Talk:John K. Bush

Does including Bush's blogging controversy in the lead (as opposed to just in the body) violate WP:UNDUE ???

Does including Bush's blogging controversy in the lead (as opposed to just in the body) violate WP:UNDUE ??? Safiel (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Reply Undue or Not undue. Safiel (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Undue If it had risen to a major controversy in the Senate or the media at large, I would say that it should be in the lead. However, it never got heavy coverage and only a fair amount of comment in the Senate. I will say that coverage in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Safiel (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Undue Per Safiel's comment. Plenty of other judges have been confirmed on a party-line vote, but they rarely have it mentioned in the lede. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 01:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Undue The issues start in the very first sentence, which should read "John Kenneth Bush is an American attorney and Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit." He is most notable for being a federal judge, not for being a "conservative political blogger." He is a federal judge who at one time had a blog, but the blog doesn't appear to be a defining feature of his notability. Next, there is currently more detail in the lede re. the blogging than there is in the body. Per WP:LEAD, it should be the other way around--the lede should be summarizing the article. Currently, the lede makes it seem like the blogging is a more major factor in his biography than it is. It didn't hinder his confirmation, and as JocularJellyfish says above, party-line votes are not infrequent for judicial nominees. There was coverage surrounding the blog with regards to his nomination, which is not surprising, but it remains to be seen if the coverage will be sustained, especially since the blogging didn't have a negative impact on his ability to win confirmation. Sustained coverage seems doubtful, so we need to keep WP:RECENTISM in mind. I support removing the blogging content from the lede and instead inserting a better summary in the body. Marquardtika (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Undue Not balanced to highlight this in the lead, which is probably WP:RECENTISM, especially with POV wording like "disparaging gay rights". Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's important for you guys to understand that due weight is defined with reference to available reliable sources. If you make an honest effort to look at independent, reliable sources about Bush, you'll find that many of them focus on his controversial past as a partisan blogger and the resulting difficulties with his confirmation to the federal judiciary. So in order to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, we need to reflect that emphasis. As a significant part of his biography (as weighted by independent, reliable sources), the blogging controversy therefore requires mention in the lead (per WP:LEAD). These are the site policies and guidelines. It would pretty disingenuous - not to mention a violation of site policy - to fail to make an appropriately weighty mention of the issue, given the existing reliable sources.

  As for "POV wording", the phrase "disparaging gay rights" is taken nearly verbatim from an independent, reliable source to describe Bush's position—as is the description of him as a "conservative blogger". I think you guys are misunderstanding what "POV" means in this context—it would be "POV" to fail to convey the content of reliable sources, or to water it down because of editors' personal viewpoints. MastCell ^Talk 04:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the term "conservative blogger" is POV wording. I think it's undue to describe him as a blogger in the first sentence of the article. He doesn't appear to have been a professional or full-time blogger. He is primarily notable for being a federal judge, and certainly the first sentence of his encyclopedia article should indicate the primary reason for his notability. And AFAICT, of the sources currently provided in the lede regarding his blogging, none of them actually refer to him as a "conservative blogger", with the exception of the NPR source, which does so in the headline of the article but not in the article itself. That's pretty weak sauce sourcing for the main description of someone in an article. The first sentence really needs to say that he's a judge. Marquardtika (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it - thanks for clarifying. That makes sense - I agree we should describe him as a judge, or federal judge, in the lead sentence. As for the "blogger" description, it did seem to be prominent in the NPR source (and the headline is the most prominent part of the article) - but I do take your point that other sources don't highlight it to the same degree, so it would make sense to remove the descriptor from the lead sentence. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I have a suggestion for content on this topic in the article's body. Here's what I propose be included in the section titled "Federal judicial service":

