Talk:Amy Coney Barrett/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2020

Change "On September 26, 2020, Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States, eight days after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg." to "On September 26, 2020, Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States. If voted in, she would fill the seat of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg." I believe that the sentence that I am trying to replace is biased. It should be replaced with what I have written above. 2600:6C40:4780:BF:C901:741F:2F10:9FE7 (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It seams to me that it was indeed eight days after the death of Ginsburg. You provided no explanation on why this correct information is "biased". Vanjagenije (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Eight days is a significant time interval in Judaism in general, and therefore also to Ginsburg in particular. By mentioning eight days, 2600:6C40:4780:BF:C901:741F:2F10:9FE7 may mean that it sounds nearly as bad as saying the Gentiles were holding it on the Sabbath to make sure Jews wouldn't attend. It is more charitable to assume that no religious offenses were intended by announcing it at the time; rather it was all a coincidence. If it isn't significant, leave it out less someone perceive it to be a deliberate religious insult--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Terminology: People of Praise "member"(?)

Whether Barrett has committed (covenanted) with PoP is unknown (a thing, by its nature, kept confidential by the extra-denominational fellowship) however the Barretts are well known for their ongoing affiliation with the religious group. See, for example, this article in American Magazine [1] (quote: ". . I have met with People of Praise members. I have attended their prayer meetings in South Bend. At the last one I attended, Amy Barrett was present with her family, and we extended our hands in prayer over them. . ." ).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Life beginning at conception

Thanks for your recent helpful edits on this page. I wanted to let you know that I reverted this edit because it appeared to be nearly a direct quote, not directly attributed to the LA Times. See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. I can't read the article because I'm not a subscriber. Could you either rephrase the quote or say something like "As the Los Angeles Times stated …" at the beginning? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: Thank you for explaining the revert. The WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE policy states that "facts are not subject to copyright", that copyright law does not protect "short phrases or expressions", and that close paraphrasing is permitted when "there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing".

The sentence "She has written and spoken frequently about her belief that life begins at conception," is a short expression of facts, with a limited number of ways to say it.

In-text attribution of facts reported by reliable sources can mislead readers into thinking that they are opinions by biased POVs, as is illustrated by application of the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy.

For these reasons, the edit should be reinstated.

This thread has been copied from my talk page so the issue can be subject to consensus. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank You

I am not sure if this is the place to include this but I wanted to thank all of you. I did know/was confused by some of the policies regarding the neutrality of a wiki page and you guys laid it out quite nicely. I will make sure to adhere to everything I read here if or when I decide to add, edit, or delete something. Sevvy413 (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Lambda Legal, comment about "overblown"

@Ɱ: Let's not edit war. You removed some material from NBC news. I reverted. It's now time to discuss. So please revert and we can discuss. The is this NBC news piece: [2]. The piece is from 2018, and discusses Trump's list of potential nominees at the time, which included Barrett and others. It says that Lambda Legal and others criticize the list as extreme on LGBT issues. It also quotes Carrie Severino as saying the criticisms of LL and others are overblown. You want to include LL's opinion but not Severino's. That seems to me a biased way to cherry pick from the NBC news story. We need to include both perspectives, following the NBC news source. I don't understand your argument against this perspective. Can you please self-revert and explain here? Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Judicial Crisis Network is a partisan group that exists for the sole purpose of pushing for conservative judges on the courts. The group's rhetoric, which is spin intended to do PR for its preferred nominees, on where conservative judges stand on LGBT rights is of no value whatsoever to readers. Lambda Legal appears to be a LGBT rights advocacy group. It's entirely within the group's purview to comment on where judicial nominees stand on LGBT rights issues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

NBC news apparently disagrees with you since they reported the opinion of JCN in the story. We go with them, not you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

How does NBC News disagree with me? RS have reported on what a large number of partisan actors have said about Amy Coney Barrett. There is no encyclopedic value in adding every random spin by partisan actors. It is of zero value to readers to hear what a PR organization for conservative court picks says about this court pick. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what RS have reported. I'm talking about this specific source, which frames the whole story the way that it does, with the Severino comment, to give context and balance and a sense that there is more than one view about these issues. We should do likewise, following NBC. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To include the rhetoric of a PR organization (which will spin everything in favor of the cause) to rebut a LGBT rights group about a candidate's position on LGBT rights is false balance. The intent seems to be to obfuscate the issue and mislead readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop commenting on my motivations; I've repeatedly asked you to focus on content. I am simply stating that it is NBC with whom you are arguing. You obviously feel that they should not have included the perspective of this organization, which you call a "PR organization", in their story. I'm sorry you feel that way, and I sympathize--I often do not like how NBC covers things. But they did include it, and Wikipedia policy is to follow them, not you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is absolutely not to mention every single thing that is mentioned in every RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Never said otherwise. We are talking about a single NBC news story here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be "One source mentioned a thing, therefore it must be included," which is obviously not Wikipedia policy. If that is not your argument, you need to write more clearly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No, my argument was: the one source we are currently using sees fit to offer the Severino remark to provide balance and show that there is more than one view possible on these issues. We should defer to their judgment on that and follow their lead. Your retort seems to be: you disagree with NBC's decision here. Nice, but irrelevant. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia policy to include every single thing mentioned in any source that is cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but we should try to follow their attempt to present the issues in an even-handed and factual way, and that's what I'm recommending. Instead of arguing with NBC, why not try to find another source that presents the issue differently? If there are five reports that present the LL letter, but only the NBC report provides balance of this sort, then that would be a good argument that NBC is out of step with the other sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

As stated so well: "To include the rhetoric of a PR organization (which will spin everything in favor of the cause) to rebut a LGBT rights group about a candidate's position on LGBT rights is false balance. The intent seems to be to obfuscate the issue and mislead readers." There are no good cited remarks against the honest and reputable criticisms of Barrett by LL et al. ɱ (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you think the NBC source erred in reporting the statement from Severino, then let's drop the NBC source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but do you understand news agency deadlines? News articles are generally written quickly, and reviewed quickly, with nothing like this level of collaboration and analysis. The writer isn't looking to be 100% eloquent, balanced, and informative to the degree we are now, and that's why generally we use multiple sources, and more than just news articles. The ridiculous notion of discrediting an NBC article over one simple dumb statement is silly, and seems like your objective, so there would be no RS left about Barrett's rampant anti-LGBT rights statements and actions. ɱ (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you think this was a hastily written, weak source that included quotes in error from unreliable people. I think I agree. Let's maybe find a good source before reintroducing the content? Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Again failing to read properly - I am saying that all news is written this way. You cannot expect perfection from any source, and you keep at your tactic of berating RS repeatedly - there is no perfect source for anything, anywhere. ɱ (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please strike this personal attack. I'm not sure if I agree that all news stories contain errors and imperfections; some are pretty darn good. But I do agree that the one source we're using here is imperfect, which is not to say that it should play no role. Rather, I'm suggesting, along the lines of what you suggested above, that we should balance out the errors of this one NBC news piece with additional sources. I thought you agreed that this was the way to mitigate error in imperfect sources. So what other sources might we use? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I will for a minute, but it should be very clear. Here's the initial context: the NBC article was written in 2018, when Barrett was being considered as a SCOTUS judge to replace Anthony Kennedy. Severino was generally criticizing LGBT groups' efforts to criticize Barrett at the time.

1. No, this has no place in the section "Federal judicial service#Nomination and confirmation", because this section is about Barrett's 2017 nomination process to an appeals court, it is not about the 2018 SCOTUS nomination. Severino's 2018 criticism of 2018 SCOTUS nomination attacks is entirely irrelevant here.
2. This has no place in a paragraph about the 2017 Lamda Legal letter. If you read the NBC article, Severino's criticism is given in response to 2018 SCOTUS-related comments by many people, one of whom happens to be a Lamda Legal director, but it it not given in response to the 2017 Lamda Legal letter, which was about the wholly separate (appeals court) nomination, only covered later in the article, with NBC offering no criticism of that 2017 letter/issue.
3. (EC) and yes, like Snooganssnoogans said, the reputation of the two organizations is vastly different, and the message by the first is factual, reported widely, and relevant, while the message by the second is vague and useless, not really a counterargument whatsoever. --ɱ (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Stop posting so much so quickly! Can't even get my reply in! ɱ (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, all very fast. It has been hard to keep up. I appreciate your willingness to engage, so thanks.

