Talk:Vaughn Walker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cmn

What happened to this page? I'd swear I've read it, if not edited it.--Elvey (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Trivia? Or notable?

Judge Walker didn't allow a plaintiff to collect for attorneys fees when she had to take several corporations to court over fraud. She won all of her cases but Walker would not allow her attorneys fees to be paid off. Fifteen years later and this is now coming back to haunt her as the cost of those several hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees is no longer there to help her with her home costs. Please don't make wikipedia a place that protects the reputation of judges that do stupid and vile things. Walker was a corporate lawyer before he became a judge, his actions against Brenda Reed, who won her case in his court but then lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees is outrageous.

In Reed's own words, Brenda Reed, Oakland, California — BrendaR 2010-05-12 15:55 "When my home was destroyed in the Oakland Firestorm, Home Savings of America held the mortgage and thus my insurance proceeds for reconstruction were held by HSL in an insurance trust account. The bank gave all the funds to the contractor who committed fraud. I had to sue the contractor, his subs, his 2 unadmitted insurance carriers, and the bank. The insurance cases were in federal court. I prevailed in all the suits, however Judge Vaughan Walker did not award me attorneys fees which were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars as the case went up on appeal and required years of litigation. This ate up my personal property proceeds and my savings. I then had to pour a ton of money into the house to finish it, correcting countless construction errors of great magnitude. I got my house and love it, despite all my challenges. I now operate a B&B out of my property. If Chase forecloses, I lose my home and half my livelihood. Meanwhile the dance goes on."

"May I find just the right pebble to put in my slingshot just as David had when going up against Goliath."

I would like to add Brenda Reed's story to Vaughn's record. Please figure out how this can be done without my being viewed as some kind of instigator or problem maker. I wrote an article about Wikipedia's request for donations and placed it on my highest hit blog. just saying.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.214.209 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tax resister kooks threaten Walker with "cease and desist orders" and contempt citations against Judge Walker, threatening to arrest him for "criminal and civil penalties, including treason and sedition." -http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1996/06/28/MN61615.DTL&hw=Vaughn+Walker&sn=604&sc=170

sexual orientation

Is Walker's homosexuality a noteworthy issue? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL 76.21.142.29 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus has been that a person's sexual orientation isn't a vital part about their history, for wikipedia entries. That would involve labeling every single person that has an entry on them: ("Julia Roberts is an American, heterosexual actress who...") It just seems cumbersome, and seperate from their notable achievements, to many people. Codenamemary (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed someone put back in that Judge Walker is gay (which of course they're free to do, wikipedia being a public participation forum.) But might we discuss a little more what people's feelings are on listing this? I sort of feel like, since his original entry didn't specify he was heterosexual (the public assumption), what's the rationale for now stating he's homosexual? I wonder if this approach of mentioning his sexual orientation (something we don't do for straights) propagates the attitude that gays and lesbians are somehow separate, and need a different set of rules from everyone else. The trial that Judge Walker is prosiding over now is all about how they AREN'T. I'm not FREAKED OUT that it's listed, it just gives me pause and makes me a little uneasy. Especially since I read all the trial transcripts last week, and this issue of gays and lesbians as being treated differently in mainstream culture is on my mind. (EDIT: Have gone back and properly signed this with my username; it had some anonymous listing before, as I didn't realize I wasn't logged in on Feb 14. Just want to be upfront and clear, that this wasn't some attempt to create a sock!) Codenamemary (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC) 01:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I must add that the Maiter & Ross piece was not published on their own blog, but was actually published in the Chronicle itself. It was subject to editorial review. If you throw out their story, you have to throw out the prior story from the Chronicle which comments on Walker's "aversion to harsh criminal penalties." Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the “Walker is gay” addition raises many doubts under the biography-of-living-persons policy. The only source cited is S.F. Chronicle’s Matier & Ross gossip column (I believe they like to style themselves as “political insiders”; but “gossip column” is the most common third-party description). BLP generally requires more than a “questionable source” (“which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions”). I dare say we’ve catapulted over the “presumption in favor of privacy” (Walker won’t discuss his sexual orientation). Walker isn’t terribly well known, so the policy urges us to exercise restraint, and, in many circles, this rumor (however plausible it may be) would “adversely affect a person’s reputation.” Wonderbreadsf (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty accepted by a number of sources. There are lots of google news mentions and not all of them are of the "SF Chronicle reports" variety, e.g. [1] [2]. It is also clearly a very newsworthy fact, since the Prop. 8 case attracts considerable public interest and this will be a factor in the public perception of outcome. I say it goes back in. -- Y not? 23:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Matier and Ross, nor BLP policy in practice, to know whether it's sufficient. But the two further links provided don't to me add weight. The first says "The Chronicle reports Walker is gay.", not that he is, the second's title admits the question is open. If it goes back in, I suggest that the strongest citation for that claim of those three is the sfgate article. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But User Y-Not, please answer this for me: Regardless of how much public interest there is in the case, why would the judge's "gayness" be notable now for wikipedia when his "straightness" wasn't before?Codenamemary (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the media says so. -- Y not? 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to orientation categories, WP:BLP states: "The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Now, a full reading of that section makes it clear that there's more latitude for inclusion of that information in the article text (because the article can provide more detail about what is and isn't understood), I think the sources we're arguing about do in fact state that Walker's orientation is relevant to our understanding of Judge Walker and the Perry case. I accept that the question of whether the Judge is gay does matter, even though I don't think it should matter as a matter of my personal POV. From a WP policy point of view, I believe the critical question is simply whether the sources involved rise to the level of "reliable." It's entirely appropriate (according to WP:BLP) err on the side of non-inclusion on poorly sourced material. Since the only basic (not rereported) source for this story that I have read so far is a gossip column, I'm not entirely convinced that the material is reliably enough sourced for inclusion, but I think we're very close to the line. --Joe Decker (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [EDITED TO ADD: The SF Chroinicle editorial linked (well) below is, IMHO, sufficiently reliable, so I withdraw my objection to the inclusion of Walker's orientation. --Joe Decker (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)]

That's about right, Joe. I would add that someone's sexual orientation is by its nature not going to be perfectly confirmable, unless it's advertised. However, (i) the Chronicle is a reputable newspaper and wouldn't allow this to be published without corroboration, even if it's not reprintable corroboration; (ii) it seems the fact of his gayness is widely accepted as true, or at least not challenged anywhere, indicating that other media have access to sources who pretty much know that he's gay; and (iii) the fact of of the outing, widely mirrorred by a large number of media outlets, is itself important to the public's understanding and interpretation of the case. So I say, add it back in, qualified as it was with "the San Francisco Chronicle reported". -- Y not? 19:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. It still doesn't make sense to me, in the grand scale. Since wikipedia does not identify straight people's orientation, I don't know why gays should be labeled. As far as something being published in a reliable news source making it worthy of inclusion, if Architectural Digest says a person's attic space is 12'X32', I don't think that should end up in an entry, either.(Okay, that was maybe a bit of a stretch...)Codenamemary (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is extremely relevant at the present time. It is a huge news story. Many in the homosexual media have been reporting on this for a long time. The SF Chronicle merely made it headline news. It's now been covered by everyone from the Washington Post, to Slate, to the local NBC stations covering the case. It's a huge story and shouldn't be censored from the page. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this really "a huge news story"? I've only seen it referenced once. (I'm not a devoted News Hound, though.) When I mentioned it to my friends, both gay and straight - - frankly, after only seeing the mention here - - they hadn't heard this "news" before. But that's in keeping with the entire trial, so far...there hasn't been as much news coverage as either side expected. In fact, in one of the trial transcripts, an attorney for the Proponents (ie, Pro-Prop 8) mentions to the judge that when he arrived at the nearly empty courthouse that day, he wondered if he was in the right place.Codenamemary (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Where has this Walker business been "headline news" (as referenced above)? A headline is the very first, most boldly printed story in a news section.Codenamemary (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

