raza. From today's San Diego Union Tribune, "Trump had pointed to Curiel’s membership in the San Diego La Raza Lawyers’ Association as evidence of his bias. He apparently confused the professional association with the National Council of La Raza, an activist civil rights group. The San Diego group issued a statement Wednesday noting they are not affiliated with the national group. It demanded Trump retract his statements about Curiel and called on other bar associations to do the same."[10] I'm not suggesting this be added to the article, which already has enough on the subject - just as a reply to the discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. It would be fun to add this - "Trump also spoke at length about his controversial real-estate program, Trump University, despite a lengthy statement a day earlier in which he said he did “not intend to comment on this matter any further.” "[11] - as a followup to the sentence in our article saying "He added that he did not intend to comment on this matter further." I figured that would last about 24 hours and I was right. I'm not really suggesting it be added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't expect it to last long either, but I think he was saying he wouldn't comment further about the judge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
That could be it. And he didn't. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want to say that Union Tribune and others are claiming Trump is confusing the organizations that is fine, so long as we do not blatently say Trump is confused since that is unsupported OR. Trump never said Curiel was a member of the national organization. He did not name one specifically so he could be referring to either or both of the San Diego or Hispanic Bar. Both are linked to the national group.
Something tells me this "6 degrees Kevin Bacon" hairsplitting would not be happening if an article was about a person who was a member of a city-specific KKK group which did not individually engage in mischief yet linked a national one that did. Ranze (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment and a good citation to use, plus removal of Gonzales

Pending this talk-page discussion here, I've shrunk the bit down to two sentences. I agree with others that have suggested that we avoid giving undue-weight to this episode.

If we do include a longer version we should include text cited to this rundown from the Washington Post's fact-checker, which goes into some detail and is very clear: (1) claims by Trump supporters that there is a link between NCLR and the San Diego and California groups are false and (2) claims by Trump supporters that the San Diego and California groups are "radical" are false.

What we should not do is spend time in the article talking about what group "links to" what other group on its website. A URL-by-URL rundown is trivial and tells us very little about the groups and almost nothing to do with Judge Curiel.

As for Gonzales: his view (which is essentially that Trump has some colorable claim) is very much in the minority among legal scholars and writers generally. Therefore, if we include his view (introducing a third-party commentator in to the mix), I think we must (under BLP, WEIGHT, etc.) include a countervailing view from at least one and possibly more of the many people who have said that Gonzales' argument is very weak or have otherwise said that there is absolutely no basis for recusal—for example, Professor Ilya Somin (here), Prof. Jonathan H. Adler (here), retired Justice Cruz Reynoso (here), etc. Neutralitytalk 21:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not wedded to mentioning the Gonzales piece, but you are mistaken about it. First, the Gonzales piece received a lot of attention in reliable sources, unlike the blog posts that you refer to. Secondly, Gonzales said that Curiel's lawyer association membership is unaffiliated with National Council of La Raza, which is widely supported by the reliable sources that discussed the Gonzales piece. Anyway, I'll come back to this later, probably.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Gonzales acknowledged that the groups are unrelated - there is no reasonable dispute about this and I very much agree that we should make that clear in the article. (But there is no need to say so through Gonzales' voice—we should (and are currently) saying this in our own voice, cited to news accounts.
My point on Gonzales is this. Gonzales also suggested that Trump nevertheless had some sort of basis for demanding refusal, which others firmly disagreed with. (Yes, Gonzales' piece did get a lot of attention—part of that attention was the critical response from legal scholars). If we are to include Gonzales, we also must include the responses. This is especially true when the article is a BLP and the judge here cannot defend himself under the canons of judicial ethics. Neutralitytalk 00:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware that we quoted or described anything from the Gonzales piece that you think was incorrect of him to say, or that the sources you've mentioned had any objection to him saying, so there's no need to balance that particular Gonzales stuff with blog posts that were not publicized in reliable sources, or to balance it out with anything else. Anyway, I have no plans to reinsert Gonzales myself, but would have no objection if someone else does. As for the rest of this issue, I hope to get back to it later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of what the Washington Post's fact-checker claims, there clearly are literal web links from the SLDLRA (since July 2012) and LRLOC (since October 2000) to NCLR.org. WP can insist "a link is not a link" all they want, they are clearly in error and we should not convey their false claims as truth.
I guess we can mention, if it's considered notable, that Michelle Ye Hee Lee does not personally consider those advertisements of 'community' or 'affiliates & links' (notice not 'affiliates OR links') inconsequential, but considering many people hold opinions on the significance of these links, I don't see why we should single hers out as the only way to interpret their relevance.
Normally we would not bother to list every single group a group links to (particularly on a page about a member) but it makes sense to do it here when allegations of connections between the groups have been brought up.
Since that is the topic of contention, it makes most sense to clarify the limited extent of the connection, rather than to erase all evidence and let people build it up in their minds into something more. Ranze (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but here we follow the reliable sources, like the Washington Post. We are an encyclopedia, and not a blog or journalism outfit. We do not disregard what the sources say when we dislike them and then go trawl through primary sources on our own. That's antithetical to what we're all about.
Putting that aside, to say that the Post is "clearly in error and we should not convey their false claims" is, quite frankly, nonsense. I am quite perturbed that you believe that Daily Caller is reliable, but the Post is not. That is, to put it mildly, a difficult-to-defend position. Neutralitytalk 06:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Neutrality: I am only commenting on the accuracy of the individual articles (and by extension, their authors in this present moment) not the overall reputations of the paper. In looking closer though, part of the problem is that some editors are engaging in original research and taking Ye Hee's Washington Post article out of context, and mis-summarizing what she says in it. In looking closer at what she says and less at the unrelated nonsense (ie "no links") it's being used to supposedly support, her words look more reasonable. My error it seems was in assuming good faith that people were correcting paraphrasing what Michelle wrote, they weren't. Ranze (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