We agree that (per the source) the LL letter was from 2017 and in response to her nomination to the 7th circuit. We agree that (per the source) Severino subsequently, in 2018, said that (as the source puts it) the warnings from LGBTQ advocacy groups have been “very much overblown” and called them “mostly scare tactics.” I do not see how we are supposed to conclude that Severino's 2018 comment about overblown warnings was specific to 2018 warnings and was not intended to apply to the warnings in the earlier 2017 letter. It seems to me that Severino meant it to apply to all such prior claims made by activists. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the entire article, top to bottom? The Severino comment was about the SCOTUS nomination remarks, so not relevant in this section. Again, the LL letter only is mentioned later in the news article, with no retort from conservatives. Sure, it's not easy to see who Severino is targeting with this unspecified remark against unspecified people, and I find no other reporting on this off-hand comment. It really shows this shouldn't even be debated, nonetheless placed in this SCOTUS nominee's article. But regardless, the news article makes it clear that both it and Severino's statement are regarding comments surrounding Barrett's candidacy to SCOTUS in 2018. ɱ (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I read the article. I don't agree that it makes it clear that Severino's remark does not apply to the LL letter. I would be fine with adding the dates to make the context clearer, just as NBC News does, leaving it up to the reader to interpret. But I think it's obvious that Severino meant her remark to encompass the letter from LL from only a few months before. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I simply can't allow this without further consensus. There is no evidence from the article, and I have no idea where you got this idea from. It was tacked onto this paragraph in a weak attempt at balancing it out, but it is a vague statement against unspecified groups, with 0 proven relevance to the appeals court nomination and 0 proven relevance to the Lamda Legal letter. ɱ (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The text removed was, "Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network later said that warnings from LGBT advocacy groups about shortlisted nominees to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, including Barrett, were "very much overblown" and called them "mostly scare tactics.""[3] The average reader would wonder who is Carrie Severino? what is the Judicial Crisis Network? It doesn't tell us anything about where the opinion is coming from or how credible it is. TFD (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a problem with NBC, who reported that Severino had said this in the source we're currently using for this paragraph. Perhaps we should remove the whole paragraph? Or perhaps you should find different sources to demonstrate that the NBC source is misreporting on this? I don't know. But you're not arguing with me; you're arguing with NBC News. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight:, I'll break it down for you, a little clearer. I wrote for a newspaper for a bit, so it helps me understand news article structure. Take a look at this quick visual breakdown: https://imgur.com/a/pcQbEl2.

1. First section is intro - the article was released because Kennedy retired and Barrett was seen as a possible SCOTUS replacement
2. Second section - some concerns by legal/LGBT individuals
3. Third section - rebuttal by Severino
4. Fourth section - some background on Barrett, past issues and controversies, appeals court nomination, and only way down at the end, almost off-screen, is the Lamda Legal letter, further evidence given of opposition based on LGBT rights history. And no rebuttals given of that. ɱ (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but we just disagree. First, news articles are normally structured in a way that front-loads the most newsworthy information, with more detail filled in later. You can't infer much from order of presentation, then, about how the various pieces of info presented are related to one another. And anyway such judgments are OR it seems to me. What is clear is that we have a 2017 letter against Barrett, and, just a few months later, a statement from a conservative group saying that complaints like that letter are overblown. I think you are not justified in interpreting the later conservative statement as excluding the letter, which to my mind was obviously part of what the conservative's statement was referring to. And I still think Snoogans is incorrect (as a matter of WP policy) in regarding NBC as having erred in reporting the conservative statement. If the source is not to be followed, then find another source. I looked and couldn't find one, which also casts doubt on whether this information is due at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia editors make judgments when choosing whether or not to include content. Results of original research is not allowed in articles, but it does not at all mean we cannot use our own best judgments in talk page discussions. Anyhow, the editor who added this factoid even wrote in that it was over the SCOTUS candidates, and it appears that way right now, so I don't see why you're the only one to insist somehow it could be even remotely related to a then-old and well-over issue, only presented well later in the article. ɱ (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

And your analysis of the article structure is not accurate, and oversimplified. Sure, yes, news articles sometimes go into more detail later, but the article is about SCOTUS candidates, just read the heading. It really clearly bunches concerns followed by counter concerns, and then clearly has her name in bold, indicating that this is where you will be able to read more about the background of the candidate, like the appeals court issues. So would you also like to randomly tack that Severino criticism onto discussion of her law clerk job as well, which is also mentioned toward the bottom? ɱ (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Again you have failed to provide any evidence this vague Severino statement is in any way related to the appeals court nomination or Lamda Legal letter (simply because it's not related and there's nothing there to find). ɱ (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Any evidence! I'm happy to include what's in the source, which is that LL wrote the letter about LGBT concerns in late 2017 and Severino said a few months later that complaints about Trump's SC list with regard to LGBT concerns have been overblown. Or we could find a source you like, since you clearly don't like this one. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No, for the last time, Correlation does not imply causation. Just because two things happen to be in the same long article does not make them relevant at all. I give up, this is a WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:Randy in Boise situation, you don't seem to know enough about journalism or courts to understand the topic at hand. ɱ (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

FOC please, and please strike your PAs about my knowledge or ability to understand. I'm not the issue, and remarks about me are inappropriate. As for our discussion on the actual issue, it's important to distinguish between sincere disagreement--which is what we have here--and failure to comprehend. I understand your argument, I just find it unpersuasive. But anyway, by your own account, this source contains a dumb statement and errs in including the remarks of the conservative activist. Also, by your own account, we should use multiple sources to balance out these sorts of errors. That's my view too. So what are the other sources we might use here? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Is a 1,700 member tightly-knit religious community "small"?

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not, and the large international gathering that the wider organization held with Pope Francis recently underscores this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the group’s leader they have 350 members in their South Bend Chapter, the one Barrett belongs too, idk is that “small”? Overall stats for them seem to vary, some estimates go as high as ~4,000 members, but I agree, calling almost 2K people ‘a small group’ seems a little off. OgamD218 (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Source: https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/supreme-court-opening-shines-spotlight-on-local-religious-group-people-of-praise/article_569b0dd6-145a-59df-9bf7-2280009fd582.amp.html OgamD218 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Axios and "saving Ginsburg's seat"

An awful lot of opinion sources being used in this article, for instance there is no need to link to an opinion blog praising Barrett to support that she is a practicing Catholic.

Ran across the "saving Ginsburg's seat" while removing some of these, it's originally from Axios and a little problematic, but mentioned in other opinion pieces such as this from The New York Times. I would be against using it but figure it needs some discussion. fiveby(zero) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

This "paragraph" is brief and relatively uninformative:

From 1999 to 2002, she practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C.

To add to this article: what type of legal work did she do while employed by this firm? Did she mainly work to defend working people, or did she represent corporate interests? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Corporate.

1. SCOTUSblog [4] - ". . After leaving her Supreme Court clerkship, she spent a year practicing law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, a prestigious Washington, D.C., litigation boutique that also claims as alumni former U.S. solicitor general Seth Waxman, former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick, and John Elwood, the head of Arnold & Porter’s appellate practice and a regular contributor to SCOTUSblog. In 2001, Miller Cassidy merged with Baker Botts, a larger, Texas-based firm, and Barrett spent another year there before leaving for academia. To the chagrin of Democratic senators during her confirmation process for the 7th Circuit, Barrett was able to recall only a few of the cases on which she worked, and she indicated that she never argued any appeals while in private practice. . ."
2. Law.com/The American Lawyer [5]

   ". . While in private practice, she has said, she worked on mostly civil matters, writing briefs and memoranda and conducting depositions and research. She told members of the U.S. Senate that she no longer had records of many of the cases she worked on but that she provided research and briefing work for Baker Botts’ representation of George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore after the 2000 presidential election. Barrett, as an associate, was on location in Florida for a week, working with Stuart Levey, a former Baker Botts partner who became chief legal officer at HSBC. Barrett, a longtime Notre Dame Law School professor, also pointed to cases in which she represented criminal defendants who had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud federal agencies, and one in which she provided research and briefing in the representation of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which argued its designation as a “foreign terrorist organization” by the State Department violated due process. She was also second chair in a civil trial, representing a plaintiff drywall construction company seeking a verdict for accounting malpractice. . ."

3. thefederalistsociety[6] - ". . As an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts. . ."
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The most significant litigation is described in some detail here, pages 25-28.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Law.com/The National Law Journal [7] - ". . After her clerkships, Barrett joined what was then Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in 1999 as an associate. The firm subsequently merged with Baker Botts in 2001. The bulk of her work was civil, according to her appellate court Senate questionnaire, and included writing briefs, motions and research memos. Ninety percent of her work was in federal courts, she said, and she was associate counsel in one case tried to verdict. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Views on abortion and Roe have been moved to "personal life" section?