NBC Covered it, Slate Covered it, The Washington Post Covered it, in fact it has been noted that "Out of more than 1,000 federal judges in the country, there are only two that are known to be gay: Vaughn, and a federal trial court judge in Manhattan, Deborah Batts." Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't care how many tabloids are reporting the case. Yes, the Washington Post and Slate are tabloids. NBC is just following what the SF Chronicle said, and that article doesn't seem to be backed up by solid proof. That sentence is a blatant violation of WP:BLP. Besides, there is no censorship going on here at all. Ellen DeGeneres, which is probably the biggest gay icon in the world right now, does not have an article which says "She is gay". Yes, it mentions the word several times, but in a notable way, such as a character she played being the first to "come out", or being the first gay person to host the Oscars. Or the word "gay" is in an organization she helped. Never, "Ellen DeGeneres is an American gay actor and talk-show host..." And this is someone who is openly and publicly gay. We need to take special care with living people per WP:BLP. --haha169 (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a tabloid? Do you know what the Washington Post is? The fact that Walker is a homosexual is a huge news story given that he is preceding over the Prop 8 trial and given his past controversy with the "Gay Olympics." Numerous other Wikipedia articles mention whether or not a person is homosexual. There is even an entire category that references famous homosexuals. This is definitely noteworthy, newsworthy, and sourced. I can understand why some people wouldn't want Walker's orientation known, but that doesn't make it any less of a fact. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How is Mr. Walker's "homosexuality" a "fact", Ghostmonkey? Facts can be proven. Can we prove that Mr. Walker is indeed a homosexual? And what is the "controversy" surrounding the job he did as an attorney in the Gay Olympics case? Is it "controversial" that if he were gay, that he would defend a client as instructed, regardless of his sexual orientation, and therefore, presumably to some, contrary to his personal feelings? If he were gay, why would we assume he's in favor of the Gay Olympics, or of the Gay Olympics appropriating the word "Olympics" for their games? What is the "controvery" associated with an attorney behaving in a professional manner? Codenamemary (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, placement under "views" is a WP:NPOV vio. We might as well add that he is white, male, and has white hair under "views" we're at it. --haha169 (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how you put it, Haha. I agree it doesn't go in the lede - which is why I took it out of there. But it is very much appropriate in the body. I invite you to take the lead on couching the information in such terms as are acceptable to you, lest less sensitive users get there first. -- Y not? 21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But Y, you still haven't established how accusations/possible revelations (whatehaveyou) that Judge Walker is gay are relevant to his wikipedia entry, aside from "the media says so"...which I question, anyway. (An earlier poster called this "headline news" but I've yet to see the headlines.) If there were a serious article that could be cited verifying a living arrangement, past or present, with a longtime companion or same sex spouse, it migh make sense to mention those, as it fills in and documents specifics about his life. (EDIT: that being said, Encyclopedia entries don't usually list spouses and children of a subject unless they're noteworthy in their own right.) But it seems all there is now is a generalized gossip column item that's gone on to be cited in a few other gossipy publications. Codenamemary (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I’m troubled by the absence of any meaningful scrutiny of the source for Walker’s sexual orientation. Without a reliable source, there’s no point in discussing the relevance of the claim. While the S.F. Chronicle is generally a reliable source of news for a Wikipedia article, the fact that the source (WP:SOURCES) is a rumor column from an otherwise reliable publisher is a fatal flaw in any biography of a living person (WP:BLP#Sources). Can someone please cough up a source that isn’t derivative of a rumor column? Only then is there any point in debating the merits of including this material here. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicle ran a story regarding their decision to "out" Walker. They cite their source as impeccable. Later stories featured an interview with individuals who are good friends with Walker who confirmed the rumor. This isn't a rumor anymore, and the story is quit big. I can understand that some people don't want this information publicized, but it is sourced and well documented. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And should we ultimately decide to identify this gentleman as gay here (regardless as to whether he is or not), we should then get out our needles and thread so we can sew pink triangles on his clothing, so his supposed sexuality is readily identifiable in person, too. (Of course, no need to do this for straights, just a minority group.) Codenamemary (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if he is gay, I don't think it should be explicitly mentioned. Adam Lambert and Ellen DeGeneres are both gay, but their sexual orientation are not mentioned EXCEPT for when they became the first gay person to do something. Then it is mentioned as "first gay person..." or "his sexual orientation stirred controversy..." etc., --haha169 (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the fact that he is a homosexual something that he should be ashamed of? Is there a reason that he should hide his homosexuality? The fact that he is one of only two federal judges known to be homosexual is quite extraordinary in and of itself. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As I responded to your earlier post (which you may have not seen), I have trouble with this individual's sexual orientation being classified as "a fact". Facts can be proven, and I doubt any of us here can supply proof as to what Judge Walker's sex life is like. Codenamemary (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

One's sexual behavior is a fact. Walker's is well sourced. If you think this is something that he should be ashamed of, then that is one thing, but his behavior is still a fact and is extremely notable in this case. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghostmonkey57, providing ten variations (diff) for the same source demonstrates an echo chamber, but doesn’t do anything to improve the bona fides of the original gossip column:

1. The original Matier & Ross political-gossip column to which some editors have objected.
2. A local TV station news blog that’s reporting on an advocacy statement in response to the column. It includes passages such as “Justice Vaughn Walker being gay, if that’s true…” (The blog post also incorrectly identifies the court in which he works; and the publisher hasn’t bothered to correct that rather obvious error in the week and half the post has been there). NBC Bay Area blog
3. A blog post (someplace called “True Slant”, by a blogger who’s tagline is “The Not-so Private Parts”). Sources are the original Matier & Ross column plus a conversation among bloggers. True Slant blog
4. A Christian news organization reports on reaction to M&R’s assertion that Walker “apparently is himself a homosexual.” What additional reporting did Baptist Press provide? Compelling quotes like “We have no idea whether the report is true or not.” Baptist Press
5. A survey of opinions in The Week about the original M&R column. A reasonably well woven string of quotes with varying reactions to M&R, but no original reporting. The Week
6. Blog post on a Bay Area alternative newspaper site about whether or not M&R had actually “outed” Walker. Provides some interesting quotes from M&R about their thinking on the running the piece. There is one useful sentence in their about the editorial process behind the original M&R piece. SF Weekly blog
7. More rehash of the M&R piece with some quotes from a local law professor, who at no point suggests he knows anything about Walker’s orientation (but provides some thoughts about recusal in general) NBC Bay Area blog
8. Short piece in Chicago gay magazine Website that just regurgitates the M&R column. Windy City Media
9. Ditto (but from a Dallas gay publisher’s blog) Dallas Voice
10. Atlanta NBC affiliate picks up the SF blog post (including reprinting the erroneous promotion of Walker to the appellate court) NBC 11 Alive

To which I’ll add the Washington Post columnist who opined on the implications of the rumor, with the caveat “if he is gay.”

So, we’re left the original gossip column, which several other columnists of some note take with a grain of salt. Wikipedia editors either need to establish the M&R column as reliable news rather than rumor (which may be possible, but not with the extant sources), or find a proper reliable source.

And for the assertion that Walker joins only one other federal judge known to be out, you offer a news aggregator’s blog post quoting a pseudonymous blog post on a site that promises “a website that zippily surveyed a wealth of resonant, weird, important, frightening, amusing bits of news and ideas.” The Awl I can't imagine you're claiming that's a reliable source.

There are other questions about how to present this if we have a reliable source (none of those issues have anything to do with your “shame” strawman), but let’s focus on agreement on a reliable source before we wade into the rest of the WP:BLP policy. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your meticulous diligence, Wonderbread, in not only wading through those citations, but for your careful summary here. Am begining a separate section on this page, below, regarding his classification in the article as supposedly "controversial". Hope you'll check it out.Codenamemary (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross are reliable sources. Period. You can attempt to pigeon-hole them as "gossip bloggers" but they are subject to the editorial review by the editors at the San Francisco Chronicle who by their own admission scrutinized their sources. We have later publication that explained that the didn't run with the story lightly. We also know that the homosexual media had pegged Walker as a homosexual all the way back in July of 2009. The folks over at AbovetheLaw, who are in fact connected to the legal community pointed out that they knew about this for a long time. A google news search reveals more than 100 articles that cover this story in one way or another. Finally, Wikipedia is about reliance upon reliable secondary sources. If a reliable mainstream newspaper reports something notable, we can include it in the article. I must ask you directly, Do you think that Walker being a homosexual is something that he should be ashamed of? If not, since we have a reliable mainstream publication who has subjected this report to editorial review, why are you so adamantly objecting to including this? I have a hunch, but I would like to hear it straight from you. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This should settle this problem. A few days after the M&R story, the entire San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board produced THIS. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-09/opinion/17872020_1_anti-gay-san-francisco-gay-olympic-games I've already used it to clarify the original controversy regarding the "Gay Olympics." There is no way that you can say that it was just a couple of "gossip columnists" throwing out a poorly sourced story. The entire board of the San Francisco Chronicle verified that story with the Editorial. You cannot claim that the San Francisco Chronicle is an unreliable source. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup (I don't subscribe to your description of the inner workings of the Chron, and we continue to disagree about M&R, but I accept the editorial as a reliable source). Wonderbreadsf (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That elaboration on the Olympics "controvery" angle is much clearer now. Thank you. I'm still uncomfortable with referencing Judge Walker's sexual orientation, as it feeds a double standard for labeling gays and lesbians (or those perceived to be so) that doesn't seem to exist for straights at Wikipedia. Especially since that very article (and I'm summarizing) seems to dismiss his orientation as a non-issue...Why should the Wikipedia article give details about a non-issue? Codenamemary (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it is related to the controversy regarding his original appointment, and thus is very ironic considering that those who were opposing him did so because they thought he might be hostile towards homosexuals. The irony is even more compelling because of the current subject matter before him. Finally, that he is only one of two homosexual federal judges is quite noteworthy in and of itself. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, as to the later point, someone else has pointed out (above) << And for the assertion that Walker joins only one other federal judge known to be out, you offer a news aggregator’s blog post quoting a pseudonymous blog post on a site that promises “a website that zippily surveyed a wealth of resonant, weird, important, frightening, amusing bits of news and ideas.” The Awl I can't imagine you're claiming that's a reliable source. >> Codenamemary (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with it either. My concerns have less to do with the double standard (which I acknowledge the merit of, but I don't know of any relevant WP policy on that issue) than with the WP:BLP policy. Specifically, the presumption of privacy (Walker won't discuss this publicly, which is due great respect) and the non-famous-person concern (Walker's minor notability flows from his judginess not his gayness). Were it not for the ironic coda on the whole Gay Olympics kerfuffle (itself quite nonsensical as far as the lawyer is concerned), I'd still revert this (and may still revert it, but I'll give it some more thought).Wonderbreadsf (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are certainly legitimate considerations, as well. Codenamemary (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, re: citation 3 ("a San Francisco Chronicle editorial noted that opposition turned out to be ironic given Walker's sexual orientation.") is it proper to cite a POV? Isn't irony an individual point of view, like humor? Codenamemary (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've shortened the sentence in VIEWS from "In 2010, a San Francisco Chronicle editorial noted his impartiality in arguing and deciding those and other cases, despite his sexual orientation." to "In 2010, a San Francisco Chronicle editorial noted his impartiality in arguing and deciding those and other cases." As was mentioned above, "WP:BLP policy [includes] the presumption of privacy (Walker won't discuss this publicly, which is due great respect) and the non-famous-person concern (Walker's minor notability flows from his judginess not his gayness)." Codenamemary (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are misconstruing the WP:BLP policy. His sexual orientation has been reported on by several reliable sources. According to the reliable sources noticeboard, the original Matier and Ross article IS a reliable source. I don't know why people are going to such great lengths to hide Walker's sexual orientation. It is mentioned in practically every article of note since the Chronicle revealed it. Moreover, the homosexual media outlets had been reporting this since August of 2009. Regardless of the outcome of the Perry case, this is going to be all over the news. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. I must ask if you think Walker should be ashamed by his orientation, because absent that, there is no need to read things into BLP policy that are not there. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How am I misinterpreting "Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can seriously affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with great care and strict adherence to our content policies. / The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; / Presumption in favor of privacy: Wikipedia articles about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. / When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