@Neutrality: regarding your mass removal of reliably sourced additions, WP:Primary clarifies that secondary/tertiary needed for analyzing or interpreting them. Do you think I did this somewhere?

We are told we can use primaries to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" which is all I was using them for here, to the best of my knowledge.

If you disagree, I would like you to point out the particulars, and rather than removing the sources, instead discuss how they can be better used. Ranze (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add a morass of material, especially all material that is primary-sourced—and not to high-quality and directly-relevant primary sources (like official "About Us" pages, fact sheets, overviews, etc., that directly relate to the article topic), but to primary sources that (1) never mention Curiel and (2) include Facebook posts and "RSVP event" sheets, etc.—some of which are deadlinked and recovered only through the Internet Archive. This is pretty clear WP:SYNTH, if not straightforward WP:OR, and in any case violates undue weight.
Five paragraphs focusing exclusively on the activities and interrelationships of Hispanic bar associations in California is very much excessive, especially when the content doesn't relate directly to the article subject, Curiel. This article is not entitled Hispanic and Latino bar associations in the United States. It is entitled Gonzalo P. Curiel. We must keep the focus on him.
This is, if I understand correctly, similar to the concerns that @MastCell: and others raised above. Neutralitytalk 05:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Neutrality on that. This is a living person's BLP. This is not the place to litigate the Trump Uni case nor to promote organizations the judge may be affiliated with. The focus is the judge, not associations, not court cases. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: these primary sources were not related to the litigation of the case, nor were they intended to promote the organization, I find your criticisms off topic. Ranze (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
SW3 5DL's comments were directly on point. Your comments here at talk are approaching the the filibuster style. Neutralitytalk 02:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality: The sources do not need to mention Curiel if we are using them to prove facts about the extent of connections between organizations, since secondary sources have already brought up the connections between those organizations as a topic related to him. The article is still mostly about him, in a section about his memberships it is still on-topic to discuss how the memberships he holds relate, particularly when those relations are the topic of nation-wide conversation. Ranze (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No. This is growing very werisome, Ranze. The point of this biographical article, like all biographical articles, is to describe Curiel's life, work, and significance, in context, with reference to high-quality sources. As I and many other editors explained earlier, Wikipedia is not a journalistic outfit that pieces together primary sources, one by one, in an attempt to "prove facts about the extent of connections between organizations." Neutralitytalk 02:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ranze: I've reverted your edit here. It suffers from multiple problems

