Talk:John Roberts/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Characterization of Jeffrey Toobin

There is little serious dispute that Toobin is a liberal author (we could doubtless find oodles of reliable sources if needed to demonstrate the point, although such a discussion would be neither necessary nor inappropriate in the article). Not that there's anything wrong with that, as they say, but our readers are well-served by knowing the biases of authors whose statements are quoted or relied upon. That Toobin is a liberal does not make his assesment wrong, but it does color his perspective, just as my being a conservative colors my perspective, and so long as readers are made aware of that bias, they can evaluate the statements adding or substracting appropriate weight.

user:Texaslegal has now twice removed this accurate and useful information, and, given his/her edit summary, I seriously doubt that their concern is WP:RS. I reverted once, but don't want to get into an edit war without a temperature-taking. (Unfortunately WP:EW trumps immediatism.) What is the sense of the community about whether this characterization ought to remain, both in regard to Toobin and other sources where they can easily be characterized? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

N.b. I have invited user:Texaslegal to particiapte in the discussion. [1] - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that WP policy recognizes precisely this principle in another context: WP:COI notes that "[e]ditors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia." It's just the same with journalists. It isn't that one can't produce accurate, balanced writing while having biases and conflicts of interest, otherwise no one could produce accurate writing, period. But a writer's interests and predospositions ought to be on the table so that we are aware of them and evaluate their points accordingly. And that goes for sources as much as for editors (if it didn't, WP:NPOV could be defeated simply by careful source selection).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems logigal to me to state Toobin's political position, as it provides insight into the rationale behind his statement. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing on Toobin's article that suggests that he is liberal. People who want to characterize Toobin as a liberal need to make their case somewhere, on Toobin's article if not this one. Right now the Roberts article is clearly using a conservative double-standard by describing the former editor of the Harvard Law Review as merely an ideological "liberal commentator" while characterizing Bush-43 appointed Diane Sykes, a member of the Federalist Society, as simply a "Seventh Circuit Judge". Greg Comlish (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Greg, you are the one who deleted the supporting reference for Toobin being a liberal, claiming that it "has nothing to do with [Chief] Justice Roberts"! dif This was flagged on the talk page, where it remains only a few sections above where I now write (Talk:John G. Roberts#Damned if you do, damned if you don't. So let's be clear about your part in this: on June 9, you remove the citation supporting the description of Toobin as a liberal, and a month later you're back to complain that the description has no supporting citation! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Date

The date for one of the early legal career is probably incorrect (below): Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 January 21, 1372 March 31, 1998 Petitioner

Does anyone have it? --- Barath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.215.63 (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stare Decisis Section

I am going to change the title of this section to "Reviewing Acts of Congress." The text under the Stare Decisis does not talk about the doctrine usually associated with this term which is deference to previous holdings of the court. There is a squib about Brown v. Board that is appropriate for a Stare Decisis discussion which I will keep under the original heading. Onefinalstep (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Surname

How is Roberts a czech last name? It surely seems Anglican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.101.149 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Toobin

As far as I'm concerned, it has been established that noting his political leanings when using his criticism is appropriate here. Texaslegal has returned to remove it. It would be foolish to dispute Toobin's political persuasion, but can we decide again if noting it is appropriate. ÷seresin 06:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Weasel word in lead.

The first paragraph states: "He is usually considered to be a judicial conservative." I had reworded this significantly at one point but it has ended back up at this. "Is considered" is a weasel term. Is considered by who? Obviously it is true.. but lets be more precise. Either he is or is not. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's more wrong with this than weasel wording. What is a "judicial conservative?" If the perceived voting alignment needs to be mentioned at all, it should be in a factual sentence that no one will disagree with. I'd suggest something like "Roberts is most often a member of the conservative voting bloc on the court."--Paul (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree. It had been more detailed before, labeling him as a constructionist, etc. I cannot find the precise edit that changed it back to this - just noticed the change while checking for vandalism earlier today. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 23:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Animal cruelty

I added this entry. However another user changed it slightly to almost no notable difference. He obviously wants to claim to have added this section for himself. --Geniusbrainus (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check out the instructions on the edit page just below the submit button. The part that says