You are an intelligent person, Ghostmonkey. I am sure that if you ponder the reasons those policies are in place, you can see that part of what they do is keep subjects from harm. It doesn't matter if other blogs etc. have mentioned Judge Walker's orientation; that doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to do the same thing. If he had publicly spoken about his orientation, that would be one thing. But he obviously does not want to at this time. Perhaps if you use your imagination and wonder what the worst case scenario could be, you will grasp why I have serious reservations about Wikipedia publically labeling this gentleman as gay, for not productive purpose, at this time. Codenamemary (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The WP:BLP is intended to prevent libel, not to suppress information that is mentioned by verifiable and reputable mainstream news sources. Like it or not, the San Francisco Chronicle made this thing public. Indeed, the homosexual media has been reporting on this since August of 2009. Like it or not, this is a relevant issue given the subject matter that Walker is presiding over, and given the controversy surrounding his original nomination. I understand that it is politically troublesome for this information to be out there before he makes his decision in Perry, but the information IS out there and it is notable. Moreover, being one of only two known homosexual federal judges is something rather important, in and of itself. The fact that this is brought up in practically every single news story that has ran since the Chronicle piece increases its notability.

BTW: have you ever checked Charlie Crist's Wikipedia page. Crist has DENIED being a homosexual, yet a debate about his sexual orientation is given a huge paragraph and sub-heading. Those in the minority who objected to the inclusion of this information were pointed to the fact that it was notable, verifiable (as in verified by reputable sources) and published in mainstream newspapers. This is precisely the same that has occurred here since the Chronicle piece ran. It is not OK to have one standard for Charlie Crist's page and another for Walker's page. Indeed, Walker's orientation is becoming a greater issue in the Perry case, as some religious groups are now specifically calling for his recusal in light of the new information. Walker's orientation is not thrown up in flashing lights. It was not given disparate treatment. Instead, it was mentioned in context to bring light to the irony surrounding his original confirmation hearings. In reality, a lot more could have been posted in this article and was not. Specifically, the fact that people are calling for his removal from the Perry case now. Again, like it or not, this is now notable and is an issue, just like in Charlie Crist's case, precisely because the media has MADE it an issue. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. I am troubled that your concern seems to be that including this information would be politically damaging or difficult "at this time." I can only assume that you mean in conjunction with the Perry case. As the Chronicle piece pointed out, if Walker is really impartial, than this information will have no affect whatsoever on this ruling. If you are worried that individuals will categorize any decision that Walker makes now as being "because he is a homosexual" you shouldn't. People will do that regardless of what is in his Wikipedia page. You can't put the genie back in the bottle now that the Chronicle has let it out. As I pointed out, there are people already making an issue out of this, and the media has ran with the story. It's done. Being that it is notable, it should be giving appropriate treatment in the article. No one is suggesting to make this a huge issue, or to put it in flashing lights. No one is giving it a separate heading. Indeed, as written it is very subtle and only brings context to the original confirmation fight. There is nothing titillating or humiliating about it. I would argue that the treatment that Crist gets over on his article far exceeds the few words in this article, even though Crist has specifically DENIED the allegations. Encyclopedias cover notable things. This is extremely notable at the present time. It needs to stay. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know who Mr. Charlie Christ is. When you write "I am troubled that your concern seems to be that including this information would be politically damaging or difficult "at this time." I can only assume that you mean in conjunction with the Perry case. >> I did not say anything about there being "political damage". I think you've missed what I was trying to convey. I'm not concerned about the outcome of this phase of the case; it's not going to be resolved by how this judge rules, anyway, and is going to get appealed no matter what. (I would think that how anyone here feels about the trial is irrelevant.) What I was trying to say is I'm concerned that violating WP:BLP can compromise Mr. Walker's personal safety. Those rules are not just there to avoid libel lawsuits. Codenamemary (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Crist is the current governor of Florida. I submit that publishing a verifiable news item of note in an encyclopedia article can in no way jeopardize Mr. Walker's personal safety. His sexual orientation is public now. The MEDIA decided to let that genie out of the bottle. There is no way that he is in any danger because of his sexual orientation. It's a fact. Not something that needs to be censored. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The title of the piece that outed him was "Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial". Of course if the San Francisco Chronicle staff really thought it was a 'nonissue', it wouldn't have been thusly titled, and wouldn't have been published. This was the height of disingenuity by the Chron itself, which decided to run it after "great debate" involving Matier and Ross and "the paper's editor and publisher". --98.248.113.11 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The SF Chronicle article calls it an "open secret" that he's gay, based solely on the fact that a few gay people perceive him as such. One man's "gaydar bells and whistles" went off. I may have great gaydar too, but that doesn't mean it's always right--and it's no more acceptable as proof than "women's intuition." That the SF Chronicle article has been repeated by numerous other sources doesn't make it a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.128.203 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" ?

I question the use of the word "controversy" in relation to the judge in the Views paragraphs of the article, which reads, "Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan was delayed because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics."[2] I did not follow that case closely, but the statement seems to brand Mr. Walker's work as controversial without adequate explanation.

The citation reads in part: "Walker...was first nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan but encountered opposition over his membership in the all-male Olympic Club and his representation of the U.S. Olympic Committee in a suit that prevented a Bay Area group from calling its athletic competition the Gay Olympics." Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems sort of inflammatory to suggest, from that brief quote, that Judge Walker's contribution to that case as an attorney was controversial.

I questioned the repetition of the "controversy" description in the above thread, but the OP did not elaborate. Perhaps someone else can offer more illumination? Codenamemary (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle went into a lot more detail about the controversy. In fact, Walker's nomination stalled at the bequest of Rep. Pelosi. I've included that detail now. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The nomination was rather controversial (by the standards of the day. . much less so in today's practice). Walker's detractors claimed hypocrisy in that the owner of the Olympic mark objected to "Gay Olympics" but not others, such as "Special Olympics" (which I suppose may be an indictment of the Olympic Committee, but I don't see why it says anything about Walker). There was a quite a hue over Walker placing a lien (for the attorney's fees awarded by the court) on one of the defendants's home's (as he was dying from AIDS).[3] Frankly, the membership in the (all male) Olympic Club was as much a part of the criticism as the Gay Olympics nonsense. In any event, I don't have a particularly strong attachment to the word "controversy." Feel free to improve the article (WP:BOLD). Wonderbreadsf (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

<< Feel free to improve the article. >> So it has come to this...I have to actually WORK??? Oh dear. Well, I can putter around and try to find out more about that case and how big and well-founded the opposition was. My concern is that without qualifying that word, and combined with the fact that the cases mentioned in detail in the section following it paint Walker as someone who's devoted to favoring gays, there's a slant toward making him appear to be overly zealous when it comes to making rulings pertaining to gay issues. (Am only on my 6th cup of coffee, though, so am not really awake.) Codenamemary (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh! The language around this was made clearer in the article. Thank you, Ghostmonkey.... Codenamemary (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think of it as work, think of it as contribution to the greater good (for which you will be amply rewarded in some future internet)! Seriously, the case mentions are very troubling. The first (clumsy) sentence in the "Cases" section includes a veritable hit parade. Each of those cases garnered a lot of mainstream press and commentary among legal professionals. Now we have the recent addition of two more cases (occupying more words than the entire hit parade) which were utterly unremarkable. I'm pretty sure that one of the two wasn't even appealed (but I'll check later in the week) and the other one was appealed (resulting in an unsigned, unpublished Ninth Circuit decision holding that Walker applied the obvious law in the obvious way: "We agree with the well-reasoned orders of the district court and affirm.") There was scant news coverage of those trials at the time, and nothing since, save for the mention in a recent AP story. Neither case has merited any scholarship that I know of (save for a entry in some gay-law case reference listings). How on earth do those two cases merit mention here, out of the thousands of decisions Walker has issued? Wonderbreadsf (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The 2005 case got a lot of press, especially among Conservative groups. It is definitely notable in that regard. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll pull together a list of news stories from the time that mention the case. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting observations. By "work", I do mean the leg-work of gathering reputable citations and then analyzing them side by side...which is also troublesome, as while I'm a legal secretary, I'm not a LAWYER, and the language and world of law is practically a bottomless ocean. (Also, I don't really give so much weight to sources that only appear online. Maybe I'm uninformed or maybe I'm just a snob, but...really, a trip to the library to verify paper sources seems like the most thorough way to research things. Blech.) Codenamemary (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that Vaughn's being gay is a matter of rumor, not confirmed fact. As the article pointed out, not only is he a Republican, appointed by Reagan--AKA GOD to Republicans--but his nomination was held up on account of perceived hostility towards gays and lesbians. He has recently shown a history of pro-gay rulings, but there is no solid evidence that he is gay. That is being thrown around now for the sole purpose of casting doubt on his judgment. Kenobifan (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The SF Times article calls it an "open secret" without any sourcing of any kind, and everyone else who has reported on it got the "information" from them. Essentially, a story with no verifiable source has now led to an echo chamber where everyone "knows" he's gay but can't say how they knew. It's like Dick Cheney quoting himself in the NY Times. 76.31.128.203 (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Middle initial

U.S. District Court documents posted on the Web omit the period after Chief Judge Walker's middle initial, as some people have done in the past for President Truman's middle initial. I don't know to what extent this reflects the official status of the judge's name. Wbkelley (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Heading a Show Trial in a Kangaroo Court?