  • The introduction of the "2007" date is unsourced. Neither the Washington Post cite nor the Bloomberg cite give the 2007 date, unless I have overlooked it.
  • The text "are not official affiliates of it, they just link to NCLR.org" is poorly written (what does "link to" mean to the unfamiliar reader), and more significantly, misleading because it implies that the groups are somehow "unofficially affiliated." More significantly, the consensus on this talk page (expressed by, I think, five editors) is that we should not try to shoehorn into this article, coatrack style, all the nonsense about URLs on this webpage or that. This is a rough consensus that we must follow unless some new consensus develops.

The prior version was simple, clear, and accurate. Ranze wrote in his edit summary that calling the groups "unrelated" is not supported by the Post piece. This is simply wrong. The Post article not only explicitly says that the groups are separate, but also

(1) quotes the San Diego association president as saying that it has no tie to NCLR except that they both serve the Latino community, and adding that it and the NCLR have completely different purposes
(2) quotes a NCLR spokeswoman as saying the groups are "completely separate" (emphasis added); and
(3) concludes that any claimed connection between the San Diego group and NCLR, and any claim that the groups are "the same, or comparable" (emphasis added) is "misleading," a "mischaracterization," a "real stretch," and "a red herring."
Neutralitytalk 03:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump University

This section seems way out of due weight given that this is a BLP. This is contentious material that involves two living persons and judging by the edits just within the last few minutes, it seems this section will likely grow if this is allowed to continue. Since this is a BLP, I suggest that only a mention that Judge Curiel is hearing the Trump case remain, with a link to the Trump University page. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Due weight means that we describe "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". For better or worse, that requires us to cover this dispute between living persons. I don't think that the correct way to prevent excessive weight is to favor insufficient weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't belong on the man's BLP. It belongs on the Trump University page. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
It's there too, in much greater detail. But the Trump University cases, and Donald Trump's high-profile comments about the judge, are the things that have thrust this subject into the headlines for weeks. They are the reason the article is getting 20,000 to 30,000 views a day. They are the things for which he is currently "notable". We can't ignore all the reliable source coverage and just pretend it doesn't exist. --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN Point taken and I'm not suggesting we ignore it. We can have a paragraph about it, and then add a link to the Trump Uni case. But this section is getting bloated. It's more important to consider that this is a BLP and due weight has a different significance for a BLP. This man has done much more in his life than this one case and that is what should dominate in his BLP. In addition, in order to present Trump's side, the section will have to be expanded even more. This will only invite edit-wars down the road. This is best handled on the Trump Uni page, IMHO. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: we are aware that Curiel has done other cases and other things with his life, but the question is how notable those things are. The purpose of the article is to say what's notable about the person, not the little happy tidbits that haven't drawn much attention but which would make him look good and draw attention away to the controversy which is the center of his notability. Ranze (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ranze Yes, true enough, but you must remember since this is an ongoing situation that is still unfolding, we must use extra caution, because it is a BLP. We should not allow the article to become a place where this is battled out. This is why it seems to me that a paragraph mentioning that the Judge is hearing the case with a reference to the controversy and a link to the section in the Trump Uni article where more information can be found. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 21:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


Gonzalo P. Curiel → Gonzalo Paul Curiel – Looking at the references on this page, any time his middle name is referenced it is "Paul" in full, I don't see "P." anywhere, so "Gonzalo Paul Curiel" appears to be more of a common name he is known by than "Gonzalo P. Curiel" which is an unsupported alias. However briefer it seems to save on the 2 characters, it's easier to remember middle names than initials and is more informative to use the full name. Ranze (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

