Talk:Brett Kavanaugh

65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school signed a petition vouching for his character

65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school, during the time of the alleged attack, all signed a petition saying they vouch for his character. This should be included in the headline summary along with the sexual assault allegation. I think it should also be noted that the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is a professor and a registered democrat who has donated to Bernie Sanders far-left socialist campaign. Video on YouTube 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Ford's political views are irrelevant, we don't engage in such innuendo unless sources explicitly state she was politically motivated (they have not). The Fox report on these women who knew him (or claimed to) isn't really relevant either -- if it wouldn't be in the article without the Ford scandal, that is indicative it is not indepedently notable, while including it in the scandal would be too much detail for that section (if this ends up getting its own page -- maybe). --Calthinus (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

::Ford's political views are irrelevant? They are supremely relevant. The 65 women signed the petition expressly because he was being accused of this assault. It's all over the internet. How do you not know this? Further, Ford can't even remember the date and place this alleged assault occurred, which conveniently precludes Kavanaugh from possibly being able to provide an alibi.2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating WP:OR. Now, I wonder what your account's name is. --Calthinus (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

::::Don't attack me, attack my arguments. Thanks. 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not even vaguely an attack unless you're avoiding a ban. That being said, open or insinuated accusations of Ford being guilty of libel fall foul of WP:BLP. --Calthinus (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

::::::I would argue that ignoring the opinion of 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school is sexist and politically motivated. This is most certainly newsworthy and directly calls into question the veracity of Ford's claims. Further, Mark Judge, the man who was supposedly with the pair and stopped the assault, flatly denies the event ever took place. 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You are of course free to "argue" that but just saying that is actually no argument. It is neither. It also does not 'call into question', directly or otherwise, well, anything. As for Judge, seeing as he's the third guy in the room that played some role in this incident - according to the allegation, he's the one who turned up the music so that her screams couldn't be heard - he's not exactly a neutral source. And oh yeah that he's written a whole book about how this period of his life was one big 'black out drunk' [1]. Or that he's written some... "controversial" (putting it politely) columns for the Daily Caller.

And oh yeah, there's also the letter from Kavanaugh's colleagues and Yale alumni, calling him "morally bankrupt",[2] but I don't think we should put that in the article either. Volunteer Marek 04:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::So clearly it is OK to question Judge's veracity, just not Ford's - Am I right? Bias much?2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, HT, it is, because Judge wrote a whole freakin' book about how this period of his life was a "black out drunk" and Ford went to a therapist, six years before now, saying the same thing, and's got notes to prove it. Volunteer Marek 04:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

BLP violation against Ford
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Judge denies ever being there and so does Kavanaugh. Did it ever occur to you that Ford named Judge as the friend because she knew that, out of all of Kavanaugh's high school friends, he would be the least credible one? You can't prove a negative. Her notes never named names, and as far as we know, she never told a single soul about this until 2012. No police report. No friends. No family. No one. Just a therapist decades after the fact.2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously not. We will include neither. Bradv 04:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well that's a great call - let's just pretend none of this exists out in the public domain. This is why Wiki is considered an unreliable and biased source of information by half the population of America when it comes to political topics like this. It's not even worth trying to get headline news posted if it doesn't fit the narrative. People should see ALL of this and be allowed to judge for themselves who is telling the truth.2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of other websites that entertain nonsense like that. Here at Wikipedia, we're writing an encyclopedia. We don't have a "narrative", we have to treat all information neutrally. Casting aspersions on subjects of articles is not neutral or encyclopedic. Bradv 04:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::::::What nonsense? This is headline news that you have purposefully chosen to ignore in one of the most important current topics on Wiki at the moment... because why again?2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Up to this point, that name had not been mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia as it is not reliably sourced. We have strict policies on biographies of living persons. Bradv 03:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

::::::::Here's a source: It's kind of funny that I even have to make arguments about this to get it included in his wiki page. This is headline news all over the WaPo, NYT, Fox News, etc.. and I can't even get this information included in Kavanaugh's wiki article. 2605:E000:1213:A299:9C57:9A41:EA61:70DC (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh wait, why am I even replying to this? Volunteer Marek 04:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Poster case of WP:NOTHERE and a likely IP sock. I recommend disengagement.--Calthinus (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

References

I have struck the block-evading IP. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding a block. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to post without an account. What evidence do you have that I'm avoiding a block?2605:E000:1213:A299:472:170D:BE01:1B17 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Here, how's this? Feel better now? Michael.suede (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The person who apparently got banned and also attacked the accuser's character provided no evidence upon which to base his attacks. Fine to note something if it's a fact. But he was just spreading innuendo. -- Secondly, he put a lot of faith in that letter written by 65 of Kavanaugh's friends. But it's unsurprising that Kavanaugh would have friends and allies and that his friends and allies would support him. The letter said nothing about whether or not Kavanaugh sexually assaulted the accuser. None of the signers were present at the party where it allegedly happened, nor did any of them even attend high school with him. What would they possibly know about whether or not he committed sexual assault while drunk one night when they were not present? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.28.105 (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, clearly we should not tell anyone about the letter signed by 65 WOMEN who knew Kavanaugh in high school during the time of this alleged attack. Instead, we should focus on allegations that have not been corroborated by anyone, with no exact date or place provided, by an accuser who refuses to testify under oath or provide a signed affidavit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.suede (talk • contribs) 15:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

"refuses to testify..."?? BS. She wants to testify and wants an FBI investigation. People who are lying don't want that. Kavanaugh is the one who doesn't want an FBI investigation, and the GOP want to rush the process without hearing other witnesses. Fortunately she may get a bit fairer treatment now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Personal Life: He incurred a debt...