According to the president of the National Organization for Marriage, regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8, "Judge Walker's extraordinary bias has already been flagrantly on display." In her editorial, California Voters Face Show Trial in Kangaroo Court, Maggie Gallagher adds that "Ed Whelan noted in National Review Online's Bench Memos … that the Judicial Conference of the United States opposes televising federal trials in part because doing so 'could jeopardize … the safety of trial participants' and 'produce intimidating effects on litigants, witnesses and jurors.'" Asteriks (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Gallagher is the clown here. She is not a law professor and has an obvious bias (just look at the name of the organization she's head of). By the looks of things, she is the only one who is lambasting this judge. I don't think her comments merit inclusion. --haha169 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed Whelan's criticism of Walker's conduct of the case might. THF (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think if a Judge were sanctioned by a court or taken off a case for a violation, that would be notable. But a non-legal opinion of how a judge does their job? I'm a legal secretary....and even I don't understand all courtroom procedure. Most lawyers will disagree about the proper introduction of evidence, etc., too. (EDIT: Have gone back and properly signed this with my username; it had some anonymous listing before, as I didn't realize I wasn't logged in on Feb 14. Just want to be upfront and clear, that this wasn't some attempt to create a sock!) Codenamemary (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC) 01:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is that his current case is very visible and controversial. The judge is gonna be criticized by someone, sooner or later, for something. There is no avoiding that. I think if he is kicked out, like the anon said, then it would merit inclusion.--haha169 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NOM was one of the primary supporters of Prop 8, so it's entirely unsurprising that Gallagher has made accusations against the judge. That also means she has an automatic bias against arguments in favor of striking down Prop 8, so her throwing around judicial activism claims is of little utility to the larger debate. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

NOM has absolutely zero credibility when it comes to drawing objective conclusions...just as HRC and EQCA are because all are interest groups. When in doubt, cite credible news outlets, except of course, Fox News. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

question

This article currently has references in the middle of sentences. I believe the usual practice is to place references at the end of sentences. I just added a reference to a sentence that already had several references embedded in the middle. So, I added it in the middle too. Should we convert all the references to the usual practice?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually policy allows it as a possibility at the end of a clause, see [4]. In a sentence where you're trying to make the references correspond to the specific claims in a list of claims, which I think is the case in the two examples I can see in the article. My personal preference would be to leave them as is, I think the value to the reader (in being able to find relevant underlying sources more specifically) outweight the marginal cost in fluidity of style, but ... *shrug* Good question.  :) --Joe Decker (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, actually, were it entirely up to me, I'd move [7] from just before the comma to after the comma, and [8] a few words ahead to just after the comma. And not leave a space between the comma and the ref. But now I'm just getting OCD.  ;) --Joe Decker (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Joe hit the nail on the head: at the end of relevant clauses. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

More on sexual orientation

I'm not going to try to edit the article myself, because I don't feel sufficiently conversant with WP:BLP, but I think it would be appropriate to address the public furor concerning Judge Walker's sexual orientation. A good reliable source is available here. To me, it seems that points worth making are that (1) there are widespread rumors or speculation that Walker is gay, (2) Walker himself declines to address these and there is no reliable public information as to his sexual orientation, and (3) legal scholars agree that the facts of the matter are legally irrelevant, just as it would be legally irrelevant if a black judge sat in a case involving the civil rights of African-Americans. John M Baker (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This particular tack of criticism has been muted except in fringe sources, because it's clearly inappropriate. --TS 14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The SFGate article that was inserted says it's an "open secret", which means he hasn't confirmed or denied. Therefore it's inappropriate speculation for us to include. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. All news media that I checked simply seem to be parroting each other, saying that it is "highly likely" or an "open secret" that Walker is gay. I had thought there might be something more definitive, but apparently not. I agree that until someone can find something more clear, then we should not include the information. NW (Talk) 18:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Jon Stewart reported it as if it was a confirmed fact last night, and I consider him the most trustworthy news anchor we have today (sad state of affairs it is). His sexuality is gossip at this point. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, TS appears to be very experienced in these matters from what I can tell, so perhaps we should defer to his wisdom. I think he makes an excellent point about it being inappropriate. --Sherilyn69 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If it were confirmed, I think it would be appropriate to add (the fact that he would be just one of two known gay federal judges and the fact that a gay judge presided over the prop 8 decision (very low probabilistically) are both noteworthy facts). However, as we are unsure, it is appropriate. Stephen Colbert also commented on it, by the way,[5] and he seemed to assume as fact Walker's supposed homosexuality. Quite interesting then that no one seems to have been able to confirm this. NW (Talk) 18:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

When it's being reported as a confirmed fact (albeit by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who would take the position that theirs are not actually news shows, and seemingly by the New York Daily News, which provides no support for its assertion), I think it would be useful to include that it's not actually a confirmed fact. The widespread discussion in mainstream news sources strongly supports relevance. John M Baker (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We had a huge argument about this topic here when the trial started (SEE ABOVE), and basically, the only reason the orientation issue stayed in the article is there was one editor who seemed inexhaustibly bent on including it. It became futile to edit it out, and some people (such as myself) don't have the time or know-how to bring the question to resolution by wending through wikipedia's higher processes. I don't like that Judge Walker is identified as gay because 1.) It's never been confirmed, 2.) It creates a double standard by which homosexuals are labeled yet heterosexuals are not, and 3.) It makes the gentleman a potential target for violence by wackos who would like to draw a parralel between his ruling and his potential/alleged homosexuality. Codenamemary (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree on those three points. As for the New York Daily News, I can tell you as a New Yorker that they are not the epitome of journalistic standards of due diligence. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be suffice to say that it's been widely reported but has never been confirmed nor denied by Walker. It's kind of silly to not at least mention that much, as it has been widely reported by many media outlets. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the hell of it I sent an email to an editor at a online newsmagazine which IMO definately counts as a reliable source (name withheld for now as I don't want to affect any investigation) where I asked them essentially this very question: what source is there that Mr. Walker is indeed gay? He said they do have a writer looking into this very question. Tabercil (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A sentence on the esteemed jurist's sexual orientation ought to be sufficient. Wikipedia isn't a news source from which one can find fuel to one's fringe views. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything attesting to Walker's sexual orientation--any label--needs to be unequivocal from Walker himself or a reliable source that cites evidence--a partner, for example. Otherwise, speculation and conjecture do not belong in the article. For two similar issues, see the way Jodie Foster's personal life section is written, and the contentious discussions on the talk page of Johnny Weir. --Moni3 (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And anyway, one may find that only rumors and speculation are the true basis for one's inclination that the Judge is gay. Therefore for all intents and purposes, he is not gay. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a reliable source in this context? There are articles from the SF Chronicle[6][7], Business Insider[8] and Metro Weekly[9] stating he is gay. This is significant, because as the last of those articles notes, he is one of only two openly LGBT federal judges, the other being Deborah Batts (who is described as such in our article, and in Category:LGBT judges). Isn't this sufficient for our purposes? If we want to avoid stating it directly, we could say 'in August 2010, the SF Chronicle alleged that Walker was gay' or something like that, but I think it is certainly significant enough to belong in the article. Robofish (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just been bold and added this to the article. Feel free to revert if you don't believe it belongs there, but please discuss it here if you do so. Robofish (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Walker himself is a reliable source. As such, the only thing he has admitted according to the links you provided is "no comment". The stories say it's an open secret. That's not unequivocal. That's speculation. --Moni3 (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