HNBA year

Sources appear to agree on him joining the San Diego group in 2007. He lists a lifetime membership of the HNBA in the 2011 questionnaire but it's unclear when he first joined it, is anyone able to locate that information? Ranze (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said above (in my "Kevin Bacon" comment), the San Diego group is the San Diego affiliate of the California group, which is the state affiliate of the national group. Per the SDLRL webpage,[12] "SDLRLA is one of 18 affiliate bar associations of La Raza Lawyers of California, a non-profit association organized in 1977 to support Chicano and Latino Lawyers in California and serve as a statewide network for local affiliate La Raza Lawyers Groups. Nationally, SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association." It's my impression that to join the local affiliate is to join the national group - just as joining a local Rotary club makes you a member of Rotary International. But IMO all of this is way TMI for this article, and I agree with Neutrality's trimming of it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree also. TMI for a BLP. The focus of a BLP is the subject of the BLP. Membership in organizations deserve a mention, not an explanation of the organization or all the Kevin Bacon links to it. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be incredibly convenient if it was the same date for joining all 3 tiers city/state/nation but I just didn't want to jump to any conclusions about it in case there were different dates involved in gaining membership. It is not too much information to state the year someone joined an organization if we are able to locate that information, that is very helpful to know. It tells us whether someone joined the past year or 20 years ago or similar. What organizations someone joined is part of the subject, just as we mention what schools someone attends or what jobs they work.

The Kevin Baconing is not random, it is because those links are matters of interest to the media and have been constantly brought up. Personally I think the whole "Trumpers are confused, San Diego La Raza is not National Council of La Raza" rhetoric is a red herring since I've never seen any 'Curiel is part of NCLR' claims made. The problem is that either the city San Diego La Ra Raza or the state California La Raza are being abbreviated to "La Raza" and that vagueness could lead some to assume the more notable national council, but it's still arguing a straw man to say they are being conflated when they arent. Ranze (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

And the article doesn't say they are conflated, so what's your point? --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that the minutiae of when the Judge joined these groups is not relevant and could probably be used to subtly suggest that any association, however vague, is evidence of bias on the Judge's part. The truth is, Judge Curiel has actually made more rulings in favor of Trump Uni than against it. I don't entirely understand the issues and these rulings, but I do understand commonsense which says that if Trump's lawyers aren't asking for a new judge, it's because they're not seeing any bias of any kind and have confidence that Judge Curiel is making fair and honest decisions. I'm opposed to any more additions about these organizations to the article as it appears this information is not relevant and could violate BLP policy. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of HBNA membership to insinuate bias

I want to go on record as objecting to this edit as misleading. By excerpting this particular detail from the CNN source, and by positioning it in isolation as the "last word", we are insinuating that Trump's claims of bias might somehow be valid because of Curiel's membership in the HBNA. That is a complete misrepresentation of available reliable sources. Even the CNN source makes the larger point that there is no credible evidence of bias on Curiel's part, and that demands for recusal require "real facts" rather than insinuations based on Curiel's membership in the HBNA.