Is that really worthy information for an encyclopedia? Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Support removal I don't think this adds important encyclopedia information to the article, it seems more like gossip/human interest style reporting. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Trivial info, non encyclopedic. He also sleeps with his eyes closed, but that is non-encyclopedic as well. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Remove. Trivial financial disclosure with some spin from the White House (which released the baseball story in July) - no lasting significance for a supreme court justice - it is interesting now, but it would not pass the 10 year test.Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Very Strong Remove WP:NOT -- Sleyece (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Thanks to Seraphim System's complaints about my reducing redundancy, providing context, and restoring a deletion made by an IP editor, I looked at the original stories about the issues in question. This article about Kavanaugh's acquisition of considerable consumer debt is particularly germane and I think the issue should be included. During one year He racked up between $15,000 and $50,000 in a total debt of up to $200,000 on three credit cards and similarly sized loan. The explanation about why he did this, in part buying season tickets to Nationals season games and playoffs for friends, and for which he was reimbursed, frankly is a bit confusing. If he was reimbursed why did he continue to carry the debt, for instance, and why didn't they buy their own tickets? It's an important issue. Here's a story on it that is not reflected in our Wikipedia article. [3] Activist (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wapo is paywalled - however the 11 July credit-card thing was spin pushed out by the WH (and carried by several outlets - e.g. Vanity Fair - [4] - they all took a bite at this planned release) and is all together meh. This Chicago Tribune piece from August 2018 is a bit more detailed on various aspects - but I'm still at meh - it's all rather mundane financial disclosures (part of any vetting process for a candidate of this caliber) for this position and income level.Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There is already an open discussion about this in another section. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think WaPo is only paywalled after one reads more than five articles per month. Lots of other media took note, without penciling out what it really meant. I don't think the debt is meh at all. For whatever reason, they accumulated high interest credit card and a similar-sized loan debt in a year which exceeded the annual family income after taxes and FICA, etc. (She wasn't working.) They bought their house in 2006 for $1.2 million. That's another $80,000 a year in interest (in July 2006, benchmark mortgage interest was 6.79%), plus property taxes, etc. The credit card interest on $200,000 in 2006 was, at the "nominal rate" of 14.73%, about another $30,000 a year. The kids' tuition at a Catholic school was over $10,000 each. That may be the tip of the iceberg. Clearly, they were way over their heads. Activist (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The WaPo source says its just a routine financial disclosure. It also says all his debt has been paid off, with the exception of a mortgage. There is nothing in the source that supports the above comments - please remember that WP:BLP applies on the talk page. This is routine news coverage that doesn't seem like it will have any lasting significance for a BLP of a Supreme Court justice. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to the section you mention, I assume, "SS". Activist (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Should sexual harassment allegations against Judge Kozinski be discussed in the article?

I recently removed a large edit that shuffled content around and added a lengthy section about Judge Kozinski here [5]. However, after the removal of this section which needs consensus to be reinstated, there is now no mention of sexual harassment allegations against Kozinski. Should this be mentioned in the article? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No. This is Kavanaughs article. The allegations against Kozinski, and Kavanaugh's response regarding them has had no meaningful impact on the life or career of Kavanaugh, and such content is WP:UNDUE for the BLP of Kavanaugh. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No. It is a WP:COATRACK issue. Marquardtika (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the diatribe against Judge Kozinski should be removed. Prior to the added material, the article read: "Kavanaugh recalled his time in Kozinski's chambers as demanding a very heavy workload but says he had no knowledge of the allegations against Kozinski of sexual harassment." The user who added the new material retained that sentence while, inexplicable, removing its source. I feel that the source, The New York Times, did a good job advising the reader of Kavanaugh’s response to the controversy without getting off topic. The original sentence and its source should be restored. Lord Monboddo (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The original version of the edit was brief and stayed on-topic. I would not object to restoring it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say no, unless there are reliably-sourced specific indications that he knew and didn't act. He might just have been too focused on the work to notice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Support: I'd say yes. There had been a close relationship between Kozinski and Kavanaugh going back almost two decades, and Alex's sexual improprieties had been well known amongst his clerks and associates, though none "outed" him until a couple of years ago. He testified at length in support of Kavanaugh at his 2006 confirmation hearing in Senate Judiciary. A decade before his resignation was forced late last year, Kozinski and the judge's son Yale, were implicated in the bestiality, etc., porn on his computer. One of his sons (I don't know which) clerked for Kavanaugh. (Judge in porn trial had obscene website | US news | The Guardian) Kozinsksi, as Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, personally buried the years-long serious behavioral allegations against Judge Richard Cebull. So that extensive familiarity would seem to justify inclusion. Activist (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Marathon

I reverted some recently added content as overly detailed. Which of these versions should be included in the article?

Version A Kavanaugh is an avid runner who has run the Boston Marathon twice. In 2010, when he was 45 years old, he finished the course in 3:59:45, one hour, fifty-three minutes and fifty three seconds behind the winner. In 2015 he finished the race in 4:08:36.

Version B Kavanaugh is an avid runner who has run the Boston Marathon twice. In 2010, and in 2015 he finished the race in 4:08:36.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Which version should be included is a Hobson's Choice. The question is, should his "avid" running be mentioned at all? He is an extremely mediocre runner. Runners, after their thirties, tend to slow down with age, which is why I added it, providing explanatory context. However, by contrast, Sister Marion Irvine never ran at all until she was almost 50. She ran 3:01 in her first marathon when she was over 50, and eventually ran 2:51.01 (one hour, eight minute and 44 seconds faster than Kavanaugh when he was eight years younger) when she was 53 years old, qualifying for the Olympic Trials. Elite race walkers, who are restricted to always having one foot on the ground, and who have to keep their lead knee locked until they are fully upright, cover the marathon distance in less than three hours. You are worried about "detail," yet you want to consider restoring the text, "...he finished the course in just under four hours (3:59:45)," presumably for those Wikipedia readers who are unable to calculate that his time was 15 seconds faster than four hours. The winner in 2010 finished in 2:05:52. Kavanaugh's marathon time, avid runner or not, may the equivalent of a duffer being a 75-handicap golfer, but I don't play, so don't take my word for it. You asked for feedback, but reverted my edits without getting any and are one revert short of 3RR. Activist (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please avoid BLP violations. A 4 hour marathon is not a bad result for an amateur running enthusiast. It is a relevant bio detail, as (for most people) being in shape to just finish a marathon requires significant training (or time investment).Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Version B (with further reduction in detail - so version C) - "Kavanaugh is an avid runner who has run the Boston Marathon in 2010 and 2015.". I've run a marathon - in my bio or self-description I don't mention my time, and usually don't unless I'm going into the nitty gritty details with someone who is interested in running. For amatuer runners - it's usually only the participation that really counts as a notable bio detail. Now - if Kavanaugh had done this below 2:40 hours, then maybe that would be worth a mention, but not a "normalish" result.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Version C Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Support version C. Version A contains accurate and relevant text which I supplied. Version B's second sentence is poorly punctuated and contains an inaccuracy: He did not run 4:08:36 twice. Activist (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Version C, but I could get behind a version of A that left out the comparison to the winner, and maybe used language like "completing the race in around 4 hours both times". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Version C עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Version C unless someone wants to argue that his marathon time is relevant to his qualifications for the Supreme Court. JTRH (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Changed to Version C per apparent consensus. Daask (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Persistent Disregard for WP Sanctions by Multiple Individuals