[10] does not make the claim, it states that it is "an open secret" - i.e. gossip that we do not report. The other article appears to be an editorial from the same paper that does not provide any source to back its statement other than the papers previous reliance on "open secrets". Bus insider is also publishing "open secrets" [11] And with this [12] as their coverlink, it is hard to argue that we can categorize Metro Weekly as a source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Active Banana (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Uggghhhhhhhhh...I SO HATE that that's back in there. In case anyone missed my objections (which aren't law, of course) 1.) It's never been confirmed, 2.) It creates a double standard by which homosexuals are labeled yet heterosexuals are not, and 3.) It makes the gentleman a potential target for violence by wackos who would like to draw a parralel between his ruling and his potential/alleged homosexuality. It's really sad to me that Judge Walker just ruled on a case that found that gay people are essentially no different from straight people, yet now wikipedia labels and targets him as gay? Why don't we do that for every person in wikipedia now...identify them as straight, or whatever? Jimminy Christmas! Codenamemary (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed again, but solely on the weakness of the sources. I agree with this. The only reason any mention of Walker's sexual orientation should be included should be if he confirms it, thereby making an issue of it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Again...we don't have to (and shouldn't) state that he is gay, unless he confirms it. However, the fact that the question has been widely reported in the press should be mentioned, and it's silly not to mention that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the word "silly" is rather insulting, considering there are serious issues at stake. Codenamemary (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't use the word "silly" to characterize Judge Walker. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand; rather, it was used in the context of censoring an issue that has been widely reported and discussed in mainstream media. Once again, I don't think the article should label Judge Walker, but it is censorship to ignore the media response and speculation. All I'm proposing is that the media response and speculation is addressed in one or two sentences, and left at that. No labeleling, no categories, etc., unless he decides to come out, which I doubt he will. Judge Walker has a long history of being an impartial judge who doesn't seem to pander to any particular group, regardless of whatever his sexual orientation might be. It is silly to ignore that fact that his orientation is a hot topic of discussion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you consider Judge Waker silly....but you're being very dismissive of the concerns mentioned here when you refer to not including the rumor as "silly". Codenamemary (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No one has discussed this in anything other than in terms of RUMORS and we dont print rumors. Active Banana (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this article merits any different treament than the articles on David Souter, Elena Kagan, and John G. Roberts, none of which mention the equally circular rumors on the same subject. bd2412 T 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Have there been higher up, more detailed wikipedia discussions about this topic before, as it relates to Biographies of Living Persons? Maybe the site policy needs to be clarified, because it comes up all the time, and will probably happen more and more often. WE NEED A RULING! Codenamemary (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As per higher rulings, you cant get much higher than WP:BLP and WP:V. Contentious claims about a living person require the highest standards in sourcing. Active Banana (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. These two policies are core and in this instance offer no yield. If we're going to add a statement that he's gay, we need to source to be practically bulletproof. Tabercil (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And in this case, the BLP issues extend to not only whether or not Walker is gay, but by direct implication that if he is gay, his sexual orientation impacted his impartiality as a judge in this case. We need to tread very very carefully. Active Banana (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I just hopped here from another page. We have no business stating as a fact that he is gay, because that is not confirmed by bulletproof sources. However, it is an undisputed fact that he has been subject to some rather aggressive criticism, particularly in light of the Proposition 8 ruling, on account of being presumed to be gay. That fact (the criticism) is well-sourced to top-notch, neutral, major, reliable sources. If you read those sources, they do not say that there is a legitimate claim of judicial bias, or a cognizable claim, or that it could have any effect on the appeals of his ruling. They simply point out that proponents of Proposition 8 have attacked him on that basis. Although we honor BLP, we also follow the sources here. I'm not sure that it's relevant to this article, but it does appear relevant, and of due weight, vis-a-vis the public perception and the political tactics surrounding the Prop 8 lawsuit. As for whether we report that as a biographical fact, that's less clear. If he indeed is gay that is a rather significant personal matter, if not a professional one, but then we get to the very common question of how appropriate it is to note a person's sexuality if he is relatively private about it. The comparison Moni3 makes above to the Jodie Foster and Johnny Weir examples is instructive. Both of their public sexual personas are a lot more important to their careers than Walker's is to his, yet because we don't know that they are actually gay, as opposed to widely perceived to be, we don't weigh in. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: remember I said there was someone at a reputable source working on this question? Well the source was Salon.com and the story is located here. Exerpts from the story follow:

"The story begins long before the Chronicle ran its blind item. Last summer, local gay activist Michael Petrelis published a blog post announcing that his "gaydar's bells and whistles went off" when he saw a photo of Walker... Beyond his humorous hunch, the only evidence Petrelis had of Walker's sexuality was that he'd "heard from two respected veteran LGBT community reporters that [Walker] is considered 'family.'"

"Jenny Pizer, the National Marriage Project director for Lambda Legal, used to live in San Francisco and knew Walker, but only professionally. "A number of people have told me that they have [socialized with Walker] and that in recent years he has brought a same-sex partner to professional or social events," she told Salon. "Enough people have said that that I have the impression that it's true.""

"In contrast to Petrelis' sleuthing, the local legal and political community is largely giving the issue the silent treatment."

"Two things are for certain here: First, Walker is not "openly gay," contrary to conservative commentators' recent claims. Second, while it may be the case that his sexuality is an "open secret" in San Francisco, the local consensus is that it's simply none of your business."

So there's that. No evidence found for it that we can use. Tabercil (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Answering Codenamemary's objections

1.) It's never been confirmed

It has been stated as fact by the San Francisco Chronicle. I expect we'll hear it from Vaughn himself sometime soon, given that he has announced his retirement. But even if we don't, the assertion and lack of denial has become part of the public dialog about his career and are relevant here. Thundermaker (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

2.) It creates a double standard by which homosexuals are labeled yet heterosexuals are not

Of all your objections, this one bothers me the most (i.e. is the most valid). But it's a minority/majority thing. I don't think anybody has a problem with labeling straight people, they simply don't bother because most people assume it. Thundermaker (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

3.) It makes the gentleman a potential target for violence by wackos who would like to draw a parralel between his ruling and his potential/alleged homosexuality.

Becoming a target is part of being a judge. The higher you rise in a judicial career, the more wackos you will irritate with your rulings. Americans are lucky to have a law enforcement system which makes revenge crimes against judges relatively rare. Thundermaker (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's true and Vaughn Walker is going to announce it real soon now, then we can afford to wait. There is no deadline, and WP:BLP applies. If he's been asked about it and hasn't confirmed it, and there is no other evidence except somebody else's conjecture printed in a newspaper, then we don't go with it. --TS 20:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

These arguments are pretty flimsy. He is a widely known judge, and it is known he is gay. It is a selective admission not to include it and will put it in this page

As point 1 says, it's never been confirmed. That's as firm as evidence gets. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cases

What is the point of the "Cases"-section overflowing with examples that touch on the topic of homosexualtity? What makes those examples – except the Prop 8 case – notable?--DVD-junkie | talk | 11:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We cover what reliable sources cover. If you have coverage of other cases that recieved media / scholarly notice, please feel free to flesh out that section. Active Banana (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the attention paid to his most recent widely publicized decision, it seems sensible to report media accounts of his entire jurisprudence in the area. bd2412 T 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is another left-over overflow from when Prop 8 trial began, and a certain VERY enthusiastic editor wanted to cram all that stuff in....for whatever reason (Just fill in the blanks.) Interesting that they only wanted to pile on the cases that seemed, at a glance, to make Judge Walker appear intollerant of Christian or "family" interests....but I shall say no more. No, not a peep. STOP ASKING! I won't say any more. Codenamemary (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a reference to two rulings on cases involving homosexuality because they're apparently derived from a single news item from a single source. This is a classic example of undue weight. --TS 20:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There's been no consensus on removal of that material. Until there is, the material should remain. Therefore, I will revert your removal. You - or any other editor - are free to add material about other notable cases Walker has decided, which, in my view, is a much better way to go than to remove material that you believe is unbalanced. If the most controversial rulings of a particular judge happen to be on one issue or on two issues, then that's just the way it is. It doesn't mean that reporting on those cases is unbalanced or giving a particular point of view undue weight. For example, in the article on Virginia Phillips, the only case mentioned is the recent Log Cabin case. Does that mean it can't be mentioned? Another possible theory (on your side) is that the cases you removed from the site are not notable. I don't see you making that argument. Finally, if your main complaint is that the source for the two cases was the same, that could no doubt easily be remedied without removal of the material. In any event, in my view, it doesn't matter that the source is the same unless the source is unreliable or you are challenging the accuracy of the source. I don't see anything in WP:UNDUE that supports your position.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Listing specifically two cases on homosexuality, in a long career on the bench, is prima facie undue weight. I hereby formally invoke the biographies of living persons policy. We have to get this right. We need consensus to include material of questionable significance, or presented in a questionable way, in a biography of a living person. --TS 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you think it's undue weight, but it's not a classic example of undue weight. These are judicial rulings, not points of view. The policy is addressed to presenting majority and minority viewpoints. That's why I said that if you believe there are other notable rulings by Walker on other issues, you should add them, or if you believe that the rulings you removed are not sufficiently notable, you should say that. In any event, another editor reverted my reversion without giving any input to this discussion other than to say in the edit summary that the editor agrees with you (not particularly helpful). So far, we have Active Banana who appears to agree with me - that if there are other cases, they should be added. We also have bd2412 who sort of agrees as well, although he expressed it slightly differently. Then, we have DVD-junkie, but he believes the two cases aren't notable, not that they give undue weight. Finally, we have Codenamemarry who appears to agree with you, although quite a bit more colorfully. I still don't see a consensus. Hopefully, more editors will chime in with an opinion (and reasoning) as to what should be done. In any event, I'm not going to revert again because I don't believe in edit wars. If no consensus is reached, I suppose I can ask for outside assistance on the issue - I'll decide that one later. Hopefully, it won't be needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source which covers the teacher case. But there are already several other cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph -- I would support expanding detail on those to avoid WP:UNDUE rather than deleting the gay cases. Thundermaker (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have another idea that might be a viable compromise. I looked back at the edit history of the Cases section. When the two so-called homosexual cases were added, they were originally in the paragraph that lists Walker's other notable cases. They were later extracted from that paragraph and given more prominence as separate paragraphs. One possibility would be to put them back in the first paragraph. That keeps them in but without giving them any more "weight" than the other cases. In fact, I would be willing to condense the Perry case and put it in that list, too. It might be best to put all the cases in list format (although I know that many Wikipedians don't like list format, for reasons I don't quite get) in chronological order (oldest to most recent). One single paragraph listing that many cases might be unwieldy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Another option would be to do some actual research on Walker's other notable cases, and expand upon them until we have a fully fleshed out and proportional article on this judge's jurisprudence. bd2412 T 18:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

American Family Association

"Several conservative groups, including the American Family Association called for the impeachment of Walker soon after the Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling, in part because of the alleged conflict of interest involving his sexual orientation."