For some reason, we've chosen to ignore the actual content of the CNN sources as a whole, and instead cherry-picked one sentence which can be used most favorably to Trump. Moreover, in selecting the CNN source, we've ignored mountains of reputable sources which characterize Trump's claims of bias and insinuations as unfounded and, in some cases, simply false (as with La Raza). The content in question violates both WP:WEIGHT (by using the CNN source, cherry-picking from it, and ignoring the weight of other reliable sources) and WP:BLP (by insinuating bias in a way that does not appear in the cited source, or in reliable sources more generally). I have thus removed it pending further discussion. MastCell Talk 19:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this fully. It's an absurd insinuation of bias. Neutralitytalk 19:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I strongly object to removal of this highly relevant factual information that is as reliably-sourced as anything at Wikipedia. If some editor believes that the CNN source makes a larger point that there is no credible evidence of bias on Curiel's part, then I have no problem including that as well. But the removed material is quite clear that we do not know whether Curiel supports his association on this question. See WP:Preserve.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The fact that "we don't know" is part of what makes this an inappropriate insinuation. And, as MastCell notes, it is cherry-picked given the huge pile of sources which say that claims of bias are unfounded and false. Neutralitytalk 20:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The information explains why recusal is being discussed in this BLP. That is the entire subject of the CNN report, including in its headline.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss recusal in the article, but not by cherry-picking insinuations. I'll take a look at what reliable sources have to say on the subject. In the meantime, WP:PRESERVE doesn't authorize you to re-add material where there's a BLP concern. WP:BLP is very clear that "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material" (you, in this case), and that "when in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back". As a starting point, please acknowledge this fundamental Wikipedia policy. MastCell Talk 20:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course I acknowledge it, just as you ought to acknowledge that an editor can meet that burden of evidence even if other editors disagree that the burden has been met. AFAIK, the bit that you want to remove is the most relevant information in reliable sources as to whether the defendants might consider requesting recusal. If you support replacing it with less relevant information, then I suggest your burden of evidence would not be met.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
So far, two editors (myself and Neutrality) think the material is misleading, whereas one (yourself) is re-adding it. That isn't even close to satisfying the burden of proof, which (according to bedrock site policy) is yours. If we're talking recusal, then basic honesty compels us to note that reliable sources are essentially unanimous in regarding the case for recusal as non-existent. It is not honest to cherry-pick a theoretical (and extremely weak) potential grounds for recusal and then present it in isolation, while ignoring the voluminous context present in other reliable sources. MastCell Talk 21:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made my last edit for the day at this article. Please keep in mind that Trump is a living person too, and falls just as much under BLP policy as Curiel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I want to be clear that you are now explicitly violating WP:BLP, a fundamental site policy, by repeatedly re-inserting controversial material when the other editors who have commented (myself and Neutrality) have both raised serious concerns about it. I would request that you self-revert to maintain compliance with WP:BLP, until you've established a consensus to include this material; if not, I think this is a serious enough issue that I will seek administrative input. Trump is, of course, covered by WP:BLP; everything about him in this article is sourced above and beyond the bar for such material. MastCell Talk 21:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I have already said that I have made my last edit at this article for the day. My sincere opinion is that you are disregarding the fact that Trump is covered by WP:BLP just as much as Curiel is, and you are violating that policy by completely slanting the article toward the latter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Innumerable reliable sources state that Trump's attacks on Curiel are without legal substance (a selection are cited in the article). Conveying the content of these reliable sources is not "slant"; it's Editing 101. You've introduced slant by trying to cherry-pick factoids to "rebut" the content of reliable sources. MastCell Talk 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The material that you seek to delete existed in this article before there was anything to "rebut", so it seems fanciful to suggest that the reason for inclusion has suddenly changed. I suppose when balancing material is included in a Wikipedia material, one can always disparage half of it as "rebuttal" but I reject the charge here (and decline to characterize the material you inserted that way).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
IMO all of the material being discussed here is inappropriate, especially for a biography article. Delete it all - both Anythingyouwant's "they said this but we don't know if he agrees with it, wink wink, nudge nudge" sentence, and MastCell's additional "rebuttal" references. Or take it to the "Trump's presidential campaign" article. But not here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I support including both. Their is zero inconsistency between them, so the weight of reliable sources supports each of them and both of them. And they are both highly relevant to the cases we are writing about. As of right now, we are including only MastCell's material, which could not be more disparaging of Trump. The material about recusal is 100% consistent with MastCell's material, but provides perspective that is now missing. There is no "weight of the sources" opposing the recusal material, because no source suggests CNN is in any way incorrect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually I would be OK with keeping a trimmed down version of MastCell's comments; since they come right after saying that Curiel can't respond, we can let a few outside experts respond. They are "balance" to what Trump said. But not 6 references, that is overkill. One or two should do. And a nit-pick: the outside experts did say Trump's comments were racially tinged and an affront to an independent judiciary, but I don't think they said "unfounded", did they? And sorry, Anything, but calling this kind of attention to a position statement from one of the many organizations he belongs to is inappropriate. Personally I would hate to be held responsible for every position taken by every organization I belong to - wouldn't you? --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Why are you calling it "the recusal meterial"? I though we were talking about this edit, about the boycott call from the HBNA. --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Will reply in a few hours. Battery going dead on phone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
All charged up now. Melanie, this is the edit I presented at BLPN, and is the edit that I've been talking about here. The removed material is this: "According to CNN, Curiel belongs to the Hispanic National Bar Association which has called for a boycott of all Trump's businesses, though it is unknown how he personally feels about the boycott. Legal analysts interviewed by CNN said that requesting the judge's recusal in the Trump case could be risky, and lawyers who make unfounded recusal requests may be sanctioned." Calling this kind of attention to a position statement from one of the many organizations he belongs to is what CNN decided to do. If it's the most relevant factor relative to the question of recusal, then it seems very apt for us to follow CNN here, especially since CNN is totally uncontradicted by any other source. You also ask this reasonable although perhaps tangential question: "Personally I would hate to be held responsible for every position taken by every organization I belong to - wouldn't you?" Well, personally, if I were a judge, and an organization that I belonged to was boycotting a defendant, and I didn't support the organization's boycott, then I would not consider recusing myself, but I would completely understand if the defendant's counsel simply inquired as to whether I support the boycott; and if I did support the boycott then I would recuse.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The "fact" of the membership might be "uncontradicted," but presenting that fact in any frame which suggests or insinuates that the membership creates any real or perceived conflict of interest of note most certainly is not uncontradicted. For example, as libertarian legal scholar Ilya Somin noted, judges are not required to recuse themselves from a case merely because they are in some way affiliated with an organization that opposes a litigant’s political agenda. If such recusal really were required as a matter of judicial ethics, it would have radical implications for a wide range of cases – including some that Republicans are unlikely to be happy about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Ilya Somin has to do with this discussion, but it seems obvious that a judge who supports a boycott against all of a defendants' businesses has a personal bias or prejudice against that defendant. I think the boycott by Curiel's association can be mentioned in this article in a non-insinuating way just like CNN does, and without suggesting he supports the boycott.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