I've noticed there have been quite a few cases of flagrant disregard for the sanctions in place on this article. As per them no individual is entitled to revert more than 1 edit every 24 hours. As of now two admins and three users have violated this in the past hour. While in some of these cases it was merited, in others it wasn't. Furthermore much of this edit warring could've been avoided by simply holding dialogue and asking them to remove personal bias. There are criticisms of Kavanaughs appointment, these should be reported on, as should criticism of democrat conduct as both of these things are current events and should be brought up. While sources were inadequately cited and sometimes questionable, these edits did not constitute vandalism, and in one case a users post was outright reverted as vandalism when it appeared to be a fully legitimate attempt at a constructive edit. I would like to request that User:Kn0w-01, User:Drmies, User:Oshwah, and User:155.52.187.12 Actually attempt to discuss their gripes out rather than unconstructively violating WP sanctions, something that Kn0w-01 actually called out Drmies for, albeit in an incredibly hostile unproductive manner. I feel this would allow us to properly add information to this article without risking everyone leaving this hating each other and leaving minor errors across the article as repeated reverts tend to muck with things quite a bit. Jyggalypuff (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Well, said Oshwah has 368,169, and while I have a few less, I think we both have some experience and some knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies between the two of us. What appears to be legitimate to you might have been a BLP violation or a forum post to us. And please don't patronize two administrators by doing away with their concerns as "gripes". Drmies (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussed this off page with Drmies, I misunderstood the situation and I apologize for that. Jyggalypuff (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI. I have taken one editor to WP:AE here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to Edit-war in ABA recommendation

This addition about the ABA giving the candidate the highest rating is WP:PROMO. Let Me Help 2018 has continued to try to edit-war this material in, despite warnings on his/her talk page. This needs to stop. Another editor William M. Connolley has also objected and removed this new addition. William M. Connolley's edit-note says: "The ABA "WQ" doesn't deserve such prominence. It belongs ni the nom section, if at all here. But Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination doesn't feature it prominently. also needs a cite, of course." I agree. The material does not belong in the WP:LEDE. This new editor needs to follow WP:BRD. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, now it appears as if an IP editor is trying to add this information back in the lede. If it continues, semi-protection may be a good idea. In spite of the edit war, though, I believe that Brett Kavanaugh's new ABA rating of "well qualified" should belong in the article (not in the WP:PROMO way it is written right now), especially since his previous rating of "qualified" is mentioned. I propose to have a sentence somewhere under the Tenure as U.S. Circuit Judge (2006–present) section mentioning that the ABA has given him the "well qualified" rating. Potential sources could include the ABA journal or the National Review. Thoughts? Hickland (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree -- on all points. The need for page protection appears to have been taken care of with this edit. I would support further protection if more disruption occurs. The material in question is being added for selling the candidate for the confirmation process. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI. I have taken this to WP:AE here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to add the claim of ABA recommendation is not supported by the citations that come after it. Should be removed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The statement about the ABA rating is accurate but needs to be cited. ABA ratings are often discussed in the context of judicial nominations, but only because almost everyone who makes it far enough through the screening process to be nominated gets the highest rating. It's a big deal if you don't get rated Highly Qualified. It belongs in the article as long as there's proper citation and context. JTRH (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Secret Feinstein document

There is an intriguing story emerging about a secret document related to Kavanaugh. This may need to be covered pretty soon as it seem like it's pretty serious.

• Sen. Dianne Feinstein refers mysterious letter about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to federal authorities
• Feinstein asks FBI to review letter involving Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh
• Feinstein asks feds to investigate Kavanaugh claims in letter
• DIANNE FEINSTEIN WITHHOLDING BRETT KAVANAUGH DOCUMENT FROM FELLOW JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
• Feinstein says she referred letter concerning Kavanaugh to federal investigators

- MrX 🖋 18:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This looks like manufactured drama to me. There's no reason whatsoever for it to be included in this article. If there's continued coverage it may need to go in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination article, but not yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

We'll see. - MrX 🖋 18:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Uh, there's coverage of it everywhere, and Feinstein isn't usually one for empty drama (if it was Warren or Schumer or Pelosi (yes I know that's House) then I'd be more suspicious too). Added it. Volunteer Marek 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I added his denial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

While the accusations are unsubstantiated, they do meet WP:NOTABLE levels of coverage. DirkDouse (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@DirkDouse: absolutely true, when you replace "ABLE" with "NEWS" in your link. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 11:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The section has gotten fairly long for the Brett Kavanaugh article, though. Unless anyone has any objections, would be good to move that full section to the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination article and leave a sentence or two summary in this (Brett Kavanaugh) article. DirkDouse (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: Moved content to hearing article; left shortened version in main. DirkDouse (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the move to the hearing article was appropriate, but you've moved it 12 minutes or less asking for feedback, and after none was received. I'll read both versions to better inform myself. Activist (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• The article referred to the complainant as "anonymous." She was not so, and the article clearly states, at the beginning, "The woman, who has asked not to be identified,..." In other words, as I presumed before going to the cited source, Eshoo and Feinstein both were aware of both her actual identity and her request that her name not be released to the public, which is hardly atypical of alleged or confirmed victims of sexual assault. Activist (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Any reason why the following text was removed?

"A partial description of the woman's letter was published in The New Yorker on September 14. She alleges that in the early 1980s, at a party Kavanaugh tried to force himself on her by holding her down and covering her mouth with his hand, while his friend turned up the music so that her protests could not be heard outside the room. The classmate of Kavanaugh's said that he had "no recollection" of the alleged event. The woman states that she was able to free herself and that she has sought treatment for psychological distress subsequently. Kavanaugh issued a statement through the White House that said, "I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.""

The edit in which it was removed [6] had no edit summary. Volunteer Marek 05:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

That paragraph has been moved to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination#Sexual misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh, for mysterious reasons. Bradv 05:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"had no edit summary... for mysterious reasons..." - presumably the lack of edit summary was an error, which is why the next edit is whitespace changes with the summary Moved full section 'Sexual misconduct allegation' to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination; shorted existing version left in the main Brett Kavanaugh article. See talk William M. Connolley (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

See comment by William M. Connolley. Edit summary is in follow-up edit. DirkDouse (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Still, there does not seem to be an adequate reason for the removal. This is particularly true after today's revelations [7] Volunteer Marek 19:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Limbaugh as "RS"?

