Talk:Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination

Removal of Fascism Forever mention

Several relatively new editors have removed references to Gorsuch's founding of a club called Fascism Forever. They have claimed that the story is a lie without providing any evidence from a RS that that is the case and that the sources that were used as a reference were not WP:RS (the sources were The New York Post and U.S. News and World Report). The article now cites 4 sources for this information and there are dozens of others.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(The following is a relevant discussion from Talk:Neil Gorsuch which has been copy/pasted here for reference):

During his freshman year at his elite high school Georgetown Preparatory Gorsuch founded and led a student group called the ″Fascism Forever Club″. Read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html --87.156.236.251 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not something that belongs in the article. Basically a high school prank. If it becomes a major issue during his confirmation hearings we can add it, but for now, no. We should all be entitled to leave high school foolishness behind us and not have it thrown in our face 30 years later. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. And in any case Daily mail would not be sufficient for a contentious issue like this. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A few other publications have picked it up. US News for one. They always cite the Daily Mail as their source. That makes one wonder where they got their information - the first and most basic rule of journalism is "who says so and how do they know?". They cutely just say "The Daily Mail can reveal". But they do show a picture of his high school yearbook, listing him as founder and president for four years (without any explanation), so it is sourced. So then the question is, should we include it? I say no, per UNDUE and BLP; it's a very loaded word, and tying it to him leaves all kinds of negative implications that are just not there in a high school joke. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree - I think this is a notable fact, and an insight into his early interest in politics as well as his sense of humor. However, there just needs to be a little context around it to make clear that this was a facetious name, and not some sort of neo-Nazi thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New York Post and US News & World Report are reliable sources, but do little more than confirm what Gorsuch's entry in the yearbook says: "Fascism Forever Club (Founder and President) 1, 2, 3, 4". Hopefully we'll see a statement from nominee or the administration clarifying whether this was a joke by the yearbook staff, a joke club, or whathaveyou. gobonobo ^{+ c} 17:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This article clarifies that the club did not exist and it was a yearbook joke. http://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/02/02/no-neil-gorsuch-did-not-start-fascism-forever-club-his-jesuit-high NPalgan2 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And this is why we don't rely on high school yearbooks as sources, nor on newspapers that rely on high school yearbooks, nor on newspapers that rely on newspapers that rely on high school yearbooks... StAnselm (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(End of copy/pasted material)

I pasted the above conversation about Fascism Forever from Gorsuch's main talk page because it has been placed back into this nomination article in contravention to the discussion at the main talk page about Gorsuch. We don't put stuff in the article if it based upon high school yearbooks. Also, whether something is placed in the article or not is NOT decided upon whether it is trending on AOL as editor User:Monopoly31121993 has attempted to justify violating BLP. Do not place the fake news back into this article until there is a consensus that BLP is not being violated by this fake news.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Repeating my comment which was copy/pasted above: This material does not belong in the article. Putting this line into his high school yearbook was a high school prank. It says nothing about the man - and to take a joke like this seriously would be a gross violation of BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree and I would like to remind that if content is removed on good-faith BLP objections, it may not be restored without obtaining consensus first. Politrukki (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Who cares if it was a joke or not. It happened and was covered by no less than The Daily Mail, The New York Post, The Independent, Salon, and a slew of other publications with a circulation of millions. The fact that this was a trending topic on Twitter is also notable, joke in really bad taste or no joke. I have tried to formulate a NPOV sentence that reflects this topic. If someone thinks they can do better then they should. Omitting this entirely form the article is manipulative.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The popularity of a topic as a discussion topic infers neither relevance nor import, regardless of the authority. To argue otherwise is to argue based on the authority of the source, which is an argument from authority, and it is a weak one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority.

atheist and agnostic groups

I think there is an issue with this edit [1]. While obviously the WP is a RS, this quote is very cherry picked. Out of an entire article which is either positive or neutral, its basically the only sentence which is negative. That is not neutral or representative of the source. Its additionally almost taken verbatim, so is a potential copyvio. Finally it has no detail, attribution or sourcing for it, just a vague "strong objections." While there may be something in this vein that can be added to the article, I don't think this is it. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It summarizes the objections of several groups in the article and it's better to have a link to citation that does that rather than link to a citation from the organizations themselves. If you want to find the organization's official statements go right ahead. Your contribution to making a balanced page and not one that all but fails to mention any opposition Gorsuch's nomination would be appreciated.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

big tables (Witness etc)

I'm not sure I see the benefit of the witness table. If it stays as it is now (with just a list of names and who called them), I don't think thats super valuable. If the "Testimony" column is filled out the table is going to be HUGE (Yuge), and very unwieldy. I think it would be better to just in prose highlight the important witnesses (as determined by WP:WEIGHT in WP:RS) and summarize their testimony/questions. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Washington Post is right

This edit is unwarranted. A little research shows what the Washington Post says is true. Freedom from Religion Foundation Secular Coalition for America Union for Reform Judaism. Taken alone, they're merely self-published sources, but they're made notable by the fact that WaPost echoes their sentiments.VR _talk 23:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Neil Gorsuch received the 'Well Qualified' rating from the ABA

Neil Gorsuch received the 'Well Qualified' rating from the ABA, the highest rating from the ABA See link: https://www.americanbar.org/publications/governmental_affairs_periodicals/washingtonletter/2017/march/gorsuch.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMeek (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism accusations

I do think it's notable enough to include and should probably mention both the book and the article, but the sentence as we have it now is a bit of a mess. "The media" didn't accuse Gorsuch, because "the media" isn't a single entity with one voice or editorial board. Grammatically, the book's title should have commas around it, as it does when it's mentioned in similar sentences in Gorsuch's article itself. Politico mentions more than one place in his book that looked copied without attribution, but the current sentence only says "a portion" in the singular. And the date on the citation is 2016, not 2017. I changed it to: "On April 4, 2017, Politico reported that portions of Gorsuch's book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia were copied from other works without attribution, a form of plagiarism.", but it got reverted because it wasn't just Politico and there were more than one who reported it. Those are both valid points. I suggest: "On April 4, 2017, Politico and Buzzfeed reported that portions of Gorsuch's book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, as well as sections of an article he wrote in 2000, were copied from other works without attribution, a form of plagiarism." and cite both Politico and Buzzfeed, who were the organizations that broke the news. I think it's clearer and more accurate but wanted to bring it up on talk in case I missed anything. 209.6.192.5 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we include the response of that Kuzman woman and Oxford professors. --Killuminator (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how relevant the Oxford professors are, but Kuzman absolutely: she's the alleged victim after all. If she says it wasn't plagiarism, that's notable to me. Just as long as it's not in the same sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.192.5 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course the Oxford professor's opinion is relevant. He is famous. Please review his background here: John Finnis. He edited the PhD dissertation that the book came from and was Gorsuch's academic advisor and mentor at Oxford in the first place. He also reviewed Gorsuch's book before publication, leaving out Kuzman and Finnis would be violating the idea of neutral point of view.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)