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

Bbb23's version is more grammatical, better written overall, and in the appropriate section for the decision. Your "argument" for not changing your "masterpiece", OTOH, seems to consist merely of "Waaahh! He's taking my credit away." Please! Fat&Happy (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
That all is certainly not the case. --Geniusbrainus (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Another user copyedited it for style, and correctly formatted the reference - Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and nobody claims or is credited with ownership of individual sections. If you can perceive "almost no notable difference" in the edit, then you should have no objection to it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, that´s exactly the reason that I do object. --Geniusbrainus (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It fixes a typo, correctly formats a reference and generally tidies up your submission - if you personally can see no qualitative difference between the two versions, it would make sense to defer to those editors who can see the difference. If you're simply uncomfortable with the idea that other editors might improve your work or point out your spelling mistakes, you should not submit your writing to Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I put back my description of the case. Somehow, in all the reversions, it got lost. We have to reference the case name (and WP article). I also tracked the language of that article, figuring consistency is a good thing. I also prefer the wording about overbreadth because it tracks the LA Times source, whereas the descriptiion Geniusbrainus was using did not. I removed the vague tag but wasn't sure if Fat&Happy thinks it's still vague. If so, put the tag back in and I'll try to improve it. I think the first sentence is clear enough in light of the second sentence, but I'm happy to try to make it clearer. Finally, my biggest concern is how I sourced the LA Times. I know it's their blog, but it is apparently from the Tribune Wire Service, so that's why I wrote the reference that way. Others can feel free to improve the reference if they think it's substandard.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Country Name

I changed the birthplace of John Roberts Great-Grandparents to Slovakia because Czecho-Slovakia did not exist at the time. The linked information cites 1886 as the date John Roberts Grand-Parent, Jacob Podrasky, immigrated. This is a common mistake but, by using Czecho-Slovakia one cannot be sure the family emigrated from Slovakia. They may be Moravian, Bohemian or even Polish. I mailed the author of the citation as well. 24.5.109.189 (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)gthistle

When your edit showed up on my watchlist without a summary just as I was about to shut down the laptop and go to sleep last night, I reflexively reverted. This morning, I modified the phrasing a bit, since as you point out above there is no indication as to which of the component parts of "Czechoslovakia" his ancestors were from, so we can't just assume Slovakia. I also question the entire sentence, based in part on discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, and wonder whether we might be better living without this non-critical claim if a more reliable source can't be found. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Glover

Is it pronounced like "clover" or like "lover" or like something else entirely? 68.35.40.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC).

I don't see the duties of a Chief Justice in this article

Specifically, what kind of duties does a Chief justice have that are different from other justices of the supreme court? 98.193.210.17 (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the Roberts article. See instead Chief Justice of the United States.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Electoral reform

An IP-hopping editor has been re-adding claims that there "is criticism" of his "judicial activism" on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and attaching the title "electoral reform". The article is the criticism, and only criticizes his decision and argument on that case. I think something could be done, but I'm not going to add it, because I don't feel it's relevant. Almost all decisions get criticized by somebody. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears I was wrong. The article says he (and the entire majority) was/were criticized for "judicial activism" in one of the dissenting opinions. It's still not relevant. You can find notable criticism of any opinion by a Justice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The above appears to be in reference to the Electoral reform in the United States item ...

Roberts has been criticized of judicial activism regarding the process surrounding the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in a May 2012 article in The New Yorker.<ref>Money Unlimited; How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision (May 21, 2012) New Yorker</ref>

99.181.142.87 (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It refers to Citizens United, not electoral reform. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to be locked down

Media are already reporting that someone vandalized this article and added the word "coward" to the infobox. Obviously it was taken down but I predict more and worse to come. If an admin is reading this I strongly recommend putting a lock on the article until emotions die down. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've requested protection for this article. Bms4880 (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 June 2012

Someone put "Chief Traitor of the United States" instead of "Chief Justice" below his picture. It's inaccurate, and disrespectful. 50.115.70.50 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed ...while you were typing this. Dru of Id (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection

The wrong version of the article has been successfully protected.