I removed the Rush Limbaugh quote and citation as it is both redundant (there is a Fox News citation as well), and Limbaugh should hardly be treated as an RS: (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=22&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro) Activist (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Polygraph

I took out the bit about the polygraph, because it sounded to much like trying to make it true. The name is relevant, but not I think the test, which isn't reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree - the polygraph is a minor detail, and doesn't add much to the account. Bradv 19:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the polygraph is a kind of thing which appeals to people who don't know that these tests are more or less fake. On the other hand, the fact that she released notes from her therapy sessions years ago which corroborate her story is quite significant. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The therapist notes corroborate the idea that something happened to the woman. Unless the judge was named in the notes, it isn't actually helpful to the accusation. Some other kid could have been guilty of the act. TMLutas (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Uh... what??? Volunteer Marek 04:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The polygraph is a notably and well referenced part of her statement to the press along with the notes. It should be included. ContentEditman (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"Violently"

The following discussion 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.

---

Steeletrap I think it is clear enough from my edits that I am not on some mission to defend the man from the allegation as I have also cleaned up some TE that was in his favor. But "violently" is totally redundant (is there "nonviolent" sexual assault??), unnecessary, and unencyclopedic; it is inappropriate for the lede of an article of this level of public interest. You should self-revert. --Calthinus (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2018 (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.

California academic

Regarding this edit, I don't believe the accuser's state or profession are important enough for the lede. All we need is "woman", the rest can be worked out in the relevant section. Bradv 01:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, now that I understand the reasoning, I withdraw my objection and have restored the wording to "woman." Thanks. KalHolmann (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The "woman" has come forward and she is deserves to be identified by her name and her profession.Casprings (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning her name is completely fair as its already in the article, but just "a California academic" seemed a bit odd. Bradv 02:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think her profession is irrelevant. The insinuation of the text seems to be "academic, so must be a libr!". Volunteer Marek 04:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Christine Blasey Ford

I have barely gotten started on the an article on Christine Blasey Ford. She has a pretty long background and has a lot of published works. Might be a good article to work, if anyone is interested.Casprings (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The letter

Publicly available with names REDACTED here : [8]. --Calthinus (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

The following discussion 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.

---

I JUST TO INFORM ALL READING THIS PAGE, THAT WIKIPEDIA IS EXTREMELY BIAS TOWARDS ANYTHING CONSERVATIVE AND WILL RESTRICT ANYTHING POSITIVE AND READERS MAY MAKE THEIR OWN DICISIONS BASED ON FACT, RATHER THAN OUR FORCED WORDS 72.28.17.191 (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: unencyclopedic L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:00, 17 September 2018 (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.

Sexual Assault Allegations

can someone start a new section on these Sexual Assault Allegations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed

Though his investigation concluded that Foster had indeed committed suicide, Kavanaugh has been criticized for investing federal money and other resources into investigating partisan conspiracy theories surrounding the cause of Foster's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q-Hack (talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Now removed as violation of biographies of living persons policy. Politrukki (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Merging sexual assault content to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

Please join the discussion here. Sandstein 06:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Allegation is of attempted rape, not merely sexual assault

"Ford considers the incident an “attempted rape,” according to her attorney, Debra Katz."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-christine-blasey-ford-20180918-story.html

We don't know whether the allegation is true but we shouldn't obscure the nature of it. It is an allegation of attempted rape, which is a form of sexual assault. We should note this in the article and in the sub-section. We don't call other allegations of attempted rape sexual assault just because they're unproven. Steeletrap (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it clear that she's accusing him of attempted rape? JTRH (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This has been reported in multiple RS.

That very source says "accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago" - sources generally use "sexual assault allegation" and so that's what we should use, per WP:NPOV Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyedit some of the notable cases

Sentences like In Klayman v. Obama (2015), Kavanaugh concurred when the circuit court denied an en banc rehearing of its decision to vacate a district court order blocking the National Security Agency's warrantless bulk collection of telephony metadata. strike me as very difficult to understand. (It took me quite a few tries to wrap my head around a concurrence about a denial of a rehearing of a decision to vacate a block of bulk collection.) Can we find a way to convey this more clearly, perhaps by breaking it into a few sentences to make it easier to parse? /wiae /tlk 00:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Current Events

This article needs one of those "Current Events---information changing rapidly and may not be up-to-date" banners at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8300:17AC:129A:DDFF:FEAD:89D1 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh's fraternity membership

please add While an undergraduate, Kavanaugh was a member of Delta Kappa Epsilon. 158.222.133.159 (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: not relevant enough. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done I confirmed it. It is circumstantial evidence relating to his behavior patterns, social culture, mores and customs, and attitude towards women. While this may be "guilt by association" there is some truth that "Birds of a feather hang together." Its weight, therefore, may be subject to dispute. But there are multiple WP:RS that are reporting that, and in that sense it is relevant, if not necessarily probative or dispositive. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I did not add Fuchs, Hailey; O'Daly, Britton (September 20, 2018). "A flag of underwear: Photo from Kavanaugh's time shows DKE hijinks". Yale Daily News. Retrieved September 21, 2018. But in his first year of college, Kavanaugh joined an organization notorious for disrespecting women: the campus chapter of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity. A photograph that appeared in the Yale Daily News on Jan. 18, 1985, shows Kavanaugh's fraternity brothers waving a flag woven from women's underwear as part of a procession of DKE initiates marching across Yale's campus. Kavanaugh does not appear in the photograph. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Nor did I add that a couple of papers reported that the Yale DKE chapter was banned from campus for five years in 2011 for harassing the Yale Women's Center in an especially egregious chant. The Chapter apparently hewed unwaiveringly to its heritage, according to that commentator. Nevertheless, this seems more remote from the Judge, and we would not want WP:Undue in Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I see so many things wrong with this page

Why is the section titled "Law clerk hiring practices and controversy" where it is in the page? In fact, why is it relevant at all. The Guardian is a reliable source for US politics? They're in the UK! Find a better source or delete it. It's also duplicated further down the page. It looks like you're literally falling over each other to print as much dirt as you can without noticing what dirt your fellow editors already posted.

"On September 16, 2018, Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University, alleged Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when he was a 17-year old high school student" Two errors in one sentence. 1) It was in July that she sent this letter so that is when she accused him (as is mentioned in the next paragraph where it conflicts with the 9/16 date). 2) did she specifically say he was 17? If she did, you need a source. Which brings me to my next error - the link to the redacted letter from CNN is broken. CNN removed that page for some reason which is odd.

"President Trump responded to the claims, saying that Ford would've told law enforcement when the alleged incident had actually occurred. He wrote that the claims were an "assault" made by "radical left wing politicians" intended to undermine his Presidency.[163][164]" What does this add to the page? Trump says crazy stuff every day. It looks like something you could include on just about any page in wikipedia as it just seems like an opportunity to bash Trump and not stick to the actual pupose of this page.