Why is this even included? The notion that he has a "conflict of interest" is ridiculous. Do women have to recuse themselves from abortion cases? Do black judges have to recuse themselves from affirmative action cases? 72.100.126.91 (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it is a fact that efforts were made to push for his impeachment, rightly or wrongly. Pretending that it didn't happen doesn't serve anything. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

New material re sexual orientation, impeachment, etc.

I reverted many changes made by Ghostmonkey57. Almost all of the changes had to do with Walker's unconfirmed sexual orientation (see previous discussion, in which Ghostmonkey participated), call for impeachment, cases he's decided that seem to be slanted towards him protecting gays. One citation was to an editorial. One citation didn't work (although I assume it could be fixed). The changes were inappropriate, POV, and WP:UNDUE.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the WP:UNDUE policy. Whether you like it or not, the genie is out of the bottle regarding Walker's sexual orientation. Virtually every major news story that has mentioned the Prop 8 case and Walker since the San Francisco Chronicle broke the story on him has mentioned his orientation either directly or indirectly. It is a Demonstrable fact that several right leaning activist groups have pushed for his impeachment directly in part due to the alleged conflict between his orientation and his ruling. Contrary to your assertion (which in an of itself which violates the policy in reference to assuming good faith) these changes were not made to make any suggestion whatsoever, but to ensure that this very relevant aspect of Walker and the Prop 8 case are covered. You can insist that Walker's orientation is unconfirmed if you like, but there has already been a ruling from the reliable source notice board that the San Francisco Chronicle article is indeed a reliable source. I welcome ways to achieve consensus on this issue, but anything that white-washes this the news coverage simply cannot be acceptable. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP No matter how much the echo chamber is repeating unsourced rumors, WE do not. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You can contend that it is unsourced all you like, but you will continue to be mistaken, there are literally hundreds of news stories on this aspect of Walker's past, some of which proceed this one (http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker) which set many of the others in motion. Contrary to what you seem to think about WP Policy regarding BLP, one does not have to come out and personally claim an orientation for one to post about it. Ted Haggard disclaims a homosexual orientation, but his article still prominently references the verified mainstream coverage regarding his scandal. As I pointed out, the San Francisco Chronicle has an editorial board that screens these things, they make sure to verify their sources, they have an impeccable record of accuracy. You cannot and will not pretend that this news about the case does not exist. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have a solution that will address the issue that both sides have with the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I protected the article for 6 hours. Figure it out on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your "source" states: "The biggest open secret" - ie "rumor" and nowhere does the article state that Walker himself has made any statement - ie "unverified and unsourced" rumor. It CANNOT be included in our Vaughn R. Walker based on that SFGate article nor any article based on the SFGate article. WP:BLP is very very clear about this. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy says nothing close to what you are claiming. The BLP policy prohibits the posting of material that is not sourced by RELIABLE sources. "unverified AND unsourced" the "AND" being key. In fact, in regards to the Public Figure section, the policy EXPLICITY states: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." The San Francisco Chronicle and NY Daily News are RELIABLE Third Party sources. Hence, per the explicit wording of the policy, we are permitted to acknowledge what they say. Thus, instead of categorically claiming something about Walker's sexual orientation, we CAN post what the SFGate and NY Daily News reported about the controversy. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy even gives us an example:

1. Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to the contentions here, I am on solid ground with this, and I want to get to a consensus. The above example is almost perfectly analogous, (although Walker hasn't denied the allegations as in the example above.) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There are pictures online with Walker and his partner. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfappeal/4619957650/ The gay community in San Francisco has been asking that Walker come out of the closet long before the Prop 8 trial began. Further, it is simply irresponsible to pretend that this controversy doesn't exist. The way the article reads right now, one would think that a very right-leaning Conservative Republican judge decided the Prop 8 case. Perhaps that is what some people want, but it isn't reflective of reality. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Er... are you suggesting that being a "very right-leaning conservative Republican" is mutually exclusive with being gay?

MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, but rather that the article as presented is simply inaccurate in that it leaves out a very notable piece of news related to Walker, and is tended to paint an inaccurate picture of him as currently presented. It is as if people went out of their way to highlight anything that might present him as a conservative, and removed anything that might suggest any center-left social views on any issue. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not all coverage of scandals should be discussed. See the Richard Gere talk page archives. --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Except there is a vast difference between the Richard Gere allegations, which are neither well sourced by mainstream newspapers nor notable in that they were the source of calls for his impeachment involving an alleged conflict. Trying to equate the two is not possible. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

My solution is this... instead of categorically claiming anything about Walker's orientation, simply acknowledge the controversy about the case in some way, through referencing verified reputable sources. The San Francisco Chronicle and the NY Daily News are both mainstream major newspapers who have covered this story. This should suffice for the purposes of all involved. I find it quite amusing that people are trying to remove this very relevant controversy from the article, when sources in the article already mention it. Whether we like it or not, this is a major part of the story that has been covered by the media. Contrary to the way the BLP policy is being spun by a few here, this type of thing has a right to be covered, just as with the Ted Haggard Article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Basing sexual orientation on your interpretation of pictures from Flikr is complete WP:OR. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that isn't what is occurring. The edits are based on verified reliable mainstream sources. And you continually refuse to answer any of the points made. I must ask why. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Real BLP Policy and how to fix the Article

Several people are misconstruing the BLP policy. Contrary to what is claimed here, the BLP policy does not require a living person to explicitly acknowledge something as true in order for it to be included in an article. This is especially the case with Public Figures, who often have sourced material about them that they will deny, but which is relevant and notable, adequately sourced, and included in their Wikipedia Articles. The BLP policy is NOT that Walker must explicitly acknowledge his orientation before it can be included. Instead, the policy is are there SOURCED THIRD PARTY articles that contain allegations that are notable enough to be included.

THIS is the Policy:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

This is an example given by the Policy: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source.

We can use the example in this case. "Walker is alleged to be gay. He has not denied or confirmed it, but the San Francisco Chronicle Published the allegations, and there was a public uproar. The allegation thus belongs in the biography, citing the San Francisco Chronicle (OR as I suggest below the New York Daily News, using a different way of presenting the coverage) as the source.)

Using this as the rule, we can reason a rule for the current article. First, are the New York Daily News and the San Francisco Chronicle reliable sources? Obviously the answer to that question is an unmitigated YES. Both are mainstream newspapers. Both have stringent screening processes for the material that they publish. Both have editorial review boards. Both subject their journalists to rules of ethics applicable in the industry. The next question to ask is, is the material "notable". Considering that activist groups have Walker's allegations as a reason alleging a conflict of interest, and considering that conflict was the source of calls for impeachment by many groups, it is definitely "notable." One can legitimately argue that one's sexual orientation will not bias one's views regarding a case. No one here is arguing anything different in that respect. However, it is noteworthy that much of the opposition to the ruling and calls for impeaching a federal judge (which are quite rare) stem from this alleged conflict. Hence, it is the noteworthiness of the controversy that elevates the material to importance. (A quick search of mainstream news stories on the Google News Feed from 2010, reveal over 3,000 articles referencing Judge Walker. A majority of them after the SFGate story reference the controversy surrounding his orientation in some way.) The last question we must ask is what exactly do the third party sources say? The answer to that question is exactly what is printed in the SFGate Article ("The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.") or, one can take the approach the NY Daily News did (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/06/2010-08-06_judge_vaughn_walkers_sexual_orientation_sparks_ire_over_fairness_on_prop_8_sames.html) and simply report the news from both sides, in a fair manner. I suggest the latter, referencing the NY Daily News article. This will address the concerns of all here. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The essence here would be simply noting the controversy without categorically stating Walker's orientation one way or the other.Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How many times must we say that in controversial content about living people we cannot and will not be an echo chamber repeating unsourced rumors. Please stop. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that isn't what the BLP policy says, no matter how much you want to claim it does. The example given in the Policy itself specifically references allegations that are denied by the party. Please quit misconstruing the BLP policy in a way to try to silence dissent. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the suggested format for the revision. Please fell free to contribute:

"Controversy developed over Walker's private life soon after a column in the San Francisco Chronicle stated that Walker's orientation was "the biggest open secret" in a column, although Walker himself hasn't addressed any speculation about his sexual orientation. Some seized on the allegations to attack Walker for alleged bias, including the National Organization for Marriage and The American Family Association, the later calling for his impeachment. Other experts, including Larry Levine, a professor at the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento say that Walker's sexual orientation, whatever it may be, doesn't—or shouldn't— make a difference.