It's getting to be extremely tiresome how the page of a nominee, whose views on abortion are (i) covered as a key issue in all RS coverage about her, (ii) central to her being chosen by Trump, (iii) central to the support for her and (iv) central to the opposition to her, cannot touch the subject of abortion in any proper way. One editor has now pushed[8] all the content on her views on abortion and on abortion-related law/precedent to the "personal life" section, arguing that these have nothing to do without her judicial philosophy or her career as a judge, which is bonkers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, she has never ruled on abortion in her judicial career, and I was simply following the lead of the person before me who prefaced the whole paragraph with a disclaimer that these are her personal views alone. Should we not restrict her "Judicial philosophy" section to philosophies which she has actually embraced from the bench? Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The other editor was completely wrong to insert that it was solely her "personal view" and that it didn't inform her judicial view (we don't know that and RS did not say that – it was pure WP:OR from the user). The content you moved literally covered her views on abortion law, Supreme Court cases, and other legal cases related to abortion rights, so your rationale for moving it all does not make sense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: I agree. Signing an open letter, speaking on public events on the law and jurisprudence, and making judicial rulings are all not "personal life" issues, so that material should of course not be in the "personal life" section. I think the first two points (open letter + 2013 speech) most closely fits the section on her time as a Notre Dame law professor, and anything about judicial rulings obviously belongs under the section on judicial tenure. Neutrality^talk 19:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

How about adding PP of Indiana and Kentucky v. Box and one or two others to "Selected Cases"? Then have a follow-up paragraph on her prior statements and leanings about abortion?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've moved to the appropriate sections. Open to other suggestions, of course. Neutrality^talk 21:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I support your new section and also the merger you made with the First Amendment section.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

For 2006 i just changed 'letter' to 'ad', but South Bend Tribune says: "signed an anti-abortion letter that accompanied a January 2006 ad". They are probably the best source. fiveby(zero) 23:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden the National Review article is probably not the best, see WP:RSNP#National_Review. fiveby(zero) 23:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality. Her views on that were widely published, and this is one of key issues related to her nomination. My very best wishes (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the article have a table of cases argued?

See John_Roberts#cite_ref-:1_7-1. Should this article have a table like it? It could be based on  the questionnaire, pages 25-28.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel that's necessary. Her litigation career was not all that remarkable. Plus, the questionaire is a primary source so we shouldn't rely on it. Tchouppy (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

With your input, I will not add it unless it starts becoming an issue in the secondary media. I haven't seen that yet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Awards

From [9] but not mentioned in the article:

• vice-president of the student body at St. Mary's Dominican High School
• 1994 Rhodes English department's most outstanding student
• Kiley Fellowship as student at Notre Dame
• 1997 Hoynes Prize (this is identical to being top in her class when graduating, which is mentioned in the article)

There is also no mention in the article about her being a "visiting associate professor of law at the University of Virginia"--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fine, though I don't see where it says St. Mary's. —KinkyLipids (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

[10] states it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Added all but Hoynes Prize because her top in class status is mentioned elsewhere.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• news.ND[11] - ". . She has been selected as distinguished professor of the year by three of Notre Dame Law School's graduating classes. . ."
  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

AutoZone

See Amy_Coney_Barrett#Employment_discrimination. It is one-sided to only quote the dissenters and not the panel too. User:Neutrality reverted my addition, which left the section ending

"Diane Sykes wrote the majority opinion for the panel, which noted that a "purely lateral transfer" between positions dues not ordinarily result in liabilities under Title VII and faulted the EEOC for disclaiming "any interest in an opportunity to present such evidence" that could demonstrate harm to employee opportunity or status within AutoZone. refEEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., 875 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2017)./ref Barrett, Sykes, and three other judges voted to deny rehearing, rendering the petition unsuccessful.ref name=Howe/"

If that is too long, I would like to add a shortened quote from the panel instead. I am also open to removing the quote from the panel so neither side has a quote.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Barrett only participate in the en banc proceedings, not the panel? Neutrality^talk 18:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

And the dissent was from the panel, not the en banc proceedings. So that seems like an argument against including either side. As a side note, this section was previously "fought" over by User:162.195.132.163 User:PeterTheFourth User:Tchouppy User:Mendaliv starting in July 2019. This list may not be comprehensive; I didn't check hard enough in the edit histories to be sure.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's right. The quoted matter is from the en banc dissent. Neutrality^talk 18:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It says "Because the panel's opinion, as I read it, endorses the erroneous view that "separate-but-equal" workplaces are consistent with Title VII, I respectfully dissent from denial of rehearing en banc." To put in criticism of the panel's opinion but forbid the panel opinion itself is strange. I suppose I could add clarification that Barrett never signed or joined onto the panel's opinion; that she only voted to deny.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

We already describe what the panel opinion held, then why the en banc dissenters disagreed with it. I don't think we need more text on it. Neutrality^talk 21:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It also read strangely by listing Sykes separately from the other three, especially since the dissenters were also a group of three. I "renumbered" the judges. You and others can review it. As for the amount of text, that is a side issue to it being strange to forbid one side but not the other.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of birth date and middle name

As discussed previously, our BLPPRIVACY policy requires that Ms. Barrett's full birth date not be included for two independently adequate reasons: the date has not been "widely published by reliable sources" (i.e., reliable secondary sources), and, according to KrakatoaKatie—an administrator, oversighter, and OTIS volunteer—the subject requested that it not be included.

The subject's purported middle name has not been widely published in reliable secondary sources, so it should be omitted. It is true that it was once shown on Ms. Barrett's FJC profile, but it has since been removed; the Library of Congress catalog entry containing it is not a secondary source.

I am again removing both of these things, and I am claiming 3RR Exemption 7 (removal of "contentious material that is . . . unsourced[] or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy"). Per BLPREQUESTRESTORE, anyone wishing to restore either of these things bears the burden of developing consensus beforehand. (Pinging Dq209.) Rebbing 16:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and I respect and sorry for undoing your edits It was just that you did not prove the existence of the OTRS ticket at that time so I had undid the edits but will not do that again since you since proved the existance of the ticket Dq209 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It's all good. Rebbing 19:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A recent dif--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Her middle name is a matter of public record. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Barrett%20SJQ(PUBLIC).pdf JTRH (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The (primary) source only supports Vivian as part of her former name and not her current full name. BLP requires reliable secondary sources, not primary sources or original research. Public records such as address, home value, phone number, office location, office phone, federal salary, voter registration, political donations, full legal name, and birthdate require RS in a BLP. —KinkyLipids (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mention it for purposes of verifiability. I mentioned it to address the editor's concern that publishing it on Wikipedia is somehow a violation of her privacy, when it's already publicly available information (I found it in a five-second Google search). But I'm not sure how her middle name is such a subject of controversy that it would need to be documented and verified beyond a sworn statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. JTRH (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It truly shouldn't be. This feels like a huge overreaction over a middle name. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The original poster cited privacy for the birthdate, not for "Amy Vivian Coney Barrett", which, again, is not even actually her current full name according to your own source. Why insist on an incorrect combination of her former name and current name? —KinkyLipids (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The admonition against the "purported middle name" refers to the inclusion of Vivian in her current middle name, not as her maiden middle name. Or User:Rebbing can correct me if I am wrong.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Apparently, the request to omit her birthdate occurred three years ago, when she was nominated to the Court of Appeals. I think we're going to see very shortly that, given the level of media coverage she's about to receive, a nominee for the United States Supreme Court can't reasonably expect any level of privacy about something as trivial as when in 1972 she was born. I'm not advocating for taking steps to reinsert it, I'm saying I expect it to be a matter of the public record very soon if it isn't already. JTRH (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This document shows that Vivian is not part of her current full name https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000174-dc0a-dcdc-af74-df6f47570000 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Barrett's date of birth is now a matter of widely distributed public record: it has been reported on by the AP ("Snapshots of top contenders for Supreme Court vacancy") and by CNN ("Amy Coney Barrett Fast Facts"). Rebbing, given these sources, do you still have an objection to including Barrett's DOB? I'm trying to gauge whether an RfC is actually necessary here. Neutrality^talk 00:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't we have to obey the OTIS against it?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have higher standards than the Associated Press?JTRH (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider us bound by a request from three years ago, when the subject was not well known and the coverage of the DOB was much thinner. While we of course must exercise caution, we are not obligated to follow a subject's unreasonable request to omit ordinary biographical data that is widely reported and typically included in encyclopedas. The subject is an extremely public figure, who holds public office, and whose DOB has now been reported in very prominent sources. And, of course, OTRS volunteers are exactly that; as the page notes, they "do not have any specific editorial control." But if either Rebbing or KrakatoaKatie feel that this needs to go to RFC or some other forum, I'm happy to do that. I just wanted to ascertain specifically whether any other user feels this is necessary. Neutrality^talk 00:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: My involvement began and ended with the OTRS ticket. At the time, the only source was a judicial questionnaire for her appointment to the federal bench and there was no secondary coverage (I remember looking for it). If there are reliable secondary sources now, we should treat it as we do other information in the article. Personally, I think the cat is out of the bag. Katie^talk 11:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I support her middle name (only as a former name) and full birthdate to be reinstated in the article. It's clearly reported widely enough now, so some unspecified OTRS ticket from three years ago, when she was barely a public figure/household name, should not play into it. ɱ (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I support her middle name in her maiden name being included. As for birthdate, could we table this discussion until after (if) she is confirmed? Restrictions made concerning personal information and judges typically are concerned with what bad actors will do with the information. She will have better security (I imagine) once on the Supreme Court. The rationale for restricting it could change.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The case for inclusion is clear. And I don't think we necessarily need to wait for Rebbing's permission here, especially given that her claim that "the date has not been 'widely published by reliable sources'" was already factually wrong when she opened this thread with it on September 29: The AP piece dates from 2018, and a cursory Google News search could also have turned up e.g. the Chicago Sun-Times (September 25) or Esquire (September 26) at that point.