If you want people to put faith in wikipedia, you have to balance out your own political views. Reading this page is heavily balanced in one direction (left). If you're left-leaning in your politcal views, you may not even recognize it. But you're showing your bias here. Try to control it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkallen21 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to place {{Edit semi-protected}} request to improve the article. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that President Trump's response is not relevant to this article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

"Facts have a well-known liberal bias." Stephen Colbert MarkJerue (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2018

Location of error: Section titled: Sexual assault allegation and hiring practices allegations; second to last paragraph; 2nd sentence ----- Error: "... He wrote that the Ford's statement ..." ----- Correction: delete "the" before "Ford's" to make the following: "... He wrote that Ford's statement ..." Greg Stokley (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

SunCrow deletions

@SunCrow:. This sentence, "A bipartisan panel from the Judicial Committee and Ford's representatives, agreed to a hearing after September 24th," well supported by citation, has been deleted twice by SunCrow within minutes this evening. If SunCrow wants it deleted, replacing it with a less specific and less informative substitute, it should be discussed here. Activist (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Activist, I edited the sentence. I did not delete it. The sentence was awkward, contained a comma splice, and referred to the Judiciary Committee as the "Judicial Committee." I have again fixed the comma splice and the reference to the Committee. If you want to leave the rest of it as it is, fine. It's just awkwardly worded. SunCrow (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@SunCrow:. Your edit changing "Judicial" to "Judiciary" Committee was correct, of course, and I thanked you for it. However you deleted critical information from the sentence...you had not just "edited" it. You've made over 20 edits to the article, most to this section, in the past few days, often eliminating well-sourced details. Activist (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Activist, I appreciate the thank you. Regarding your concern, I have reviewed my edits to this article over the past few days. It seems to me that I have deleted very little information (with the exception of one group of sentences that was irrelevant to the topic of the article and didn't belong here). My edits to this page have focused on keeping the page well-organized, clear, concise, accurate, and up-to-date. The very few details that I have removed were details that seemed unimportant (for example: Does it really matter that the counseling records Ford made public related to couples' counseling?). Wikipedia articles about hot-button topics can sometimes get so bogged down in details that they become overly long and unreadable. If you believe that I've removed something that is important to the article, I have no objection to it being re-added. SunCrow (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

At one point, you eliminated redundant text from the "allegations" to the clerks section, but you also eliminated the citation that supported the text from the article. It was restored rather quickly by another editor. I think that many of your edits (especially those having to do with format, grammar, etc.) are very helpful, but certainly not all of them. Activist (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that the preponderance of professionals in the field would consider that the specificity, "couples counseling," is indeed important. Activist (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Activist, you are entitled to your opinion. SunCrow (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed we are. It would appear that mine was well taken. Activist (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker: Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

• Farrow, Ronan; Mayer, Jane (September 23, 2018), "Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh's College Years", The New Yorker, retrieved September 24, 2018

Sagecandor (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Kavanaugh faces new accusations; Avenatti claims 'evidence' of 'targeting' women for gang rape

• Chamberlain, Samuel (September 23, 2018), "Kavanaugh faces new accusations; Avenatti claims 'evidence' of 'targeting' women for gang rape", Fox News, retrieved September 24, 2018
• Raymond, Adam K. (September 23, 2018), "Michael Avenatti Implicates Kavanaugh in Pattern of Teenage Sexual Assault", New York Magazine, retrieved September 24, 2018
• Feldman, Kate (September 23, 2018), "Brett Kavanaugh and pals accused of gang rapes in high school, says lawyer Michael Avenatti", New York Daily News, retrieved September 24, 2018
• Folley, Aris (September 23, 2018), "Avenatti says he has witnesses who can back sexual assault claims against Kavanaugh", The Hill, retrieved September 24, 2018
• Abadi, Mark (September 23, 2018), "Michael Avenatti said he has 'significant evidence' that Brett Kavanaugh participated in sexual misconduct in high school", Business Insider, retrieved September 24, 2018
• Everett, Burgess; Schor, Elana; Korecki, Natasha (September 23, 2018), "Kavanaugh confirmation in renewed peril after second assault claim", Politico, retrieved September 24, 2018, Avenatti told POLITICO he represents a group of individuals who can corroborate allegations involving Kavanaugh and his longtime friend in the 1980s. Avenatti said he'd describe just one of the individuals as a victim. He said the others were witnesses to the allegations.

Sagecandor (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously?? Faulty analysis by the Washington Post

This needs to be deleted:

An analysis covering the period 2003–2018 found that Kavanaugh had the most or second-most conservative voting record on the D.C. Court in every policy area.[6]

Firstly, the Washington Post, really? Look at their rule-set. It's ludicrous to start with. Secondly, it's not objective, they judged it based on their own works (categorizations). Third, they have another article showing quote, unquote 'experts in the field'. These experts are split down the middle on calling Kavanaugh conservative. Also, one of them is some psychopath who makes an insanely faulty analysis of Kavanaughs famous abortion finding. I know this because I just read the ENTIRE court document. the 'expert' is on crack, and so is the Washington Post. Fourthly, they have like 180 items divided in to 10-12 categories. That gives about 15 items in each of their (decidedly ridiculous) categorizations. So.. if you made a bar chart using this data and ranked every judge on it.. The entire graph would be about 15 units high.

Please.

Just delete it, it's embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crogonint (talk • contribs) 05:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No, your suggestion is embarrassing. You are not a RS, while the Post is one of the most RS. Your opinion is original research that is not published in a RS. We can't use your opinion. Keep this up and you'll have a very short career here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Michael Avenatti and allegations of gang rape and rape trains. Why are no specifics mentioned?

Basically the subject. Why are the specifics of the allegations not mentioned? 73.181.160.177 (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This is sensitive stuff, but it will come. Be patient. Most American editors are asleep now. Tomorrow should see more action on this front, and more coverage in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It's a breaking news story. JTRH (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd imagine that the editor who inserted that section wisely understood that it would be an absolute violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP to include what you're asking for. Frankly, the Avenatti claims don't even belong in this article until something of actual substance comes of it. Essentially they constitute an anonymous "allegation of an allegation," the source for which is Michael Avenatti, who is not a WP:RS. If the article's subject were not a controversial figure at the center of a polarizing issue, there would not even be a question of whether or not this sort of stuff should be included. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to know why she didn't report girls being raped to the police when she saw it happening - doesn't that make her an accessory? And then she went BACK to the parties where she knew girls were being raped? And now there are reports that she owed 100,000 in back taxes, with an active security clearance? How do you maintain an active clearance with 100,000 in back taxes? Now Politico is reporting that her ex-boyfriend got a RESTRAINING ORDER against her! Michael.suede (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

removing second allegations from the lede...

