Talk:Vaughn Walker/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Confirmation of sexual orientation

Walker has now acknowledged that he's gay, making him the first confirmed homosexual to have served on the federal bench. This information is significant, and I attempted to note this by stating that Walker "was the first openly gay person to serve as a United States federal judge, though he did not publicly confirm his sexual orientation until after retiring from the federal bench". This statement is true (i.e., Walker is openly gay; he is the first such person to serve as a federal judge; he did not come out while serving as a judge), but was reverted. I'm open to suggestions as to alternative ways to state this information, but will in the meantime reintroduce my original wording. Billyboy01 (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Reuters article you cited does not say he was the first anything. You really need to find a source that says he was the first. One way to do this would be to find another citation that says someone else was and then compare the start of Walker's time on the federal bench with that person's. Or just wait until someone says it in print. I know Deborah Batts was the first open LGBT person to join the federal bench and that was only 1994. Don't know of anyone else for whom this claim has been made, so I'm not contesting your assertion of a first, just its suitability for wikipedia without a proper citation.

I restated it a bit because "first openly gay to serve" implies he was out while on the bench and the the second half of the sentence takes that back. Actually he may be the first admitted and known closeted homosexual to have served on the federal bench". And the summary at the top of this entry should summarize what the entry says, not make an assertion not made below. That's why I moved it down for now.

I also hate the phrase "publicly confirm" and avoided it when adding Walker's news from yesterday. Is confirm insufficient? Can you privately confirm and the let it become public. I think "avow" is the word we want, but I'm mulling that. Maybe "declare." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Batts in indeed the only Article III judge to have been openly gay when nominated and confirmed, and three current Obama nominees for Article III judgeships (Edward DuMont, J. Paul Oetken, Alison Nathan) are openly gay; none have yet to be confirmed. I added citations that sufficiently establish that fact. Billyboy01 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Have there been any quotes from the religious right directly in response to Judge Walker's recent interview, so we could bring the "he said/speculated" / "she said/speculated" nature of that "CASES" section more up to date, and onto firmer ground? The way it's laid out now it takes up so much space. There was an editor here once who said this is a "huge" story...but are there recent statements to use to bring the situation up to date, if it has to be in there? Codenamemary (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that section could use some editing. Right now the sexuality/bias stuff sits awkwardly in the middle of the case discussion. The Gallagher quote isn't really on target and no opponent of Walker is quoted making the direct charge of bias in his/her own words.

I think the Perry case and the decision should be discussed first. And then: During the trial, Walker's sexual orientation became an issue. Columnists raised the issue and defended Walker. Critics charged bias (with better quote, perhaps from here). (The Levine can easily be put into a footnote or just dropped.) Then Walker discussion from this week. Then any more news, though I haven't seen any comments of note yet. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see the whole "speculation" period left out, as it might be tidier to go with something leaning toward, "Post trial, Judge Walker discussed his own sexual orientation in __(publication)____, sharing that his homosexuality did not bar him from presiding over a case concerning ________ (whatever)." Then use his best quote elaborating on that, and the best one that emerges in fallout of this supposed "firestorm" of a revelation? (Have any noteable sources officially chimed in yet?) EDIT: Ooops. Sorry, I just noticed you already answered that. Thanks. Maybe Maggie Gallagher and NOM are distracted because the organizer and driver for their "1 Man, 1 Woman" bus tour last summer, Luis Marinelli, just apologized this week to those he'd hurt, and switched over to the side for supporting civil marriage for LGBT.Codenamemary (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the excellent points made in the next section, I decided not to wait for more comments. I've worked with what's available. But one point: the Chronicle article was not really speculation. It said it's an open secret, which is just a euphemism for a fact. No one in the article thinks Walker is anything but gay. On Face the Nation, the host questioned the use of the word "openly" and quickly moved on to "whether or not he is." But only the most punctilious journalist would balk at stating an open secret as well documented as this one. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

By "speculative period," I mean for the public, not the SF publication. The discussions I read afterwards were "Is He? Isn't He? Do We Care?" The SF article raised an issue...it didn't really resolve anything. Codenamemary (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle article

I see at least three errors in the following sentence, and I'm not sure how all of them should be corrected:

In February, two columnists at the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that Walker, who they said has "never taken pains to disguise—or advertise—his [sexual] orientation", would not be influenced by his own homosexuality in his decision regarding same-sex marriages.