To be clear, all these had not yet been published back in 2017 when KrakatoaKatie reported the OTRS (not "OTIS") request; so there was a better rationale for omitting the DOB back then. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the birthdate due to the Oversight and OTRS issues in 2017 but i am not sure about using the former middle name in the article at all although the current middle name can be kept as its well known but the article should be renamed to Amy Barrett instead as we do not usually use middle names in article names 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The birthdate is now a matter of public record, and the article title should reflect the name by which she is commonly known, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg rather than “Ruth Ginsburg”. JTRH (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

My understanding of the concern, correct me if I am wrong: The question was whether she retained "Vivian" as a middle name following marriage. "Coney" is not in question as to whether it can be kept or not. If the article is going to go against the OTRS ticket on her birthdate, that raises the question of the article will also go against the OTRS ticket which said not to include Vivian as her middle name. But most secondary sources omit Vivian, so it makes sense to follow their lead.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Bug on page

This analysis tool says there is one bug on the page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Correct number of written opinions

Amy_Coney_Barrett#Selected_cases says she wrote 79 majority opinions, four concurring opinions, and seven dissenting opinions. This is also what the Congressional Research Service document indicates if you count them out. But [12], citing the "Lexis Advance legal research database" says "Barrett has authored 81 majority opinions, 3 concurring opinions, and 7 dissenting opinions". So who is right, the article or Lexis Advance?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

People of praise / coatrack?

I'm opening this section here to talk about coatrack versus having details on this page about parts of People of Praise. Novellasyes (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I support the 18:58, 30 September 2020 edit by Novellasyes. There is currently a factual error about PoP in the article. It says it is a "lay-Christian" organization, when actually there are four Catholic priests in the group and there will probably be more ordained in the future. A strictly lay group wouldn't have priests. I do not know if they have Protestant clergy in the group too, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not sure if there is a good name for a mixed clergy/lay parachurch organization or if you should just call it a "mostly lay" organization. Or does "lay" signify something else besides who is in it, like polity?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I would go further and also remove "Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men." That's from the New York Times in 2017. There are lots of newer and updated sources. Mostly, it's difficult to adequately describe this group in just a few sentences. I think we should focus on building out People of Praise so that readers can click through and get the full picture there, rather than having a partial description of the groups beliefs/practices here. Marquardtika (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, a lay Catholic group can have priests. The Knights of Columbus count deacons, priests and bishops among their ranks, but are a lay Catholic organization. A priestly order, on the other hand, would have no significant lay membership. Such as the Jesuits or the FSSP. Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

However, the description "tightly knit" as found in the NYT is WP:POV and should be attributed. Elizium23 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I support the edit made on 21:41, 30 September 2020 by User:CharlesShirley to remove the "Members of the..." comment.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the section is a coatrack, but it heading that way. For example, some editor added a description of what some members of the People of Praise agree to do. The description does not apply to all of them and the NY Times article does not, in any way, say that she has agreed to the described action. There was nothing provided in that information that was tied to Barrett so it was off topic and undue weight given to the description of People of Praise. I guess I agree with Marquardtika's comment, those sentence was over the top. The section really has too much info about PoP, and we should trim it down. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I now count ten adjectives modifying "People of Praise" in the Personal Life section. That's atrocious grammar. Elizium23 (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

She chose to keep her baby

It is pointless to explain that Barrett's youngest was found with Down Syndrome in a prenatal test if we do not mention that Barrett chose to keep the baby: that is, she made a decision against abortion for her disabled child. A large percentage of Down Syndrome babies are aborted (all of them are, in Iceland) and so it does not "go without saying" that she kept the baby, it is remarkable and WP:DUE that she kept the baby, especially if we consider the issues at hand for Barrett as she proceeds through confirmation. Elizium23 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

He is now a nationally known person thanks to the C-SPAN video of him dancing to Stars and Stripes Forever on the way out. If someone reads the article to him it would be offensive to say that she chose. It sounds crass. Some things are better implicitly said. An analogy: your brother chose not to murder you in your sleep when you were 10 years old. Technically true (if you had a brother), but it sounds crass. Some things are better left unsaid.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, this is not better left implicitly said, because if 92% of mothers are murdering their children, it is notable that 8% don't.

Also, the passage does not mention the child's name or sex at all, how are we supposed to know he is famous? Elizium23 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Do RS make a point of her choosing to give birth to the child? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, yes. Elizium23 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You could certainly find reliable sources that lack goodness. There even articles on this website in which cynical minded people have squeezed the goodness out of them. You feel yucky after reading it. Saying she chose makes a sensitive person feel yucky, like that his mom was seriously thinking about it and maybe should have decided the other way. He probably is sensitive, and will feel it when it is read or played to him (an audio version of this article is on Youtube already and is likely to be re-recorded by someone, somewhere).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you could include the 92% statistic and leave the rest to the reader's imagination? The cynical reader will understand, the innocent reader will not feel yucky inside, and both get what they deserve.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it is of interest to readers with either common view of abortion. I don't agree that it goes without saying, because in some cases she may not have been the one (or only one) choosing (e.g. if medical problems were severe enough, or if the father or family had some say in the decision). This makes it clear she alone made the choice, and that she was presented with a choice. ɱ (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The account that she chose to keep her child was related by U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz and paraphrased by a journalist. I have not seen any statement from Barrett or her husband to that effect. Conservative religious mothers typically don't speak that way; it reflects Hegelian epistemology that they typically do not utilize when reasoning about life and death (in contrast to, say, choosing "Coke or Pepsi" where Hegelian epistemology may be employed). Sure, some may wear an "I chose life" slogan button, but that is a general statement. With respect to individual circumstances, a choice in this context would be a form of narcissistic control. Rather they "accept" what God, fate, or nature offers. To avoid misstating what actually transpired when she was pregnant for the last time, an alternative would be to substitute something like, "She did not abort her child" or "She continued her pregnancy and gave birth" or "She accepted the diagnosis and gave birth".--Epiphyllumlover (talk)

I would go further and state that we would need quite extraordinary sourcing to imply, whether with "she chose not to" or "she did not" or "she continued her pregnancy," that she considered abortion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I now support this requirement for extraordinary sourcing, against my previous comments.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A prenatal test for Down syndrome would’ve been standard considering Barrett’s age at the time of the pregnancy; as stated above, 92% of women in her position in the US choose to abort, that stat on top of the fact Judge Schiltz is a Barrett family friend with a distinguished reputation should be enough to substantiate the claim-it was also originally printed in NYT. I think it’s asking too much of the Barretts for they themselves to weigh in on such topic. OgamD218 (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't know exactly what Schiltz said, he could have said something like "They received a positive test for Down Synodrome and followed God's will by not aborting the child" and the journalist could have rewritten it to reflect Hegelian epistemology with respect to choices. BLP rules apply to her son too, not just her. If written wrongly this besmirches his reputation in the eyes of his classmates at school--some who are definitely going to be reading this article or maybe already have.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