... with an edit summary that appears to make no sense. Here [9]. By User:MONGO. Want to explain this? Volunteer Marek 18:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I challenged the edit and it used Wikipedia as one of its refs...start an Rfc.--MONGO (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

One sentence at the end used Wikipedia as a ref. A sentence that frankly nobody really cares about. The rest of the paragraph that you removed used the New Yorker and The Atlantic and other reliable sources. You removed it as well. I'm not asking you for advice on how to proceed, I'm asking you to justify your edit. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevance of home purchase and salary

"In early 2006, Kavanaugh and his wife bought a $1.2-million home in Chevy Chase Section Five, Maryland.[29] In 2018, Kavanaugh reported that he earned a $220,000 salary as a federal judge and $27,000 as a lecturer at Harvard Law School during the previous year."

The relevance of the cost of the home that Kavanaugh and his wife purchased and the subsequent mention of his salary twelve years later is questionable. This fact (documented as it appears to be) has no place in the article, since it is trivial and has no place in an article of this type.

What the author appears to imply is that a $247,000 income is not sufficient to purchase a $1.2 million home. Further research into other sources of income or other funds would be appropriate if such an entry remains in the article, in order to present facts and convey them objectively. mattmidi 10:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbrown1427 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no comments on the inclusion on this but while ORry, I want to point your last rational is just silly. For starters as you already pointed out the income figure is many years after the home purchase so automatically anyone who thinks it has any real relevance is dumb. More to the point, even ignoring the fact that his wife's income isn't mentioned, savings etc (including of course the classic bank of mum and dad), buying a home 5x of income is considered not ideal, but hardly uncommon in some places. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. If the info belongs, there may or may not be a better way to structure it but ultimately some info is going to end up together and some idiot could jump to to silly conclusions. We should consider whether these two pieces of info belongs and if so where on their own merits, not be influenced by the fact some idiots may put two and two together and get 1 trillion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018

Kavanaugh is NOT an associate justice of the Supreme Court. He's NOMINATED to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. He has NOT been approved/appointed. 2601:44:8680:5146:88C5:5CFC:8951:3060 (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The article doesn't say otherwise. Sandstein 06:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018 "What Happens at Georgetown Prep Stays at Georgetown Prep"

ADD to SECTION: Early life and education

<blockquote>In a 2015 speech at the Catholic University of America’s law school, Kavanaugh, now 53, said that he and some friends <blockquote>"had a good saying that we’ve held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep. That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think,"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXKX_whwVzs|title=The Judge as Umpire delivered by The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh|first=|last=CUA Law School|date=1 April 2015|publisher=|accessdate=25 September 2018|via=YouTube}}</ref></blockquote> he added to laughter from the crowd.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://people.com/politics/brett-kavanaugh-joke-georgetown-prep-2015/|title=Watch Brett Kavanaugh Joke in 2015: 'What Happens at Georgetown Prep Stays at Georgetown Prep'|author=|date=|website=people.com|accessdate=25 September 2018}}</ref></blockquote> 69.181.23.220 (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That does not seem to be particularly relevant to the article as a whole past being trivia. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If that's going to be in this article, it needs to have the YouTube link cut, and it would need a useful context. I don't know how I feel about there not being anything at all about the alleged shady side of his school career, but that's the kind of context this needs. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Leave out per MOS and NPOV. Any discussion of his high school years should stick to what's been reported, such as the yearbook pages, Mark Judge stories, etc. We don't need to overdo it with videos that may or may not necessarily have more sinister connotations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The quote is from people.com, which links to the full speech on youtube.com, which was included for verification, so the text of the quote and the people.com reference would be a cogent option

69.181.23.220 (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

He's not an "Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States"

The following discussion 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.

---

The infobox falsely claims that he holds the office of "Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States" and that it's merely a matter of time before he takes office. In reality he hasn't even been appointed under the relevant mechanism of his own country, namely by being confirmed by the senate, and may never become Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States at all. At this point all we have is Donald Trump's proposal that he should be appointed, which the senate may never agree to. This should be removed from the infobox until such time he has formally been appointed to that office. --Tataral (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You forgot the word "Designate". Also, the President appoints Supreme Court Justices; the Senate advises and consents. - MrX 🖋 13:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The President doesn't appoint them in the normal meaning of the word, and for the purposes of the "office" parameter of this infobox, since they don't become supreme court justices at all without the senate's consent. If that were the case, what about the supreme court justice appointed by Obama, Merrick Garland, who held the exact same status as Kavanaugh? If Kavanaugh has "Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States" listed as an "office" in the infobox without having been approved by the senate and with no guarantee of being approved or ever taking office, then so should Garland. --Tataral (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It includes the word "Designate" at the end. Technically, having been nominated but not yet confirmed, he is an Associate Justice-designate. Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia does links, it can't be presented that way and still link to the Associate Justice page. But the appellation is correct. JTRH (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Tataral may have a valid point. After Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court, we did not change the infobox to identify him as a "designate" office holder.[16]. The same is true for Elena Kagan [17].- MrX 🖋 19:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

At best, he is a nominee or candidate. Has no status as a "designate"d office holder. He still occupies an office, i.e., Judge of the Court of Appeals. These seats are mutually exclusive. Should not put cart before the horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Someone should go ahead and change the infobox.- MrX 🖋 19:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:41, 25 September 2018 (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.

Bar membership not mentioned

According to this search page, Kavanaugh has been a member of the DC Bar since February 1992.

This should be mentioned somewhere, but I am not seeing where it would fit. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"Client of Michael Avenatti"

I think this section is premature. We don't know whether the client exists; there's no name; etc. I suggest that this section be removed until there's more clarity. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: We know now, see [18] [19]. I suggest more exes on this article in the coming days. Regards SoWhy 15:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2018: Kavanaugh was friends with classmate Mark Judge

ADD: to SECTION: Early life and education

Kavanaugh was friends with classmate Mark Judge; both were in the same class with Maryland State Senate member Richard Madaleno.