No, this is not the real BLP issue. There is one column that claims he is gay, that is not sufficient to put it in the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several news sources that cover the controversy. Per the BLP policy, this is EXACTLY like the mayor affair scenario. The only thing that matters is whether the controversy is notable, and whether mainstream third party reliable sources cover the controversy. Trying to remove the real element out of this article simply isn't going to fly. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

@KimvdLinde - there is not even that. There is one article that says its "an open secret" and articles echoing back that unsupported claim. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You misconstrue the BLP policy by equating "unsupported" with "unsourced". Further, as I pointed out before, contrary to the suggestions here, the SFGate isn't the only source. Several other news sources covered the controversy, and the gay community in San Francisco were begging for Walker to come out long before the Chronicle Story broke. In fact, as I showed you, there are pictures circulating with Walker and his Partner. The BLP policy explicitly allows the coverage of allegations, even if DENIED by the party involved. For instance, Ted Haggard to this day denies many of the allegations that were made against him, but ALL have been reported in his article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy is EXPLICIT in that these type of allegation, if notable, belong in the story. Can you please explain why you think that one of the major news stories that came out of the Walker-Prop 8 affair should NOT be included? Give me a reason other than "Walker hasn't confirmed the rumor." Please, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. You can't give "privacy" as the concern, because Walker is a public figure, and the controversy is real and public. Is it that some might give less credence to his opinion if they think he is gay? If so, this suggests that sexual orientation does matter, does it not? Why does that have to be the case? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Aliyah Shahid's piece in NYDailyNews.com: I would not quote Shahid's interpretation, "Walker's sexual orientation, whatever it may be, doesn't—or shouldn't— make a difference." Instead, I would go upstream to the source and quote professor Larry Levine saying, "I think it's profoundly offensive to suggest that a judge who is not of the sexual orientation of the majority or the race of the majority or the religion of the majority is unfit to hear the case." Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Active Banana and Kim that this information does NOT belong in the article. This is a rehash of a previous discussion, and there is insufficient support for Wikipedia to report on rumors, innuendo, etc., no matter where they come from. We are not automatons. We can exercise editorial judgment based on the totality of the sources. Walker has never identified as gay, and speculation as to his sexual orientation is inappropriate. Plus, the selective references to cases that imply that he protects gays is even more inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

1. This is more than a rumor. There are pictures of Walker with his partner online (posted by a member of the gay community coincidentally), there is massive news coverage of the "rumor", and it created a very real controversy surrounding both Walker and the Prop 8 decision. 2. The BLP policy is being misconstrued here. The BLP policy specifically permits and indeed encourages the inclusion of notable allegations that cause controversy, even if denied by the party, even if the party doesn't like hearing the allegations repeated, provided that they are sourced by independent third parties who are reliable. Mainstream newspapers in the United States with independent editorial review policies and journalists who comply with industry ethical standards meet that test. The explicit example in the BLP Policy is a mayor who is ALLEGED to have an affair, and who DENIES the affair, but the New York Times (a reliable source) publishes the allegations anyway, causing a public uproar. We have the exact analogous situation here, except Walker hasn't denied or confirmed the allegations. I find it sad that people seem to think that this is something Walker needs to hide, and who want to remove a very real piece of the news from the Wikipedia story. My goal here is ensuring that the article adequately covers the entire scope of Walker's life and what he is most known for (the Prop 8 decision) that requires information on this angle of the news. My proposal addresses the concerns of people who don't want Walker explicitly labeled as gay. Instead of saying that he is or isn't, it just acknowledges the controversy and provides balanced coverage in the form of quotes from people who point out that it doesn't or shouldn't matter. What I fear more than anything is an attempt to whitewash the article and pretend that we can ignore this aspect of Walker, perhaps as a means to further legitimize his decision in the Prop 8 case. The fact is, his decision will stand alone, on its reasoning, apart from this. Thus, there is no need to try to sanitize or hide things from the public. Information is power, and if we want Wikipedia to be considered a reliable source of information, we need to include things like this. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the characterizations of Walker's sexual orientation as merely "rumor" and "unsubstantiated" are not quite accurate. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/02/chron_not_the_first_to_out_jud.php Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to keep up with you as you keep adding more and more comments - endless. Anyway, you really think that the sfweekly piece you cite is helpful to your cause? It's an incredible piece of fluff that spends more time describing garbage and saying "that's not what we're about" than anything else. Truly embarrassing journalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle is a reliable mainstream newspaper with an editorial board. The Sf Weekly article gives insight as to how some of the editorial decisions were made. The sources used in the original Chronicle Article are the same type of sources that are used in the publishing of mainstream stories in mainstream papers throughout the United States. As for adding more and more comments, I do so, because no one will contribute to the talk page. Instead of trying to work out the dispute, people are invoking policies that do not exist and deleting my edit without comment. Might I ask you to address the differences between the Charlie Crist article and the Vaughn Walker article?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As noted by other reporters after the fact, reliable journalistic sources, including "A federal judge who is friends with Walker" called the columnists to state that Walker does not want people to think he “wants to conceal his sexuality.” “He has a private life and he doesn’t conceal it, but doesn’t think it is relevant to his decisions in any case, and he doesn’t bring it to bear in any decisions..." It seems as if some here want Walker to get up on a podium and scream his orientation with a bullhorn before it goes in the article. However, that is NOT what the BLP Policy states. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I also haven't yet heard an explanation as to why Walker is different than Charlie Crist which contains verified third party sources about allegations related to his sexual orientation, even though he (unlike Walker) has DENIED the allegations. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the Talk Page on the Charlie Crist article proceeded along similar lines as this talk page, until it was finally pointed out that the WP:WELLKNOWN policy not only allowed, but encouraged such allegations in the article. The consensus result ended up being something very similar to what I am suggesting here. Perhaps we can use that as a guide. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I am hereby invoking the WP:WELLKNOWN policy, and using the discussion in the Charlie Crist article as a guide, I will copy the consensus sentence that was reached there, and make a few minor changes to use that example here. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have provided clear and unmistakable evidence of the real Wikipedia policy here. I have worked for compromise. I have provided examples from other BLP controversies and articles here. Yet one particular poster decides that they will make their own policy and try to dictate the discussion. That is not acceptable. I extend an offer to this poster to answer the points that I make with substantive contribution. If you cannot, I must sadly assume that the reverts to my edits are being made in bad faith. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OH LOOK, another article on Wikipedia Anderson Cooper that contains information on the person's sexual orientation, even though that person has not explicitly acknowledged it. In fact, the Anderson Cooper sources are much more dubious than the Walker sources. I desperately want to assume good faith on the part of the people who want to hide the information about Walker, but considering all of these other examples on Wikipedia, it is becoming increasingly difficult. I sincerely hope this isn't agenda driven. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, Ed Koch, (anyone seeing a pattern here), do I need to find more examples? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Other articles are crappy too" is a really poor arguement to put forward as the basis for WP:BLP issues. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you just repeat the same inapplicable talking points ad nauseum? The policy that you are citing to refers to deletions, and in any case, it doesn't respond at all to the point that I am making. The fact is, you are applying the policy in an incorrect mannerGhostmonkey57 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

...Except that the argument is that other articles are better, and that this one could be better. I do not think this article should host an attack on Walker's sexuality or tell the reader that his sexuality makes him biased. I think only that we should report mainstream news items in which dissatisfied voters point out that Walker may be so biased, and other news reports which say his sexuality does not affect his judgment. This is not an attack page, it is an impartial and neutral account of his life, bad and good. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

EXACTLY. The edit that I proposed reflects this sentiment. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's common for multiple articles to have inconsistent treatments of some issues, depending on who's doing the editing. I'm wary of using other articles as precedent, particularly if no formal process has been initiated to make a decision. An RfC was called for Richard Gere, which is why I referenced it previously.

As for Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, both had very public experiences with some form of outing. Both accused by someone else of sexual misconduct, so that's not necessarily an apt parallel. Ed Koch has been the subject of decades-long speculation; an early primary slogan--or grafitti--for Mario Cuomo was "Vote for Cuomo, not the homo", so Koch's sexual orientation has been in the public discourse for a long while and Koch has himself addressed the speculation about his private life.

I don't think this particular issue is stringently followed from one article to the next and evident from this discussion, policy is unclear. I haven't followed every discussion and I can't speak intelligently about David Dreier, Ed Schrock, or Jim McCrery. I don't think the speculation should be in Charlie Crist, but I'm not full up on the sources and backstory for Crist, so I can't really speak too intelligently about the issues in that article.