What in the world is going on in this debate? She had the choice to abort the child or not, and she didn't. What is this talk of "murder" and "goodness" and "sensitive" and "epistemology"? Wikipedia is meant to deal in facts. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:8175:6187:72EA:ED53 (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The article cited for Schiltz comment refers to a New York Times article [13] which doesn't contain that info, and he/it needs removal.Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Found a better source and re-added the comment the way it was prior to removal due to the defective source.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Elizium23, I noticed you just removed it; I don't think it is completely pointless. For example, on the photos of her family on this article, the youngest son is missing. Stating about the Down syndrome helps the reader infer why there is one missing child in the pictures. Also, on the C-SPAN video of the procession into and out of the Rose Garden, he has both hands held on either side and dances on the way out. Mentioning his Down syndrome in the article helps the viewer understand.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, it is nonsensical to say he was diagnosed with Down Syndrome in the womb, with a prenatal test, without the abortion story going with that diagnosis. The sole purpose of such a prenatal test is to decide on when to abort the pregnancy. If you want to say that a born child lives with Down Syndrome, then that is how you say it, not that he was the subject of a prenatal test. You know my personal feelings on the inclusion of this information, and we already have a source for that version of the article, but apparently there is opposition for Wikipedia explaining that Barrett practices what she preaches and does not abort her unborn children. Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Scientifically, the only purpose of the test is for a possible abortion. A large number of women getting the this test would never consider abortion none-the-less. They accept the test the same way they did the pap smears when they were virgins. It is more about showing you trust your doctor and value your relationship with him or her than that you really desire the results of the test. Another aspect is that some OBs (and nurses that serve them) show prejudice against religious women. If you do not like conflict you may just go along with the tests to avoid it--a wise choice when their opinion of your mental health may influence whether a social services report will be made shortly after birth (and being in labor isn't the greatest thing for appearing mentally stable). There is a reason that this website has an article titled Abuse during childbirth because it happens. Labor is a time when a woman is very vulnerable and it is easy for nurses and doctors to emotionally exploit them, typically without consequences. Due to these factors it makes sense to value your relationship with your OB more than you value the avoidance of extra tests. I thought it was weird to discuss the prenatal test too. I would rather just say that he has Down syndrome. Because many people with Down syndrome do not have the extra chromosome in all of their cells, the degree of mental retardation can vary considerably. Of course he must learn to accept that he has Down syndrome; that is an unavoidable burden. The "you should have been aborted" thing is an avoidable burden that does not need to be placed on him. He very well may be able to understand the article in considerable nuance--and because Wikipedia is ubiquitous it is likely he will come across it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of equivalent Teaching and Scholarship topic sizes

• Brett_Kavanaugh#Teaching_and_scholarship - 463 words
• Sonia_Sotomayor#College_and_law_school (not full section, just the two relevant paragraphs) - 343 words
• Last paragraph of Neil_Gorsuch#Early_life_and_education - 90 words
• Elena_Kagan#Return_to_academia and several paragraphs earlier in the article, 743 words
• Last two paragraphs of John_Roberts#Early_life_and_education - 166 words
• Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#Academia - 332 words
• Stephen_Breyer#Legal_career, second paragraph - 117 words
• Clarence Thomas - 0 words, nothing at all, not even about his thesis
• David_Souter#Early_life_and_education - 43 words, if that (one sentence telling about a thesis)
• Anthony_Kennedy#Early_career - 22 words, one line
• Sandra_Day_O'Connor#Teaching - 389 words, includes a smaller section further up; all of it is during or post-nomination; if you don't think that counts than consider it as 0 words
• Antonin_Scalia#Early_legal_career_(1961–1982) - 148 words, the last paragraph of this section and also one line further up
• This article - 223 words--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do this research. It's not clear, at least to me, exactly what the point was (or is). For example, John Roberts was never a professor, or, apparently, taught a class; the 166 words you mention are about an essay he wrote as a college sophomore, and his senior thesis, whereas Barrett was an professor for 15+ years.

Also, some of Barrett's writings (as a professor) appear in the "Judicial philosophy, political views, speeches, and writings" section, which I don't believe that you included in your word count. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to figure it out, too. I have limited understanding of their histories and am learning as I go. At the bare minimum I am trying to justify expansion of the section so it could look something like the Kavanaugh or Ginsburg articles. That people area framing the article around more ephemeral topics rather than a history of her career and description of her work is concerning to me. It hit me when I read the Congressional Research Service report that there is all sorts of heavy thinking involved that the article so far has been staying out of. Some of her journal articles may be paywalled; but it seems that enough of them are free.

For general conclusions: It seems that having been appointed pre-internet hobbles a justice's article with respect to pre-nomination scholarship. Also, it looks like some articles are written by people who really care about the justice in question--it comes out in the small things because the articles focus on the aspects which have the most value to the writers themselves. (That is, the writers collectively wrote the article for themselves because it gives them joy rather than the writers wrote for out-groups to read in order to accomplish some objective.) Other times articles are driven hither and thither as people are trying to score "points". The Scalia article is definitely one of the articles written with the highest value in mind. That gives me hope for this article.

As for the Judicial philosophy, political views, speeches, and writings section, I did not include that for any of the other justices, either. But because they already server (or are serving) those sections seem to have been made up of stuff from their current job.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding I am trying to justify expansion of the section, the danger is straying into [[WP:NOR}] territory. Picking and choosing the scholarly articles from which to extract information, and picking which specific points within articles to include in a Wikipedia article, is "original research". If you can find newspaper or journal articles that analyze what Barrett has written, that's a whole different matter.

As far as making the Barrett article resemble the Ginsberg article, the problem is that one person (Barrett) is mostly a professor (not notable) who has three years as a judge, versus someone (Ginsburg) who was on the Supreme Court for several decades. For the latter, there are going to be lots of analyses of judicial philosophy, and of what she wrote. Wikipedia is (and is supposed to be) a reflection of what reliable sources think is important about the world - and how important. So I think it's generally not a good idea to make an independent judgment about whether one aspect of one topic should be roughly equal to the same aspect in another article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Her articles have been cited a number of times by other academics--that is enough for our purposes to avoid original research. All it would take is someone with access to enough of the articles citing her articles and the willingness to do the heavy thinking.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly articles that could be discussed

• procedural common law - Many articles citing this are in Google Scholar

One of the articles citing it, on pdf page 55 of this article summarizes her position that detention and extraterritoriality issues can be resolved by amending statutes rather than being strictly constitutional issues

• Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency - Many articles citing this are in Google Scholar
• Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement - already in the article
• Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals - Many articles citing this are in Google Scholar
• Originalism and Stare Decisis - Many articles citing this are in Google Scholar
• The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court - Many articles citing this are in Google Scholar

See this quote on page 53 of this article, full pdf linked to on Google Scholar

• Suspension and Delegation - Some articles citing this are in Google Scholar

An interesting quote on pdf page 35 of this article, full pdf linked to on Google Scholar

• 2019 Sumner Canary Memorial Lecture: Assorted Canards of Contemporary Legal Analysis: Redux

This one has no substantive reviews except in National Review. It is based on a well known essay Scalia wrote with the same title. She decided to write her own version of the stuff that she is tired of hearing.

• Congressional Insiders and Outsiders - Some articles citing this on Google Scholar

this one, on pages 3-4 of the pdf briefly discuss "process based" law scholarship and that Barrett is skeptical of it.

this one cites Barrett quite a bit over a variety of pages and presents her view that a closed set style canon of law can't be justified on page 40 of the pdf.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Overlink

WP:OVERLINK has become a real concern with the latest flurry of edits from @Epiphyllumlover: Elizium23 (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. I have removed some overlinking. Neutrality^talk 15:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I ran the page through a difficult-word-finder and wikilinked the more rare and lengthy words.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I went through the ones de-wikilinked by User:Neutrality. I would like to re-wikilink "nexus" and "jusrists" on the basis that the typical reader either does not know the words or would confuse them (nexus as a smartphone and jurists as jury members). If you request I am willing to de-wikilink two other words to so that the total sum of wikilinks stays the same.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Nexus" and "jurist" don't seem too difficult or obscure to me. Neutrality^talk 19:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I just used Excel's Conditional Formatting Tool to look for highlighted duplicate links in a list generated by feeding the article into the internal-link-analyzer. I found and removed about 16 or so duplicate wikilinks. I did not remove wikilinks where the duplicate occurred in the infobox or a template from the bottom of the article. I am going to go ahead and re-add the links to nexus and jurist because the removed links more than make up for the harm of burdening the page with two more wikilinks.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I support User:Williamgregory213's recent wikilinking. It is not excessive.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Role of aunt

"The couple has relied on in-home childcare by Jesse’s aunt for the past 17 years.": https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/05/amy-barrett-we-watched-hours-her-speeches-heres-what-we-learned/3596731001/ Could this go into the article with this source?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Of course, IMO with that big of a family and with the parents' busy schedule, if they don't have in-home childcare, something wd be amiss.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I will mention Jessie's aunt.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

McConnell's rationale for refusing to give a vote to Merrick Garland

The section titled “Supreme Court nomination” includes the following:

• Democrats are angered by the move to fill the vacancy in a presidential election year.
• They accuse Republicans of hypocrisy because they refused to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court nominee in 2016.
• Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren described the nomination as an "illegitimate power grab" by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell "to steal another Supreme Court seat."

I added this:

McConnell countered that the real issue concerning Merrick Garland had been one of divided government, and that since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. “Everybody knew that neither side, had the shoe been on the other foot, would have filled it,” he said.

@Snooganssnoogans: reverted this with the comment “this was not the rationale at the time.”