Kavanaugh was friends with classmate [[Mark Judge (writer)|Mark Judge]]; both were in the same [[Cohort (educational group)|class]] with [[Maryland State Senate]] member [[Richard Madaleno]].<ref>{{citation|url=https://theintercept.com/2018/09/25/brett-kavanaugh-accusations-mike-judge/|work=[[The Intercept]]|access-date=September 26, 2018|title=The closer you look, the worse Brett Kavanaugh's relationship with Mark Judge appears|first=Peter|last=Maas|date=September 25, 2018}}</ref><ref name=erinkelly>{{citation|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/18/mark-judge-what-we-know-brett-kavanaugh-classmate/1344707002/|work=[[USA Today]]|access-date=September 20, 2018|date=September 18, 2018|first=Erin|last=Kelly|title=Who is Mark Judge? Here's what we know about Brett Kavanaugh's classmate}}</ref><ref name=breakssilence>{{citation|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-judge-testimony-brett-kavanaugh-hearings-allegations-christine-ford-2018-9|work=[[Business Insider]]|access-date=September 20, 2018|date=September 18, 2018|title=Brett Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge breaks silence about alleged sexual assault incident but says he will not testify|first=John|last= Haltiwanger}}</ref><ref name=kornhaber>{{citation|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/09/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-writing/570631/|work=[[The Atlantic]]|access-date=September 20, 2018|title=Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and the Romanticizing of Teenage Indiscretion|first=Spencer|last=Kornhaber|date=September 19, 2018}}</ref>

69.181.23.220 (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 69.181.23.220 (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done -

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 🖋 12:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Confusing sentence needs grammar fix

This sentence:

In his dissent, Linda Greenhouse says Kavanaugh criticized the majority...

Probably should read something like this:

In his dissent, according to Linda Greenhouse (a NY Times opinion writer), Kavanaugh criticized the majority...

Or better yet, maybe this Greenhouse quote is not particularly relevant. She is a journalist who made the assertion in her NT Times article. A better entry would use the Kavanaugh quote and cite the actual Kavanaugh document as support, rather than a newspaper article.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2018

This is what appears "On September 26, Julie Swetnick alleged under oath that Mark Judge and Kavanaugh organized and participated in gang rape; ..."

In reading the "Declaration of Julie Swetnick" I dont see that she made that statement under "Oath". While her statement says she is declaring it under penalty of perjury it is still an unsworn statement and not even an affirmation. I dont know if her "Declaration" reaches the level of being under oath. There is no Notarial seal or stamp affixed to it and no statement of oath only a statement that is she was called to testify she "would and could do so." https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2018/09/26/swetnickstatement.pdf 35.136.236.32 (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done The bit about it being under oath does not appear to be supported by the source, which says only The committee has written a letter to (Avenatti) asking him if he can produce his client for a interview under oath. GMG^talk 21:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

1998 incident - Senate probes new misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh: NBC News

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/senate-probes-new-misconduct-allegation-against-kavanaugh-nbc-news.html
2. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/senate-probing-new-allegation-misconduct-against-kavanaugh-n913581

Sagecandor (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Evidence to Deborah Ramirez's claim

There is no evidence to the Ramirez claim as far as I know I cited this article. I was told that was an opinion. I disagree there is either evidence or there is not. Is there any evidence? Paul "The Wall" (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence to anyone's claims or denials. There is only corroboration. We don't cite opinion pieces as facts. Such sources can be used if properly attributed like "In an opinion published in the Washington Post, John Doe insists that..." or something similar. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

So if there is no evidence why would it be reverted? Paul "The Wall" (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

As already said "We don't cite opinion pieces as facts". Unless you can find good reliable sources do not add anything. Best to post to talk page first that way others can assist if there is more to it and help find more RS. ContentEditman (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Boat incident

Agree with the removal here; seems way too soon to include this. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I re-removed the anonymous accusations. Preserving here by providing this link. I think the article can do without. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree this should stay off for now. The problem is there will be some people that try and take advantage of this situation and prove to be false. Best to wait for more information to come out from more RS for now. Of course that may be a only another day, a month, or never. ContentEditman (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to the people who have been removing the two latest allegations, which are completely anonymous and unvetted. I have added a hidden comment saying "No anonymous allegations; they will be removed or moved to the talk page." I think this is the appropriate approach, per BLP. And BTW, since this is a BLP issue, IMO the usual restrictions regarding edit warring/3RR would not apply - although I hope other people will step in and help K.e.coffman with the policing of the article. (I can't for the next hour or so.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Section name: "Sexual assault..."

Should the section be: "Sexual assault and attempted rape allegations"? The third accuser does not allege that Kavanaugh raped her, but that she had been raped at a party where Kavanaugh was present. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sleyece: Could you clarify for me as to why you closed the discussion? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sleyece: What is the BLP issue here? Why did you close the discussion? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sleyece: I am rather perplexed as well. Please explain the WP:BLP you note or re-open the section for discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hat removed. I apologize if I overstepped a bound in this section. As a side note, a change somewhat similar to the one suggested here has recently been made to the section of the article in question. -- Sleyece (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note

<redacted>.--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The Gateway Pundit is not a reliable source. See WP:RS.- MrX 🖋 12:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if it were, none of those "stories" are anything other than "why this or that". Regards SoWhy 13:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Question: should we add "alleged rapist/sexual assaulter" into the first sentence of the lede?

The following discussion 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.

---

e.g. "Brett Michael Kavanaugh (/ˈkævənɔː/; born February 12, 1965) is an American attorney, jurist and an alleged sexual assaulter/rapist/gang rapist who serves as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit." Openlydialectic (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Openlydialectic (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope. PackMecEng (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No. If the reason is not obvious, you probably should not be editing Wikipedia. Sorry to have to be harsh.- MrX 🖋 19:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I should stop then. And I will, if you care to explain ur reasoning Openlydialectic (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Mostly because it would be a direct WP:BLP violation. I would strongly suggest you read over that policy. PackMecEng (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Quite simple: Because it places undue weight on mere allegations without conviction, which is a major WP:BLP violation. Regards SoWhy 20:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I am withdrawing the proposal. Openlydialectic (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2018 (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.

Polls

I restored this information; it appears to be quite relevant to me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the material was challenged by revision before and this article is under consensus required. So re-adding it is in violation of DS. PackMecEng (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I self-reverted. Are you challenging the material as well? I was removed with this edit summary: Since when are polls a reliable source?. Which is odd since the material is cited not to the polls themselves, but to the coverage of the polls in other sources.

I personally have no big opinion on the matter yet. Just giving a heads up on a busy and messy article. PackMecEng (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Polling has shown that Kavanaugh has the lowest approval rating of any Supreme Court nominee in the modern era with the exception of Harriet Miers.

References

Discussion

• Include -- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Omit The content means nothing. Polls taken from what sample of individuals? How many polls were combined to get this number? If kept in the article, do we keep updating the poll information hour to hour, day to day? Since when as a nation do we care about polls regarding SCOTUS judges and nominees - they aren't elected. Seems like a weird, trivia-ish addition. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Several reliable sources disagree with your "means nothing" assessment, so this is perhaps a good moment to recall Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Those two don't apply, but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:USELESS do. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Three polls by five sponsors, three days each over four days, 2,911 respondents. You do the math. If there is math. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:24, September 28, 2018 (UTC)

• Include, acknowledged by multiple sources including Fox News and The Washington Times. Sagecandor (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include, well-supported by the cited references, and an important facet enabling readers to better understand this nomination in historical context. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Omit as a needless amount of monitoring and work to keep up to date, unless it is clear that the poll is a snapshot for a specific date. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include and Rewrite. Modernity is the wrong term, and means since the middle ages or since the 1900s (see Modern history, Modernity, Modernity (Britannica)). Also the source in July needs to be omitted. Harriet Miers needs to be stricken from the sentence, because the recent poll puts him even below her. What it should say instead is:

In September 2018, Kavanaugh had the lowest polling rating of any Supreme Court nomination since such polls have been taken.

