Talk:Matthew Kacsmaryk

NPOV - nothing on his views on LGBT issues

See [1][2][3][4] etc. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Question on source

@Snickers2686: This Dallas Observer article is currently used as a source but I don't see anything about Kacsmaryk at the target link. Is it supposed to be a different link? Marquardtika (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: Hey, thanks for catching that. Yeah, when I initially clicked on the link I assumed it led right to that story, come to find out that it led to the homepage, but wasn't the link for the story I wanted. After refreshing the page I was able to find the correct link and updated it in the article. Thanks again! Snickers2686 (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, awesome, I figured something like that happened. Thanks for fixing it! Marquardtika (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2018 (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:

• Matthew Kacsmaryk.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Where is the information about his early life?

Where was the judge born? Who were his parents? What did his father/mother do? Siblings? Early education? 2601:84:8900:130:4004:35D1:98AF:99FA (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

.Gov sources are appropriate, correct?

Reasoning: Biographical information is not inappropriate. Under Wikipedia Terms of Service, Section 4 Heading "Violating the Privacy of Others", bullet point #3, a user would be in violation of terms of service if there was an applicable law being broken in addition to the collective agreement of Wikipedia editors. There is no additional information provided about persons including but not limited to properly sourced information regarding individuals' state of health in past or present, place of residence or education, age, extracurricular activities and so forth. Furthermore, citation provided is from a .GOV-hosted press release intended for public release. No applicable laws or etiquette are being violated by using this citation. Using quotes from a personal blog, social media account, gossip tabloid, church website, school website and so forth would potentially be in violation of applicable law and, of course, Wikipedia general etiquette and terms of service.

Source (Bottom paragraph showing biographical information): https://web.archive.org/web/20190715160301/https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/news/press-release-judge-matthew-joseph-kacsmaryk JosephMifsudL0L (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Even though that is a press release, it is still a primary source. But, this is a secondary source with similar information. https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/new-us-district-judge-appointed-to-amarillo-division-of-northern-district-of-texas Furthermore, this information being part of a press release by the government certainly indicates that it is no secret. starship.paint (exalt) 15:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing is sufficient here, but per WP:BLPNAME, I don't see any reason to include the names of his minor children. It's not key to understanding the article subject. Saying he has five children, along with the given sourcing, is fine. Marquardtika (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I’m fine with that. I remember seeing some information about a stillbirth on top of these 5 children and we should probably add that. starship.paint (exalt) 23:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's a few links regarding stillbirth and second/third child pregnancy complications. There's a few PDF sources that list parents and date of birth/death but it didn't give a lot of context and were not official documents so I did not include those. I believe they were from a publication that lists still births that month or week.

Obituary:

https://obits.dallasnews.com/us/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/name/tyndale-kacsmaryk-obituary?id=11842615

Find a grave index:

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/54188296/tyndale-grace-kacsmaryk

Nice article by Caroline Kitchener:

"Five smiling children, ages 6 through 15 — and then Tyndale, on the end, stillborn."

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:x3y9W0etPCgJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/25/texas-judge-abortion-pill-decision/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=ms-android-samsung-gs-rev1

Second child Reagan had complications after birth, some may argue this is already difficult after losing 1 and could create an environment at least tantamount to spousal bias if not paternal bias:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230321133546/https://dentonnews.blogspot.com/2009/03/update-on-reagan-kacsmaryk.html?m=1

https://web.archive.org/web/20230321133807/http://kazzykaz.blogspot.com/2009/03/blessed-birthday.html

"37. the deepened friendships I gained over losing Tyndale"

https://web.archive.org/web/20230321135605/http://kazzykaz.blogspot.com/2009/11/thankful-heart_26.html?m=1

"I just wish Avery's big sister was here to do these things with her. But if Tyndale can't be here, Ashlyn is a fantastic substitute!"

https://web.archive.org/web/20230321135901/http://kazzykaz.blogspot.com/2009/10/halloween-fun.html JosephMifsudL0L (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Just read WP:BLPNAME. I think those terms are reasonable. Caroline Kitchener did a fine job at summarizing the stillborn with similar ethics in the Washington Post article in my comment above but lung complications with the other child (R. Kacsmaryk) have not been summarized online to my knowledge. In the event of no available summary online from a suitable source I'm assuming that is left out. JosephMifsudL0L (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Page 7, search "KACSMARYK" in newsletter regarding neonatal death and birth information:

https://max-friz.squarespace.com/s/20080102-mend-newsletter.pdf JosephMifsudL0L (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

We’re not going to use blogspot or obituaries but WaPo should be fine. starship.paint (exalt) 06:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Who added smack talk about the Texas Review of Law and Politics?

Unsourced misrepresentation of the Texas Review of Law and Politics, an official publication of the UT Law School. "which is not the main law review at Texas but rather a conservative ideological publication" https://law.utexas.edu/publications/journals/texas-review-of-law-politics/

Please eliminate the quoted material 50.0.36.48 (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I toned down the material to "...where he was an executive editor of the explicitly conservative legal publication the Texas Review of Law & Politics". It is certainly worth noting from a NPOV that this is a publication which describes itself explicitly as being conservative and political in nature. StereoFolic (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And someone's now removed the wording "explicitly", I guess his klan defenders will continue the whitewash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.143.192.197 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I just reverted this. User: Heavy Water if you want to discuss this further please do so here, but do not WP:War; this characterization is already subject of Talk discussion. StereoFolic (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@StereoFolic: Please take it down a notch and AGF. There's no need to accuse me of edit warring. I was reading the article personally and thought the wording looked oddly pleonasmic. In any event, discounting accusations of WP:TAGTEAM, an edit war would not begin until I had exceeded 3RR — I was at 0RR. Your reasoning for using "explicitly" makes sense to me, now that we have had the opportunity to discuss this.