BLPN

There is a notice board discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest ruling

Judge Curiel ruled today in Trump's favor, again. The news media wanted access to his deposition. The judge ruled it would do harm if it were under media scrutiny. I'll find the link. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2016 (UT

here SW3 5DL (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
"We're sorry, but that page cannot be found." --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
This was the most recent news item I found. It was a week ago and it doesn't exactly fit your description of "ruling Trump's in favor, again". In any case, we have agreed here that we are not going to detail every legal step of that case; that would be very much UNDUE, especially in a biography. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
No, no, no. This ruling came down today. The press wanted to get his deposition and the judge ruled it would be harmful if it were put under media scrutiny. Trump's lawyers did not want the deposition released to the press. I wasn't looking to put it n the article per se, I was simply adding to a talk page edit I made a while back stating the judge was not showing bias against Trump and in fact had ruled several times in his favor. I'll find a link to the deposition decision. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
He did lose on some of the things but he did win on the release of the videotaped deposition. [13] "Judge Curiel also ran through a lengthy list of items both in favor and against disclosure before ultimately concluding Trump has “established good cause to bar the further dissemination of the deposition videos. Ultimately, [v]ideotaped depositions are permitted to facilitate the presentation of evidence to juries; they are not intended to provide ‘a vehicle for generating content for broadcast and other media,” Judge Curiel concluded. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, well, let me remind you what it says at the top of talk pages: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gonzalo P. Curiel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. Sorry if that sounded like a rebuke; I didn't mean it that way. I can see you are operating in good faith. Just saying that kind of information is really not appropriate to post here if it isn't relevant to the article content. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject added

Does this article qualify for the Donald Trump WikiProject? Trumps involvement with this judge seems a one off, like a WP:BIO1E, especially as the case has been resolved. There won't be anymore contact with the judge, nothing on-going, so adding this article to the WikiProject doesn't seem a good fit for either the project or the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gonzalo_P._Curiel/Archive_1&oldid=782852355"