It might also include the fact that more people believe his accuser than him and that people also believe that he will still be confirmed anyway. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

With the above in mind, I made this bold edit to address Anachronist's concerns about it being a poll at a specific time. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that poll language I just boldly restored is listed in the WP:LEDE. It should probably go in the WP:BODY instead, or at least in both if it is to stay in the WP:LEDE. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Include - This is exactly the type of information that makes an encyclopedia article both informative and interesting to read. I'm not concerned about Anachronist's objection since the proposed text doesn't specify polling numbers. WP:NOTNEWS is a very poor argument usually meaning of WP:IDLI.- MrX 🖋 10:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Omit Every day has polls, to replace the old polls. Depending which 1,003 people you ask online, every conceivable thing is either "gaining traction" or "meeting backlash" at every point in time. Wikipedia should be more timeless, less contemporary. In the meanwhile, I've used a few real numbers, for context. Polls can always show anything, but especially so when they're relayed as foggily as they were. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:01, September 28, 2018 (UTC)

  We should summarize what the sources say, not obfuscate by including broad ranges and outlier data. Your edit did the opposite of what most editors are aiming for here.- MrX 🖋 12:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

If we're wary of useful data, we could start by indicating that the polls measured a high percentage of opposition, rather than a low approval rating (which is a thing presidents have). Maybe generally note most respondents think he'll win, despite their feelings on him from the news on that day between the 16th and 20th. Never hurts to note nobody gave a shit about polls before 2005, otherwise sounds like this is some long-standing record he's broken. All rather misleading, as is. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, September 28, 2018 (UTC)

• Include This is something that has been looked at for many supreme court judges. Most are not as contested as this one so the polling information is even more relevant in this case. A very strong include. ContentEditman (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Professor Christine Blasey Ford Opening Statement.webm

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2018

Brett Kavanaugh is an alleged rapist. 193.203.64.82 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Already mentioned in the article. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Catholic magazine un-endorses Brett Kavanaugh, American Bar Association demands an FBI investigation

• "Kavanaugh, American Bar Association demands an FBI investigation", The Week, September 28, 2018, retrieved September 28, 2018, Hours after the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing adjourned and a Friday morning confirmation vote affirmed, the American Bar Association urged the Senate to hit pause until after an FBI investigation and the prominent Jesuit magazine America rescinded its endorsement of Kavanaugh and urged his nomination withdrawn.
• "The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn", America: The Jesuit Review, September 27, 2018, retrieved September 28, 2018, While we previously endorsed the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.
• Flynn, Megan; Kim, Seung Min (September 28, 2018), "American Bar Association calls for FBI investigation into Kavanaugh allegations, delay in confirmation votes", The Washington Post, retrieved September 28, 2018

Sagecandor (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

America: The Jesuit Review concluded, "For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson." Sagecandor (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

See here.[20]2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Professor Christine Blasey Ford Opening Statement.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz: Postpone Kavanaugh confirmation until FBI can investigate accusations against him

• Dershowitz, Alan (September 27, 2018), "Alan Dershowitz: Postpone Kavanaugh confirmation until FBI can investigate accusations against him", Fox News, retrieved September 28, 2018

Sagecandor (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

completely outdated picture

Kavanaugh's picture is at least 20 years old. --Espoo (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Tis a 9 year old picture Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But we will have a new one to use after he's confirmed to sit on the SCOTUS. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Motion for Subpoena of Mark Judge was removed from article

Motion for Subpoena of Mark Judge was removed from article.

Relevant info was removed. [21]

Cited to multiple sources.

Should be added back.

Sagecandor (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. This is a very minor incident in the hearings, having no effect on the outcome (since it was defeated) and not important enough to include in this biography. It could be added to the article on his nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose adding back into this section. It has no WEIGHT for this BLP. MelanieN it is already in the article about the nomination, added by Sagecandor, who also added it to a couple other articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include Its more than relevant and has come up quite often, has many references, and is heavily supported as it is part of the narrative. ContentEditman (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Julia Swetinick allegations

In this edit, Mr Ernie removed the entirety of what she alleged Kavanaugh to have done; I don't see how the text is a BLP violation; and while one may want to change the wording or trim the text down, I don't see any valid reason to completely exclude her allegations. Would including something like this text, which removes redundancy, be acceptable to people:

On September 26, Avenatti revealed the woman to be Julie Swetnick, who declared in a sworn statement that "I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh." Swetnick further stated that while attending a party, she was once drugged and raped while Kavanaugh and Judge were present. Kavanaugh has characterized her allegations as "ridiculous"

([22]) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Anomalocaris I noticed you've restored the edit; while I don't disagree with the restoral obviously, note that edit was in fact a violation of discretionary sanctions restrictions (which is why I posted here for a consensus) per "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Accusations of this nature, alleging someone to have participated in multiple gang rapes over a multi year period, without any evidence is a BLP violation. Thanks for bringing the discussion here. I see I've been reverted again (courtesy ping Anomalocaris) so I won't remove it myself anymore, but I view it to run afoul of our policy - Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. No RS seems to have taken Swetnick's allegation seriously, they've only reported what she claims to have witnessed. To give this (Redacted) credibility is to suggest that in 1980s suburban DC there was a crime ring of teenage boys running a drugging and raping scheme so heinous that multiple women were abused multiple times over multiple years, but that absolutely no word of this was reported until now. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter Of the claims, the New York Times writes "None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview." in this article. If the claims have consensus to stay, a heavy disclaimer should be added per the NYT story. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I've redacted a bit of your comment. Please be mindful that Julia Swetnick is also a living person with WP:BLP protection, and keep your own speculation about the credibility of the accusation (which has absolutely no bearing here) to yourself. I don't see that WP:RS have or haven't taken her allegation seriously; all I see is that numerous WP:RS have reported on it, and I haven't seen them view the allegations as being not credible in a manner that would want warrant exclusion here; I don't see how the NYT comment says anything other than that though they are reporting the allegations, they are not saying they are true; which is standard for when it isn't their own reporting that is revealing an allegation Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)