My opinion is that an RfC on how the BLP should coincide with sexual orientation, accusations, and general speculation should be started, probably on the BLP talk page. This just seems unclear to many editors. --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While you have made a good attempt to distinguish the other examples, I don't think that you succeeded. In the present case, we have a mainstream, reputable, newspaper with an editorial board and journalists who are bound by ethical considerations who published a story. Walker did not deny the story. After that, Friends of Walker (The Federal Judge referenced in the followup) called journalists and pointed out that Walker doesn't even try to hide his sexuality, but he just doesn't think it is important and it doesn't affect his impartiality. The fact is, a major part of the news regarding Walker is the sexual orientation angle. And contrary to the claims here, it isn't just one column in one newspaper that is the source. These are not just "rumors", this is a vital and notable part of the information surrounding the entire Prop 8 affair. Do you think it reasonable to remove from Wikipedia something that is acknowledged in virtually every source of mainstream coverage of Walker's decision? If someone reads this article, and nothing else, they wouldn't even know of the efforts to impeach Walker. Perhaps that is what some here want, but that just makes Wikipedia an echo chamber. I suspect that the latter is happening, as some posters blatantly admitted that their concerns were centered around concerns regarding Walker's "impartiality." Hence, to them, it seems as if it is politically damaging for his orientation to be revealed. Regardless, the fact remains that the WP:WELLKNOWN policy does permit this type of information, and no one yet has made any attempt to address that point. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason for an RfC is to gauge community consensus. In this case, you are quite adamant about the inclusion of this information and you appear to push for it quite ardently on this talk page. Your dedication is evident in the volume and frequency of your posts about it. On the other hand, you have suggested (borderline on accused) other editors of having an agenda. That may be true, but it would be truer to say that you also have an agenda. This is where more community input should be taken into account.

I'm leaning toward not including it, but I can see that you have valid points. The larger issue at hand is that the policy about this is unclear and inconsistently enforced. If you're not interested in starting an RfC about it, I will do it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "accuse" anyone of anything. They admitted it. They are concerned about how the information will impact the perceived "impartiality" of Walker's decision. This shouldn't factor into the equation at all IMHO. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

re "Walker did not deny the story" - Oh please - when did we drop into the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" tabloid journalism. Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Another talking point? Why? Instead of accusing a reliable mainstream newspaper of "tabloid journalism" why not address the substantive points?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

ἄ== Rephrasing/Separate Section?== I like the rephrasing that Binksternet came up with. Do you think this fits ok in "views" or perhaps a separate "personal life" section should go into the article, as is the case in the Charlie Crist article? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

How about under "Cases", where it could go with a description about his dealings with Prop 8? Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I still think this entire passage should be removed. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a key part of public reaction to Walker handling Prop 8. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a part, but I disagree that it's key. --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You would have a better case for "it's key" if the source of reaction were something other than the tabloid NY Daily News. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that "tabloid" is a format, and is not synonymous with the colloquial use of that term? This isn't Weekly World News that we are talking about.Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is only half a step away [[13] Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If the Maggie Gallagher quote is being questioned because of the source NY Daily News, it will be very easy to substitute another source for her quote. However, the other sources do not necessarily combine AFA and NOM criticism of Walker's neutrality as does the NY Daily News. Anyway, other sources for Gallagher:

• AOL News
• McClatchy, quoting the Sacramento Bee
• USA Today
• Gazette Opinion Staff
• Deseret News
• The Salt Lake Tribune
• CBS News
• Harper's Magazine
• The Bay Citizen
• The Daily Cardinal

These sources range from pro-gay to neutral to anti-gay, and they all agree that Gallagher's statement was printworthy, suitable for comment. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the source of my discomfort. Because Gallagher's speculation/gossip/statement about Walker's private life is printed, other sources pick it up quoting her. Then we do it, simply spreading around something that's not very clear in the first place.

According to Gallagher, "Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our founding fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution," Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, told The Associated Press last month."

He's not openly gay, is he? He's apparently mum on the subject of his private life. --Moni3 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No, he's not openly gay. Gallagher is painting the scene as black as she can, misquoting the Chron guys Matier and Ross. Which is why I chose not to use that part of her quote. However, the quote is significant, very much reported, so we must represent at least a bit of it or we have failed at NPOV and WELLKNOWN. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. My point above and now, which I will reiterate, is that WELLKNOWN simply does not address this issue to the satisfaction of BLP in this instance. In fact, it doesn't really explain it well at all. I have an RfC already written. I'm not terribly sure what I'm waiting for here in posting it on the BLP talk page, but the sensation of discomfort is just physical in reading that passage. Very wrong. --Moni3 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your discomfort is unfortunate but it is not at issue. The point is that WELLKNOWN carves its breathing space out of BLP, not the other way 'round. If BLP were the be-all of how to deal with bad news and famous people, then WELLKNOWN would never have become a firm policy guideline. If somebody is quoted in such a wide array of news and opinion articles then their utterance, no matter how repulsive editors may find it, is notable, and we mention it.

Who are you trying to save from this information? Walker is well aware of the criticism he has received in the press and from Prop 8 supporters. Everybody who likes Walker will not be swayed by Gallagher's skewed vitriol. Everyone who hates his same-sex decision won't be softened by the Matier & Ross or Levine's quotes. You are saving nobody at all by trying to take away this important bit. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My hypothesis is that those who support the Prop 8 decision fear that if it is widely known that Walker is gay, that this will somehow detract from the legitimacy of the decision. The funny thing is, if this proposition is correct, then Walker's orientation actually matters a whole lot more than even Walker's detractors want to assert. In reality, Walker's decision will stand on its own, and will be judged by the Supreme Court based on legal reasoning. This very real aspect of the story has far more to do with the human interest aspect of the story, and the controversy that occurred after the fact, not the actual decision. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Your hypothesis does not figure here. You are heading off into no original research land. This aspect of Walker is already widely discussed, though, of course, nothing can be "known" about his sexuality if all we have are third party assessments. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My hypothesis is directed at answering the question you posed to Moni. I never said that this should be put in the article. I think you misunderstand my intentions. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Gallagher's framing of the Maiter and Ross article isn't the best, However, Walker IS openly gay according to the sources quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle after the initial story. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/02/chron_not_the_first_to_out_jud.php It is time to quit moving the goalposts. The consensus was that the WP:WELLKNOWN policy supports inclusion, provided that it was done in a neutral manner. I believe the way that Binksternet edited the addition was very fair and neutral. Trying to excise this piece of the Walker/Prop 8 affair out because of "discomfort" isn't an option. The BLP policy itself says that even things that the person might not like repeated belong in the story if sourced. The Chronicle is a reliable source. They reported the story. This is no longer in reasonable dispute. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? Your source is The Snitch, a blog hosted by the Chron? Walker is only "openly" gay if he responds affirmatively to mainstream reporters asking if he is gay. Gossipy bloggers cannot figure into the picture. You have reached too far here; it is clear you wish to attack Walker. My wish is that a neutral reporting of the situation is reflected in our article about him. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the source is the federal judge quoted in the story. Contrary to what you assume here, I do not wish to attack Walker, and I think you misunderstand my intentions, remember I was supportive of YOUR rewrite of the information. I am vehemently opposed to the constant moving of the goal-posts by those who are desperate to keep this real aspect of the case out of the story. The editor above cannot unilaterally defy the consensus that a neutral rendition of the information needs to go in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There is also this: http://www.businessinsider.com/where-are-all-the-gay-judges-2010-2 Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude, Christ. How can you possibly say this information is not disputed?? Can you not see this entire talk page? Perceiving that you have a temporary consensus, which is itself questionable both in numbers and purpose, does not mean that there is not dispute. Be decent, please. Return the information to its hidden status until this is somehow resolved. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, Ed Koch are you/were you "uncomfortable" with the information on their pages? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Snitch blog is no good as a reliable source and nothing in it can be used. There is no federal judge quoted in it, anyway. I agree Moni3 was out of line going against consensus attained at WP:BLPN#Vaughn Walker, and I agree that it is not acceptable for goalposts to be moved by anybody who did not like the results of consensus building. I probably do not share your politics or your reasoning here for pushing the addition but I can recognize when a widely reported controversy is being suppressed unreasonably on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As the issue is clearly not settled - and has been removed by Moni and is under discussion again but User:Binksternet replaced it, I removed it to allow for further discussion and to re assess support after this new input. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you removed the latest citation edits, but not the material itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He's using his knee to revert, not his noggin. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me - you know me, I can't bear to look at this poorly cited sexual speculation - it was hidden by Moni as new input - clearly the content is still disputed and there should be a return to the discussion - Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(article now back to the way it was before Rob - so to speak). That was exciting. Just so we're clear, are you conceding, Rob, however reluctantly, that consensus has been reached on keeping the crap (I mean, material) in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a bit carried away - I accept there was a minor consensus at the blpn - I note though that the addition did not last long and a new experienced user, moni hid it and as new input I would prefer to return to discussion - the content is still disputed and a weak consensus at BLPN won't change that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Soooo. What are we doing here? Per Binksternet, I was "out of line" for hiding this very poor information because there is..."consensus" in an ongoing discussion where it seems "consensus" is eroding for this to be included.

Because this very glaring error and BLP violation is in the article, does that now end this discussion? Is the Wikipedia way to re-hide it to encourage others to continue to participate and entertain the barking seals at ANI? My credibility has not been maligned at ANI within the past several months. I'm due for a public flogging. --Moni3 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think ani is a suitable venue for this content as people might see it and start objecting even more. Is it still in the article, I don't like to look as I can hardly stop myself from removing it - I am trying recently to avoid any more personal floggings - at least on wiki. If the consensus as its called at BLPN erodes some little more there won't be a consensus any longer and it can be removed and not replaced. I see discussion is still going on there and the issue is clearly not resolved yet. Wikipedia:BLPN#Vaughn_Walker - Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am participating on the BLP noticeboard. My ANI reference was a prediction that if I hid the passage again I would get the rich attention I so desperately seek in my unfulfilling life at ANI, where I will be reported, for being subhuman. --Moni3 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rob, don't look.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support you. I saw your contributions at the BLP and KillerChi.. has also added comments, the consensus for the content is weakening - Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)