In the first place, this is in fact McConnell’s current response to the complaints by the Democrats. He is the Senate Majority Leader and controls the Senate. His response is relevant. We do not exclude relevant statements for any of these reasons:

• a Wikipedia editor believes that the person’s current rationale is not the same as the rationale the person gave at some other time
• a Wikipedia editor claims that the person in question previously made an inconsistent statement
• a Wikipedia editor believes that the statement is false

Here is a list of quotes supplied by McConnell concerning what he said on this question during 2016. If you find a quote in which he only talks about the ‘Biden Rule’ does that negate these other statements he made during that time? I would like to see the source establishing this. The most that can be contended is that statements McConnell made about the ‘Biden Rule’ use a rationale different from the rationale of other statements he made during the same period. Therefore only the 'Biden Rule' statements are includable in Wikipedia?

Do we want to turn the little section about Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination into a battleground of sources arguing that McConnell’s position today does or does not differ from his position in 2016? Shall we also include the opinions given by Democrats in 2016 that contradict what they say today? I am thinking of Democrats who argued in 2016 that the Constitution required a vote on Garland but who today say that it doesn’t require a vote on Barrett.

The bottom line is that McConnell’s position today is relevant even if it could be established that it wasn’t his position in 2016, and I don’t see how that can be established. Furthermore, such things are not established via opinions of Wikipedia editors. — Swood100 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Both sides should be relegated to the nomination article, with one sentence left in this one to summarize both your reverted edit and the "Democrats are angered..." stuff already there. The single sentence could wikilink to a section of the nomination article. WP does not have a Biden rule article, they name it after ol' Strom instead. Until the "Democrats are angered..." stuff is abridged to one sentence and combined with your edit's topic, I support unreverting your edit.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to add text about McConnell's flip-flop, then it needs to be described as such and it needs to be sourced to RS, such as this PolitiFact piece[14], which characterize his action as a flip-flop and contrasts his actions today with what he said back in 2016. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? PolitiFact has a piece concluding that McConnell's position now is not the position he had in 2016. How does that make my original edit unacceptable? — Swood100 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The text you added to the article did not say that McConnell had flip-flopped. The text you added was a disingenuous McConnell quote where he made it appear as if his rationale for blocking Garland is consistent with the rationale for shepherding Barrett's nomination through. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you read this? How does McConnell's position now differ from what he said in these quotes? — Swood100 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I would be inclined to leave out the rationalizations from McConnell's office. To the extent the argument is "now there is a Republican president and a Republican-majority Senate" (i.e., "we have more power now") that is already clear from text already in the article. Neutrality^talk 14:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

To the extent the argument is "now there is a Republican president and a Republican-majority Senate" (i.e., "we have more power now") that is already clear from text already in the article.

@Neutrality: The text already in the article says that the rationale McConnell gave in 2016 is inconsistent with his rationale today, and that this constitutes hypocrisy. I added McConnell’s response to that, which is that his rationale today is not different. This response is not already in the article and it deserves to be, for balance. Snooganssnoogans apparently believes that McConnell’s response cannot appear in this article if a source can be found that contradicts it, but this is not correct. The most he can say is that his source should also be included. But if his contradictory source is included then we must allow sources on the other side of the question and we find ourselves enmeshed in a debate that we really don’t want to be having here. A simple statement of the two sides should suffice, which is what I tried to add. — Swood100 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If there are no other comments I am going to go ahead and include this in the article. — Swood100 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Swood100: This cannot be added back to the article because there is no consensus for it and several other editors have objected, explaining why. Neutrality^talk 15:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality: Your objection was that it should not be added to the extent that the content is already included, but the content is not already included. The content is McConnell’s response that the issue has always been one of divided government. What would be the reason for excluding that? Do you have some other objection? If not, there are two in favor and one opposed. Snooganssnoogans declines to explain how the McConnell quotes from 2016 differ from what he is saying today. Do we want to have a battle in this little paragraph? We can include McConnell's current position. Then we can cite a source saying that McConnell is being inconsistent. Then we can cite a source saying that he is not. Would that be preferable? — Swood100 (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My objection is that the proposal is undue weight and, relatedly, to the extent the “undivided Versus divided government” point is meaningful, it is already implicit in the existing text. You’re of course entitled to begin an RfC, but as of now consensus has not developed for what you propose. Regards, Neutrality^talk 16:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer an extremely brief mention of this, maybe one sentence with a wikilink to a section on another article discussing it. If this cannot be arranged, I support Swood100's proposal above on 8 October 2020 because the opposition to it rests on the judgments such as "rationalization" and "disingenuous" as being correct. They may be correct judgements, but this is circular reasoning--he is doing "rationalization" and is being "disingenuous" because he is inconsistent, and he is inconsistent because of the rationalizing and disingenuous behavior.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the date of birth

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that the date of birth should be included in the article (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Question: Shall Judge Barrett's date of birth be included in this article, cited to reliable secondary sources? Neutrality^talk 16:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. The background: back in 2017, the subject of the article contacted OTRS and requested that the birth date be removed (see discussion above). At that time, the only source for the DOB was a primary source judicial questionnaire that the subject filled out in connection with her nomination to the federal bench, and there was no secondary coverage. Since that time, the subject's full date of birth has been made public in various reliable, secondary sources, including CNN, the Associated Press, Esquire, the Chicago Sun-Times. The OTRS volunteer who handled the 2017 request does not object to inclusion at this time. There is no longer any reason to omit DOB, now that multiple, reliable sources (like the Associated Press and CNN) all report her DOB. We include standard information such as this in articles when well-sourced, and the vast majority of Wikipedia articles on federal judges include the DOB. The 2017 OTRS request no longer is binding, given the explosion of coverage in the last three years, and the OTRS volunteer who handled the matter has no objection to inclusion because "the cat is out of the bag." Neutrality^talk 16:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Note that her honor recently said she has "no illusions that the road ahead of [her] will be easy, either for the short term or the long haul." Well, she's right! And, if, prior to a few days ago, she'd wanted to stay quasi low-profile, I'm afraid such a hope has gone by the boards.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• I consent to inclusion, with citations to the AP and Chicago Sun-Times articles. See my comment in Discussion. —KinkyLipids (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Truly mystifying to me. It's a well sourced matter of public record, reliably sourced. I don't know OTRS guidelines, but this level of confidentiality about a Supreme Court nominee when it's being sourced everywhere is doesn't make sense to me. we're not protecting the identity of crime victim or a minor or spouse who has no notability on their own. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support: What happened in 2017 isn't relevant now. Her birth date is easily accessible and so privacy arguments aren't compelling. She is in line to become a Supreme Court justice and it would be truly unprecedented for Wikipedia to try to suppress the date of birth of such a public figure. I'm glad we're having this RFC because this seems like a silly dispute to be having at this point. Let's figure this out and move on with it. Marquardtika (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support based on the evidence Neutrality gave. ɱ (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I think the right of the public to know overrides Judge Barrett's request in this case, especially given her circumstances, and, moreover, the citations to reliable secondary sources. As such sources were not available during 2017, I can wholly sympathize and understand Judge Barrett's reluctance at the time; but circumstances have changed since then, and given her likely elevation to the Supreme Court, it would be rather inappropriate for her birth-date to be missing (see, by way of example, Merrick Garland, whose nomination failed but still has his date of birth displayed). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, support the inclusion of her date of birth. DOBs are routinely included in an encyclopaedic article about a person and the same goes for media articles. There is nothing detrimental insinuated by such an inclusion. Certainly nothing that falls under the warnings of Wikipedia's relevant policy. -The Gnome (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, per Neutrality and Marquardtika. Here is yet another RS (Above the Law) publicizing the full DOB, actually several days before the discussion above began with an editor stridently and mistakenly claiming the absence of such RS. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, her date of birth should be included. There are plenty of reliable sources and Wikipedia is not censored. – Anne drew 17:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, per Neutrality and Marquardtika. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• No, to respect the OTRS ticket and Barretts wishes unless a Oversighter or other OTRS person supports this 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  @1.Ayana: OSers don't have any role in a content dispute like this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  The OTRS ticket was from years ago. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, If DOB is already publicly established by cited, reliable media organizations, it is totally inline with WP's BLP on DOBs, and more particularly, it is realistically unavoidable, considering she is a public figure, with the potential to be seated on the Supreme Court.Kerdooskis (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Notifying those who commented in the relevant setion above: Rebbing, Epiphyllumlover, JTRH, KinkyLipids, Therequiembellishere, 1.Ayana, KrakatoaKatie, Ɱ, HaeB. --Neutrality^talk 16:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Seems like a non-neutral RFC. I would suggest moving the "Background" section to your personal comment and drop the second part of the question sentence. PackMecEng (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree - the background is useful for editors - but to allay any concerns I have moved the background section to my comment. The second part of the question ('cited to reliable secondary sources') is a key part of the RfC, so that remains. Neutrality^talk 17:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• The second part is implied otherwise it is a BLP violation. So no, it is not a key part of the RFC, it is a key part of your personal argument from what I can tell. PackMecEng (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• The OTRS correction only addressed the WP:BLPPRIMARY violation. Citation to AP and Chicago Sun-Times would not violate policy. —KinkyLipids (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• It seems advisable to ping a bunch of oversighters involved in the OTRS system and ask how they feel about it. Rebbing is a start, maybe find a half-dozen others too. I don't know how their rules work or how flexible they are. They may be able to explain.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{current}}

I think readers are aware that this person is involved in a current event, I don't see a reason to keep a tag on the article. "May not reflect latest info" applies to every single article here. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The news coverage has died down. I support removing it; but one could add it again during the days her hearings are held and when/if she is confirmed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the usefulness of the tag itself should be in template talk:current person. News coverage is ongoing, (google "Barrett"). KinkyLipids (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it, because I don't see what purpose it is currently serving. I've never seen this tag on an article for so long. Usually you'll see it within the first 24 hours of when someone dies or there is a major news event. But we shouldn't just leave it up indefinitely. Maybe we should put it up again during confirmation hearings, but I don't think we need it right now. Marquardtika (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Hello me and User:Sdkb had similar issues disputing over the use of the problem as well as the use over the corrent Template. He did say that no template use is necessary as of now. In fact he informed me that the template below is of no necessary value. Personisgaming (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The one below appears to have necessary value but I have not consulted him yet.