And I've warned the above IP about NPA and the general civility of pinging people when making serious accusations against them. Heavy Water (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood, and my apologies for not assuming good faith. I agree above IP was out of line. StereoFolic (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That said, if you can think of a better wording I'd welcome it. I'm not totally happy with it either. StereoFolic (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:GuardianH, your recent edit removed the word 'explicitly' here, which has been the subject of Talk discussion. Please review the rationale in this thread. I think it's important to note that the publication self-identifies as ideological and conservative, as opposed to a publication which others consider conservative. StereoFolic (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

disclosures

Is it worth creating a separate section for disclosure issues? (e.g., the law review article, as well as new reporting on undisclosed interviews and stock holdings) Die Kunst Der Fuge (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

working on this now StereoFolic (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Took a first shot at it, but there's certainly room for improvement StereoFolic (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements. Just a note that I think we should be careful to avoid placing WP:UNDUE weight on this section, as its length is now approaching that of his notable cases. I think it's probably okay as-is, but something to keep in mind. StereoFolic (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good— I think most of the additions come from a lot of recent media coverage of Kacsmaryk's personal life and politics in relation to the mifepristone ruling. I think the disclosure on the Texas law review and the radio interviews are probably more germane as to why he's attracting so much attention (as opposed to the financial stuff). Die Kunst Der Fuge (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of commentary

User:Iowalaw2 you have removed substantial commentary without justification, then on my revert requesting Talk consensus you again reverted it without explanation. To prevent WP:warring I will not revert again, but I request you please explain why you think this is justified. The commentary deleted is well sourced from notable commentators and relevant. If you have concerns of WP:Undue we can discuss updating the commentary, but wholesale removal seems drastic. Thank you. StereoFolic (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Similar concerns have been raised and responded to at Talk:Aileen Cannon. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

None of the commentary cited was from legal experts, and even if it was, op-ed reactions to rulings are virtually never included in articles about judges. They're just not relevant; all high-profile rulings get criticized by some people in some way. In addition, all of the commentary comes from the same point of view, creating a NPOV problem. Imagine if one of the articles about a judge overseeing some of the litigation against the Trump administration devoted a significant amount of space to discussing the Wall Street Journal editorial board's reaction. The draft still notes that there was a lot of public controversy and criticism, which is fine. Iowalaw2 (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"They're just not relevant; all high-profile rulings get criticized by some people in some way." - high profile are criticized in notable venues because they have significant impacts in the world. People's responses to these are notable. Is there some judge-specific set of guidelines that explain "op-ed reactions to rulings are virtually never included in articles about judges"? As far as I know, the guidelines around WP:Controversial issues is to factually and reliably describe the controversy, not remove it from the page. If NPOV is a concern, the solution should be to add opposing opinions, for example this op-ed I just found. StereoFolic (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to concisely explaining that there is a controversy, as the article does now. I do have an objection to devoting about half of the relevant part of the article to political commentary. It's undue weight. (Along similar lines, note that the article does not describe the legal errors in the opinion noted by the Fifth Circuit with any specificity.) I also noticed looking at this again that a good amount of the discussion was from quasi-opinion pieces without attribution, and have removed it. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, a case which sets off enormous political and legal controversy should have much of its article dedicated to that controversy. It seems like perfectly due weight considering how much news coverage these cases have gotten. Again, I think the better approach for striking a NPOV here is by adding more perspectives, not deleting and giving the impression that the cases were less controversial than they were. StereoFolic (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have similarly just reverted your deletion of analysis on the language of a case. I accidentally published an incomplete edit summary - to explain further, all 3 sources cited there are news articles describing and providing analysis of the case. All 3 sources are known reliable sources which can be reasonably trusted to fact check statements in commentary they publish within. Besides, the analysis largely hinges on direct quotes from the opinion. If there is anything specific within that is factually erroneous, that should be specifically removed. StereoFolic (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The articles are of the genre that NYT would call "Analysis": somewhere between reporting and opinion, or something like reporting opinion, as opposed to straight news. The Guardian article, for example, is filled with derisory language without attribution. The Axios and NBC articles are summaries of criticisms from commentators. It doesn't change from opinion to reporting because it goes through a third-party publisher first. The proper way to include it would be something like "according to John Doe, the opinion used language characteristic of the anti-abortion movement..." Iowalaw2 (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have added two additional sources from the NYT - which is not from its "analysis" section - and WaPo, and updated the paragraph introduction to qualify this as an argument. The section is almost entirely direct quotes anyway. Again if there is something factually in question we should certainly correct it, but I don't think it's necessarily a POV problem to describe the widely agreed-upon reading that the opinion was rhetorically charged. If there were some WP:RS which argued to the contrary, then a more nuanced discussion would be necessary, but I have found none. StereoFolic (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The NYT article is still a quasi-opinion piece, but no objection as edited, with a slight alteration to the language to try to clarify the attribution to "observers" throughout. Iowalaw2 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)