Here are the errors:

1. The article was not written by columnists, but by regular reporters as a news article.
2. The writers didn't say themselves that Walker has never taken pains to disguise or advertise his orientation. They said that "[m]any gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist ... has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation." (Emphasis added.)
3. They also didn't say themselves that Walker's sexual orientation would not influence his decision on the Prop 8 case. Rather, they said that "[t]hey also don't believe it will influence how he rules on the case he's now hearing ...." (Emphasis added.) In other words, the writers, Matier and Ross, were not themselves vouching for the fact that Walker would be unbiased. Rather, gay politicians and lawyers who have dealt with Walker said that they believed that Walker would be unbiased.

I realize that this part of the article began being written long before Walker confirmed he was gay, and there were WP:BLP concerns that had to be dealt with in the writing. However, I think it is misleading to take a statement from a newspaper article saying that gay politicians thought that Walker would be unbiased in the Prop 8 case, and make it seem as though the newspaper writers themselves claimed that Walker would be unbiased, when they were merely reporting other people's opinions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct on all counts. Since I'm not sure the "dubious" tag is helpful, I've rewritten the passage based on your commenst and those in the previous section. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe your version is a noticeable improvement. I've made minor changes to it, but I don't have any problem with the way the discussion of the Chronicle article is structured now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work. The wording is much smoother now and better organized. Yet the problem now is this is the longest paragraph in the article. Does someone's sexual orientation really deserve that much focus? Especially since there have been no legal repercussions (recusal, etc.)? That is why I was in favor of jumping right into Walker's own comments...without dragging out the "speculative" period. Codenamemary (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed out the first part of the paragraph dealing with Walker's sexual orientation, as the period before his discussing the topic itself doesn't add anything to the article. Covering both "before" and "after" his statement on this topic also makes it too drawn out...why should the article's longest paragraph by far be devoted to his orientation? I don't know how to delete reference 19, though, which is connected to that cut section. Codenamemary (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooops. some one objected to edit with "no reason given for removing info re public discussion in reputable source)". I was mentioning reasons here. Codenamemary (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I just feel like the period before Walker's interview doesn't add anything. It's clearer to just cut to the chase, rather than reporting what happened before it became official with his own interview. I mean, it's all the same topic: Can't we keep it moving? Codenamemary (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that it was reported by a major newspaper to be an "open secret" prior to this acknowledgement from Walker himself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. I just think it seems to be belaboring the point that he's gay by going on and on about it. It's not the most important thing about him. By going directly into the info surrounding his interview and the hearing re: the request for his recusal, that would hit all the relevant points, anyway. Codenamemary (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's currently only two sentences; I wouldn't object if it was condensed into one. While I agree that it's not the most important thing about him, the historic aspect of it makes it worth covering with a little more material than your average LGBT individual. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I though just having it read:

"Following Walker's decision in Perry, proponents of Proposition 8 raised the issue of Walker's sexual orientation without directly stating he was biased. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said on Face the Nation: "I think what you have is one judge...and an openly homosexual judge at that who says he knows better than...seven million voters in the state of California."[20] When Walker discussed his homosexuality after retiring from the bench, he said he did not consider recusing himself from the Perry case because he thinks using characteristics like sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or gender as the grounds for recusal is "a very slippery slope."[5] On April 25, 2011, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a motion in Federal District Court to vacate his decision in Perry citing Walker's own statement post-trial that he has been in a long-term relationship with another man. They argued he should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship status and that unless he "disavowed any interest in marrying his partner" he had "a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case."[21]

is already a lot of information and hits the highlights. I know there's been a lot of back and forth and contributors to this topic as it unfolded, which is why even that, if that were what was to remain, could read a little smoother. I just don't like that you go to an article about this person and the biggest section is all about his being gay. It's kind of demeaning to him as a human being, as if this were the defining, most interesting and noteworthy aspect of his life. Codenamemary (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you make it good point. It's already addressing that it was more or less "known" before he confirmed it. I won't object further to that version. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for considering it. I won't make the change again as one editor's already reverted it twice. Maybe they'll add their comments here, along with any others who follow this page. Have a nice afternoon. Codenamemary (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