Can I use nclalegal as a source?

From[15]

However, one of her seven dissents, Schmidt v. Foster, a Sixth Amendment right to counsel case, resulted in rehearing en banc, with a majority of ten judges adopting the position she took in her original dissent. This example shows her ability to influence and even lead the direction of her circuit.

I would like to paraphrase the above in the article in the Selected Cases section, and also add the following:

In a journal article, "Suspension and Delegation",ref>Barrett, Amy Coney (2014). "Suspension and Delegation". Cornell Law Review. 99: 251–326./ref> Barrett noted that constitutionally, only Congress has the authority to decide when Habeas corpus may be legitimately suspended. ref>Huq, Aziz; Ginsburg, Tom (2018). "How to Lose Your Constitutional Democracy". UCLA Law Review: 111./ref> and continue to note her judgement about Congress in that..."it violated the Suspension Clause in every other case by enacting a suspension statute before an invasion or rebellion occurred, and in some instances, before one was even on the horizon" (quoted by /nclalegal.org).

I am looking for your support or opposition about using the nclalegal.org source in this context.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• NCLA is an advocacy group that takes a certain position, so I would not want to use it, unless we possibly gave in-text attribution and cited to countervailing publications. For example, this PFAW piece also describes Barrett's role in the exact same Schmidt case, with a very different conclusion (i.e., that Judge Barrett's position "made much more difficult the appropriate federal court review of improper state convictions" and "ignored reality in favor of a formalism that the [Supreme] Court has not adopted"). Neutrality^talk 14:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Tchouppy (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Instead of "Selected Cases" this could go along with a description of her position in Barrett, Amy Coney; Katyal, Neal K (2020). "The Suspension Clause". National Constitution Center.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) as a "Suspension" section within "Judicial philosophy, political views, speeches, and writings" The section could have four sources: her two writings, ncla, PFAW, and Huq & Ginsburg.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's an opinion and would have to be presented as such, rather than fact. However, when presenting opinions, it is important to say who has expressed them and how widely they are supported. Saying that the NCLA thinks she is able to influence and lead the direction of the circuit court isn't helpful to readers who don't know who the NCLA is or how widely supported their opinion is. TFD (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

NCLA is an advocacy group, do they have journalistic integrity? Do they have a reputation for fact checking that would give cause for WP:RS & WP:V? As of now I don't see them on the Wikipedia Reliable sources/ Perennial sources thread linked here. This is an Encyclopedia, all editors are suppose to do is report facts, not opinions, then we walk the line of WP:TABLOID. So seems technically we shouldn't use NCLA. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

2016 graduation address

User:Neutrality reverted this edit, which was right beneath where it talked about her children and their differences in the "Personal life" section:

At home, the quote "Comparison is the thief of joy" is framed on the wall in order to discourage family members from comparing themselves with each other.refWolk, Laura E.; McKeown, Megan L.; Alyson M., Farrah (September 27, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett was our professor. She'll serve America as well as she served her students". USA Today. Retrieved October 4, 2020./refrefBarrett, Amy Coney (May 14, 2016). "Diploma Ceremony Address". Commencement Programs. Paper 182. Retrieved October 4, 2020./ref

I propose re-adding it, possibly with this article instead of the USA Today article if it is a preferable source. The rationale for inclusion is that: 1. It explains her approach to diversity in her family (by ability and the biological/adopted aspect) 2. That the quote is about joy is suggestive of a utilitarian rather than deontological ethical approach to family life. People who read to understand will more-or-less grasp these nuances without explaining, so no original research is involved. I am looking for your support or opposition about re-adding this sentence to the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem noteworthy to me, but I'll see what other editors think. Neutrality^talk 02:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

cmt - Seems useful for inclusion toward encyclopedic coverage of subject's life. (note - Wiki's wp:Notability guidelines say they "only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list . .".)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, sure, but that doesn't mean we include everything that's sourced. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." This seems like a personal anecdote about her home life. Neutrality^talk 17:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Scalia described in some detail how his family life influenced his judicial philosophy. Readers are going to be looking for this sort of thing because they will expect it to influence judicial philosophy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The Deseret News article, just like the USA Today article, is also an op-ed. Moreover, we already discuss her judicial philosophy directly based on sources that actually address it. We don't need to include material about a sign in her kitchen. Neutrality^talk 18:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing that describes what sort of ethical system(s) she uses in the article. This would break new ground, sort of. As for "We don't need"--that is a valid rationale for deleting the whole of wikipedia because it is a just a website and not food and drink, clothing and shoes, or house and home.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hanging a sign in your home is not a description of an "ethical system." Neutrality^talk 22:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The sign posits joy as a desirable end, or even an end in itself. This is consistent with utilitarian ethics; and is counter-intuitive because textualists typically believe that Kantian Analyticity is possible, and Kantians in general are deontologicalists. It was the theme of her 2016 address, which was published by Notre Dame. That she chose to give an address on comparison and joy implies that she thought her graduating students needed to hear that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• drive-by comment - Well, IMHO the subject's parental philosophy is of importance and that it would seem unimportant to some, again IMHO, can only be due collective wp:Bias amongst us w rgd things associated w family & domesticity. That said, w rgd to the subject's overall ideological leanings, it's one thing if commentators have drawn certain enlightening conclusions in this regard; yet another, if it's only us lowly Wikipedians, within our own lights, who've done so, of course.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• I will re-add the disputed portion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've removed this. No consensus for re-adding this challenged material has been developed, and it must stay out; please review WP:ONUS. If you want to start a proper RfC, then you're entitled to do so. Neutrality^talk 00:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hodgdon's wrote, "Seems useful for inclusion toward encyclopedic coverage of subject's life"--that makes it 2-1 in favor of keeping the comment. What sort of balance would it take for you to not remove it? 3-1? 4-1? 5-1? etc?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a strictly numerical determination, but certainly what has been said is not sufficient to override the Wikipedia policy concerns here. Like I said, feel free to take it to an RfC if you really feel this material must be in. Neutrality^talk 01:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I intend to re-add the selection if the balance becomes 3-1.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's not about counting heads. Gaining consensus involves actually establishing good sources, due weight, and clear relevance, none of which have been established. Neutrality^talk 01:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

RBG's wall decoration was included Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#Personal_life. But I suppose the rules are different now that she died.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've stricken my comments above, since they're apparently thought worth nothing. I believe I can now list this @wp:3O.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I interpreted your comments as supportive, which is why I attempted to re-add it when I did. So I think your comments were worthwhile. If you want to list for a third opinion, I support you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about whether a comment a blp subject made about her parental philosophy within a commencement address merits coverage.):

I read the entire discussion in this subsection. At first, my inclination was to agree to include this bit about "comparison is the thief of joy", it's a nice adage, and I happen to agree with the thrust behind the decorative sign in the person's household. However, then I decided to do my own research. I searched for a combination of search terms: "comparison is the thief of joy" and "Amy Coney Barrett" and found only the one source cited in this subsection, namely, USA Today. The other appears to be a primary source by the subject of this article itself. It seems like a nice bit of a factoid to include for readers. But perhaps we should wait until this particular fact has received coverage in other secondary sources. Therefore, per WP:WEIGHT, my WP:Third opinion for the time being would be to leave out this material. Right cite (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Right cite, there is one other secondary source for it from deseret.com. Thank you for coming to offer your third opinion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Any others? Right cite (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't see how this is notable, but according to Wikipedia if something gets significant press coverage, then it is probably notable. But my vote is not notable, I don't see how this adds to the article in an encyclopedic way. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Membership in People of Praise

The following RS content on her religious affiliation is not included in the article:

In September 2017, The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise. According to The New York Times, "There are some indications that both Ms. Barrett and the People of Praise may have tried to obscure Ms. Barrett’s membership in the group." Members of this religious group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and commit to be accountable to a personal advisor (either referred to as a "head" or a "handmaid"). The heads and handmaids instruct the member on important life decisions. Legal scholars say that such an oath raises legitimate questions about the ability to serve as an independent and impartial judge.

