Jump to content

Talk:J. Michelle Childs/Archive 1

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. Michelle Childs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Redaction

@Schazjmd: I have reverted and oversighted a link you added to this page per the oversight policy—please see Special:Diff/1069957526 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 23:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Former clerk rewrites SCOTUS contenders’ Wikipedia bios

Please see Talk:Ketanji Brown Jackson. According to public media reports, a former clerk has been rewriting this and other SCOTUS contenders' bios on Wikipedia. Tony Tan · talk 08:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A poor edit

This is a poor edit that undid a lot of improvements to the article and introduced factual errors, unsourced content, and promotional language. As just one example, we have "She is considered an expert in labor and employment law, having participated in the compilation of the Restatement of the Law Third: Employment Law, a well-respected legal treatise that was published in 2015" in the lede with no source. I looked to the body for corroboration and found only "Childs was elected to the American Law Institute in 2010 and served as an adviser on the Restatement Third, Employment Law, a decade-long project that was published as an official text in early 2015." The source is the American Law Institute's own website. It's inappropriate to have unsourced peacock language like "well-respected legal treatise" in the lede of our article. There's also no source for "a decade-long project that was published as an official text in early 2015" or Childs being elected to ALI in 2010. In fact, all of this content about the Restatement of Law is hinged on this ALI directory page which tells us basically nothing. There are also factual inaccuracies like "As of February 2022, she is under consideration for either the United States Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit;" in fact, as I wrote, "As of February 2022, Childs has a pending nomination for the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which has been paused while she is considered by President Joe Biden for a seat on the United States Supreme Court." There is promotionalism such as "In 1991, Childs was recruited as a summer associate by a number of law firms, but selected the Columbia-based prestigious business law firm Nexsen Pruet;" that's not in the source. My version, "In 1991, Childs was hired as a law clerk at Nexsen Pruet, a firm that represents employers in labor law litigation" is sourced. We also have "she appointed what was hailed as the most diverse multi-district-litigation team in the nation's history in a case involving a data breach at Blackbaud," in fact, the source says "one of the most..." I also fixed an unnecessary capitalization of "federal," per WP:MOS, and that was inexplicably reverted. These are just a few examples of many issues with the article. I explained each of my edits in the edit summary using Wikipedia policies. Undoing everything I changed made the article significantly worse and is a disservice to readers. Marquardtika (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It is OK to be bold. Lord knows I have done it. But, to be blunt, your editing turned a readable article into "On this date, X happened" x 30. Be mindful of readability (also on talk pages... use paragraphs!). As for the Restatement, you have to recognize how important Restatements are in the legal profession. It isn't promotional, it is factual and notable that she helped compile one. Find a proper source for it is needed but do not remove content before trying to do so. Also, why didn't you just change "the most" to "one of the most" in that diverse litigation team sentence if you saw that it needed to be changed?
If it helps, I agree that the Nexsen Pruet sentence you cited ought to go. Either way, get consensus on your edits. Muttnik talk 23:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
So...you've raised no specific objections to the changes I made and have admitted that content in the article's lede is unsourced? If, as you say, "It isn't promotional, it is factual and notable that she helped compile one," find a source. Everything here must be verifiable. I don't "have to recognize how important Restatements are in the legal profession," you have to provide a source verifying the content. If you agree that my Nexsen Pruet edit was good, why did you revert it...? You say I turned a readable article into "On this date, X happened" x 30. Can you point to a single instance where I committed this apparently high crime? I actually changed things like "On January 28, 2022, the White House stated that Childs is among those..." to more readable prose. I think what I did was help turn an article suffering from promotionalism and boosterism into an encyclopedia article. I will see what others may have to say. Marquardtika (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Per verifiable, "[c]onsider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Muttnik talk 05:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the section of the lead discussing the restatement. The sources in the article do not support that her work on the restatement makes her an expert in employment law, just that she contributed and that restatements are influential. If that is her specialty, then there is probably a source that says so and it should be included and used as support for adding said specialty back into the lead. Tchouppy (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._Michelle_Childs/Archive_1&oldid=1164802596"