"On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump announced that he would nominate Bush to the seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated by Judge Danny Julian Boggs who took senior status on February 28, 2017. A hearing on his nomination before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary was held on June 14, 2017. On a questionnaire submitted to the committee, Bush acknowledged that between 2007 and 2016, he had pseudonymously authored approximately 400 blog posts on Elephants in the Bluegrass, a blog founded by his wife, Bridget. His blog posts espoused conservative political views and expressed opposition to gay marriage, the Affordable Care Act, public financing of political campaigns, and the idea of trying terrorists in civilian courts. Bush also compared abortion to slavery, calling the topics "the two greatest tragedies in our country." When questioned about his blogging during his judicial nomination process, Bush said that "my personal views are irrelevant to the position for which I have been nominated" and that "Blogging is a political activity. It is not appropriate to bring politics to the bench." On July 19, 2017, the Senate voted in favor of cloture by a vote of 51-48. On July 20, 2017, the United States Senate voted 51-47 to confirm him. He received his judicial commission on July 21, 2017.

In the lede, I would suggest that we say "During his nomination proceedings, Bush was questioned about pseudonymous blog posts he had written which espoused conservative political views. He was confirmed by the Senate on a party-line vote of 51–47 on July 20, 2017." Let me know what y'all think of these suggestions, thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Marquardtika: Just wanted to ping you back that I have taken a look. That might work, I will respond more fully tomorrow (actually later today). Safiel (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment On further consideration, I think that proposal would work. Safiel (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I'll wait a few days and see if anyone else chimes in before implementing anything. Marquardtika (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I mostly agree with that, but I'm not sure it's quite right. Per the sources, the issue is not so much that he blogged about his political views, but that the views in question were inflammatory and extreme - for instance, his comparison of abortion to slavery, or his credulous promotion of right-wing conspiracy theories and falsehoods. It's not necessary to go into that degree of detail in the lead, I agree, but to simply say that he was criticized for expressing his political views seems incomplete and not quite in line with the sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of how to modify the content above to address your point, but I'm coming up short...any suggestions on how to tweak the content? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented the above content as it seemed to have rough consensus, but I'm sure it can continue to be improved. Thanks all. Marquardtika (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Noting that consensus was to include material about Bush's confirmation hearing in the lead, as noted above by Safiel and Marquardtika. Such material was added to the article in August 2017 and has remained there in some form for nearly a year. It was removed by an IP editor a week ago or so—in violation of the existing consensus. I restored the material. To be clear, there is an existing consensus on this talkpage to include material about Bush's confirmation hearing in the lead. Consensus can change, but that needs to be demonstrated here. This edit mis-states consensus (and also constitutes hounding, in my view, but that's a separate issue) and I have restored the consensus version pending further discussion. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus to mention the confirmation hearings in the lede. I don't think we need the "citing material promoting right-wing conspiracy theories" part, though. The only source I can find mentioning conspiracy theories is NPR, and it mentions birtherism, but no other conspiracy theories. If the source we're using doesn't elaborate on what constitutes conspiracy theories, it really doesn't belong in the lede, IMO. Marquardtika (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I saw in the purposed text above and the implementation of consensus here, what you restored to the article here is not the consensus version. The version you are fighting for here that was added July 4th does not appear to have consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

At least we’re agreed that there is consensus to mention the hearings - contrary to your initial assertion - so that’s progress.

To Marquardtika’s point, NPR is *not* the only reliable source to mention Bush’s promotion of conspiracy theories. The Associated Press wrote that Bush cited an alt-right conspiracy-theory website ([1]), as did Politico ([2]). Since there are numerous non-NPR reliable sources saying the same thing, I’ll add the additional sources to address your concern. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra links. I added them to the article and tried to make the lede more clear. Re. whether or not this is DUE, I think it's clear that as of now, a fair bit of Bush's notability is derived from the confirmation hearings and the revelations about his past blogging pursuits. Given that he's now a confirmed lifetime federal judge, it's probable that over the years, he'll become notable for his judicial opinions, notable cases, etc., and the confirmation stuff will be a footnote in history. But that's not the case yet, so I think this stuff should stay, in some form, in the lede for now. Marquardtika (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable, it would be worth looking back on this in a few years to see if it still holds weight for the lead. I'm glad we can sort out the changes so we don't keep side stepping on census. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Primary sources!

I’ve just added citations for the actual nominee questionnaires that Bush filled out. They’re referenced quite heavily in this article and should be cited directly. B (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC) B (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)