The content should be in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

I added a version of this to the article but I'm not sure about the legal scholars phrasing, I think this could be worded differently. I'd like to have another source but so far most I've found are commentaries on the NY Times finding. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The names of personal advisors "head" and "handmaid" is way too much detail that has no immediate relevance to the article subject and should be removed. Without context, this is just insinuating something sinister about the group. If you go to the People of Praise article, there is sufficient context about the group's views of gender roles. If you want to write something to summarize that I think it's fine but what we have here is undue. --2605:A601:ADE6:5C00:3CBB:ADA3:E0CD:AFAE (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to omit this information. If we just say this a Catholic group, then that fails to inform readers that the group has practices that are unconventional and which many readers don't typically link to Catholicism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine to highlight what's controversial about the group, and I left the bit about supporting one another's spiritual well-being, which is what I think people find weird. The People of Praise article says "The most controversial aspect of the People of Praise is the practice of headship or pastoral leadership, which, according to anthropologist Thomas Csordas, is where "individual members are supervised in their daily lives by a person regarded as more 'spiritually mature.'"" I think we could include something like that. The egregious thing is the term "handmaid" with no context, which has connotations that are different from the group's intention, which is why they changed it. I don't see the reason to include the term "head" either but that's not as problematic. --2605:A601:ADE6:5C00:3CBB:ADA3:E0CD:AFAE (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with others that the inclusion of her membership in People of Praise might be too lengthy or unnecessary altogether. I edited the section to include more than just a single source: a NYTimes article that my research strongly suggests to be hostile and perhaps unfair to the organization in question. To clarify, People of Praise has not used the expression "Handmaid" for years, probably decades having replaced it with "woman leader" or simply "leader." Regardless, People of Praise does not assign married women female "leaders" now or in the past, believing her spiritual mentor should be her husband. However, the author of Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood, has long been on record that People of Praise is one of the groups whose conservative position on gender roles inspired her to write the novel and that the title specifically is drawn from its use by People of Praise in the 1980s. OgamD218 (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that the section regarding her membership in People of Praise should either be moved into the one below Personal Life where it is now or given its own? It an issue that is only gonna continue to be constantly revised with info about the group itself that has nothing definitive to do with her personal life or what is usually contained in that section of a living person's bio.OgamD218 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

To consider the merit of including this article, look at compatible US politicians who were members of Skull and Bones on List of Skull and Bones members. People of Praise, being a similarly controversial and secret society, merits as much mention as Skull and Bones does on the typical pages of Skull and Bones members.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It does have significant press coverage as of now, so inclusion isnt a question of notability, it falls more into a WP:BLP concern, so just be very careful how you present it and word inclusion. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality violated by quotes

New here, so I didn't edit it. This sentence is a non-neutral opinion interjected as a factual quote. The opinion is debatable since many feel that recusal is exactly the response to provide an unbiased hearing before a court when the judge feels it is necessary. If the judge were to say "I have deeply held beliefs that may bias my judgement, but I will not recuse." then many others would object. It is irrelevant to the article what someone else's opinion of it is. Leaving it biases the article. Removing it eliminates an opinion; the very definition of evidence of a biased POV.

Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said Barrett's law review article's contention that judges could simply recuse themselves from a case if they have a religious concern constitutes, “...the very definition of putting faith ahead of one’s duties as a judge.”[16]

This entire topic is a Catch-22 for neutrality because it difficult to report it in the article without taking a side, even implicitly. I would like additional opinions also. If you post again, you can sign with for squiggle marks in a row.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Well keep in mind Wikipedia is not a WP:TABLOID. editors aren't suppose to report opinions, we only report on facts, thats why WP:RS and WP:V are so important here, so if you are worried removing it will eliminate an opinion, unless it a very notable opinion,(which should be documented and backed up with sources and reasoning) needs to go, especially if leaving it biases the article, which conflicts with another pillar of Wiki , WP:NPOV. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Confused

@KrakatoaKatie:, @Safiel:, @Bjhillis:, @Marquardtika:: Okay, I understand the logic of the suppression, but given that it's part of her public questionnaire (released by the judiciary committee and accessed by the general public); what was the specific objection? So is there not supposed to be an infobox regarding her at all? What about the other sources regarding the announcement of her nomination, why were those entries deleted?

Clarification would be helpful, thanks. Snickers2686 (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The subject of the article contacted OTRS and requested that the birth date be removed. The questionnaire to which you refer is a primary source, and per WP:DOB we suppressed the information. The issue isn't the infobox – that's a content issue that should be decided here. Katie^talk 11:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie: Given the OTRS history here, do you think this newly-added source—

• Voruganti, Harsh (June 6, 2017). "Professor Amy Coney Barrett: Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit". The Vetting Room. Archived from the original on December 16, 2017. Retrieved December 16, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

—is sufficient for citing Ms. Barrett's full birth date? Even without the OTRS background, my sense is that a (signed, copy-edited) blog post by an advocacy project isn't enough to show that someone's birth date has been "widely published by reliable sources" (BLPPRIVACY), but my interpretation of that policy may be overly strict. Rebbing 13:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The subject emailed Oversight requesting redaction of her birthdate. Please leave it out. Katie^talk 14:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; I removed it. Rebbing 16:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Mind the precedent. DOB, once published, is public information. --bender235 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Your previous attempt to have the policy removed was not successful: it's not precedent. The policy—which you are not at liberty to dismiss—is very clear in mandating that the full birth date of a subject may only be included if it has been "widely published in reliable sources" and if the subject does not object. Neither condition is met here. If you wish to change the policy, you know where to make that proposal. Rebbing 23:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The precedent was about people objecting the inclusion of their birthdate even though it has been published elsewhere already. From WP:DOB: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources." That's the policy. If DOB is published in any reliable source, Wikipedia includes it. The subject's objection is irrelevant; the "and" you emphasized is false. You cannot allow your DOB to be published in Who's Who but veto its publication on Wikipedia citing privacy concerns. That's the point I tried to make. --bender235 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You omitted the key sentence that follows: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth . . . err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." Read together, these two sentences plainly indicate: "We include the full date only when it has been widely published (or the subject published it in a way that makes clear he does not object). Even so, if the subject complains, only include the year." So your argument is contradicted by the policy. Your conclusion that, if a subject's birth date "is published in any reliable source, Wikipedia includes it" is wrong both for this reason and because BLPPRIVACY requires far more than VERIFY (published in any reliable source): it must be "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" (emphasis added). If you would like BLPPRIVACY to say something else, develop consensus for the change at WT:BLP. Rebbing 00:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Err on the side of caution" is enough for me. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:DOB was added to Wikipedia policies in 2006 unilaterally by a single user, without ever being discussed in the community. I guess it is indeed time to determine consensus on this issue. And by the way, "widely published" is one of the most moronic terms ever used in a Wikipedia policy. What is that supposed to mean in the age of the internet? "Published" means "made accessible to the public." What is the qualifier "widely" referring to? The number of mirrors a website has? The size of its audience? --bender235 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would be moronic if it didn't include the following "in reliable sources". O3000 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" has a clear and unambiguous meaning; "widely published" does not. By the way: I would appreciate everyone's comments here. --bender235 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus can be implicit. See, e.g., WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. That the policy has stood for more than a decade in a fairly prominent location speaks volumes to its authenticity. "Widely published" means published by a multitude of sources: not only in one reliable book or a single reliable newspaper article. Rebbing 20:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

So what. Aren't there enough privacy issues these days. If it's borderline, leave it out. Why does her exact birth date matter, other than material for astrologers. O3000 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Surely a United States official government website document is a reliable source and is in the public domain since her date of birth is listed here. [16] The document is under "Chronology of Judges in the Seventh Circuit" She is the 56th Judge in the list. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 06:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I endorse the diligence in requiring that the birthdate be validated according to usual standards. However, I am nonplussed. Everybody knows she's young for a Supreme. Why does anybody care about whether her birthdate is published? What's the rule regarding eye color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:CB81:3770:C513:7C87:E86:DB7B (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Protecting birthdates is a matter of WP:BLP, She holds public office, her birthdate seems to be public knowledge, I imagine it would hard to find any evidence of her wanting to have that information kept private and not published. I have also found that birthdates arent that notable, so nobody really publishes it in mainstream WP:RS & WP:V media sources, its usually on primary sources. So I say if it stood for awhile, then I agree its WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS add it back. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)