1. I agree it's wordy. But your proposed reduction makes it appear that Tony Perkins raised the issue out of the blue, as if there had not been earlier public discussion. On the other hand, I think 2 the sentences that begin your excerpt above could be reduced. And I'd like to save some of this material in the notes. Perhaps like this:

Following Walker's decision in Perry, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and other proponents of Proposition 8 raised the issue of Walker's homosexuality, already discussed in the press during the trial. When Walker discussed his homosexuality after retiring from the bench, he said he did not consider recusing himself from the Perry case because he thinks using characteristics like sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or gender as the grounds for recusal is "a very slippery slope." On April 25, 2011, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a motion in Federal District Court to vacate his decision in Perry citing Walker's own statement post-trial that he has been in a long-term relationship with another man. They argued he should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship status and that unless he "disavowed any interest in marrying his partner" he had "a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case."

2. Consider this as well: If you are unhappy about the proportion of material devoted to his homosexuality, one way to proceed would be to beef up the rest of the entry. I've written several entries for State Department officials, some gay and some not, and faced just this problem. A larger proportion of their bios are devoted to Joe McCarthy hounding them out of their jobs than to the rest of their distinguished careers, which are sometimes hard to document in detail. But with some digging I've managed, or at least I've managed to prevent their entries from being dominated by their resignations. Consider David I. Walsh who spent his life in the US Senate, but there's a big chunk of his bio devoted to sexual scandal, quite out of proportion to his role in naval policy in the years before World War II. Or see [Lester C. Hunt]], which has a great deal devoted to his suicide following his son's arrest. It should be possible to add info on Walker and the U.S .Olympic Committee, etc. I should add that I don't think an extended discussion of Walker's sexuality demeans him in the least. The news a person makes or the reasons for his notoriety don't necessarily reflect his/her life as a whole. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That rewrite looks good. I'll reread it later, when I can be more careful, and also look at your comments (above), which seem sound. Re: my sense of the "demeaning" aspect, it just always bothers me that heterosexual figures aren't singled out for analysis of their sexuality...yet when someone comes out as gay, it suddenly becomes this huge, central issue with comments from all sides that suddenly need to be noted. It's not equal treatment. (Maybe we're just stuck with that, though, as the reality of the state of things?) Codenamemary (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, stuck in many cases. But there are plenty of entries, and I think more all the time, where sexual orientation is mentioned without much fuss. Like anthropologist Cora DuBois (under 50 words), Steve Buckley (journalist) (2 sentences), cute jazz singer Spencer Day (a short paragraph), politico Shane Cohn (just slipped in). For another judge, see Barbara Lenk. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at them side by side and your rewrite looks excellent. Thanks for putting time into it and your attention to detail! I would add a few commas and "Walkers" (for "he") here and there, and suggest moving a couple words at the start of sentence 2, so it reads (possible changes emboldened):

Following Walker's decision in Perry, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and other proponents of Proposition 8 raised the issue of Walker's homosexuality, already discussed in the press during the trial.[4] Discussing his homosexuality after retiring from the bench, Walker said he did not consider recusing himself from the Perry case because he thinks using characteristics like sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or gender as the grounds for recusal is "a very slippery slope."[5] On April 25, 2011, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a motion in Federal District Court to vacate his decision in Perry, citing Walker's own statement post-trial that he has been in a long-term relationship with another man. They argued he should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship status and that unless Walker "disavowed any interest in marrying his partner" he had "a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case."[6] Codenamemary (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. It's in better proportion now, and still gives all the most vital info upfront, with elaboration lower down in the footnotes. Very nice. Thanks for cleaning it up. Codenamemary (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe my computer's lame, but...

...why isn't the more recent discussion here displayed on the page? Is it just me? When I checked out the editing option, it appears, but I don't see it in the regular display version (i.e., when I'm actually viewing the Discussion Page. Pourquoi? Codenamemary (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that was odd. Now it's back. (I think it was Martians!)Codenamemary (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)