I've just fully protected this page for one day because of the edit war that broke out this afternoon. Please discuss proposed changes here instead of edit warring (see WP:BRD), you may consider dispute resolution steps, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Also see the relevant thread on my talk page, here. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's the full thread to the discussion on Mark Arsten's talk page, instead of just one diff, so you can see the whole discussion.--76.189.108.102 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening needs tweaking

"He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy in his jurisprudence." Comes just after another "having", too, and it's clunky anyway.

Perhaps "His judicial philosophy has been described as conservative." The readers will wonder what the difference is between jurisprudence and judicial philosophy. Tony (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC) PS I responded to a query on my talk page about other grammatical issues. Tony (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Great suggestion, Tony. Much better. Logical and straightforward. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Seconding Tony on the current "having been" wording being clearer about the causality than "and was". The other contested edits seem fairly minor, but "death" seems more appropriately formal than "died", and "after admission" seems unnecessarily technical compared to "after being admitted" (the former making it clear that "admission to the bar" is something that happened to Roberts, rather than an unrelated event). I don't see that any of these edits particularly remove any "weak and passive verb constructions", as the original IP suggested. --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Tony's a great writer. Regarding death/died, Wikipedia says the more direct and less formal "died" is recommended over the more passive "death" or "passed away." Straightforward vs. formal language is always preferred for the enyclopedia. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Withdrawn by requesting editor. bd2412 T 23:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

John Roberts → John Roberts (judge) – Too many notable John Roberts. No evidence this one is the primary topic. People are also interested in the actor and the journalist. I can't think of a perfect disambiguation for this one at the moment, so suggestions are welcome. Beerest355 Talk 20:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

  • You're probably right, but can you give us some evidence? --BDD (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • After checking some stats, here's what I found. I didn't look at every Roberts there is, just the ones the nom indicates people are most interested in.
  • The judge has 69549 page views in the last 90 days.
  • The actor has 21560 page views in the last 90 days.
  • The journalist has 10104 page views in the last 90 days.
  • The nominator didn't talk about this, but I feel it's worth noting: the DAB has 1823 page views in the last 90 days.
I'm inclined to oppose this proposal. This Roberts is Chief Justice of the United States and the page views pretty much favor him. It is a very common name, but that's not a reason to move. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no comparison. Pageviews are not the only measure. A Chief Justice of the United States is inherently going to be of substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than most any actor or journalist - and the actor and journalist in this case are not exactly a Laurence Olivier and an Edward R. Murrow. bd2412 T 00:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose being CJOTUS is a pretty big deal. The pageview numbers only reinforce that. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BD2412. A SCOTUS chief is going to have more enduring notability. Bms4880 (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Now I see why this is at the undisambiguated page. Thank you for your comments. BDD or BD2412, since you are administrators, can you close the move request? I'd like to withdraw it. Thanks, Beerest355 Talk 22:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wife's Roman Catholic affiliation.

Not sourced, not relevant (?), and maybe POV? Not removing it, but asking editors to evaluate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosware (talk • contribs) 01:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is sourced near the end of the cited NYT article, but I tend to agree that the way it is currently just dropped in, it doesn't seem too relevant. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Traditional" vs "Conservative" vs No Descriptor Included

As an uninvolved editor, I'm opening this discussion thread, in an attempt to gain consensus for one of these two words. There appears to be something of a slow motion edit war beginning to swirl over the wording, and I'd like to nip this in the bud, if possible. Note: I come into this discussion with a completely open mind, and am willing to be convinced either way. LHMask me a question 15:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Traditional" is quite apparently not POV, whilst "conservative" without a specific secondary reliable source for the exact usage might be considered POV. It is the onus of the person seeking that change to obtainWP:CONSENSUS for it per policy. See WP:BRD etc. BTW, this is not about a person being politically "conservative" or not but rather specifically about his approach to Federalism. Collect (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To play devil's advocate to your argument, how is "traditional" not POV? What I mean by this is, the opposite of "traditional" is what? Non-traditional? Isn't that, at least slightly, a POV-ish formulation? Meanwhile, it could be argued that "conservative" and "liberal" (or "progressive", perhaps) are simply descriptors. Taking off the devil's advocate hat for a minute, I guess what I'm asking is why you see "traditional" as "quite apparently not POV." While I can be persuaded to see it as less POV than "conservative", I don't think it's as obvious of a case as you present it to be. LHMask me a question 14:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I originally reverted the change from traditional to conservative because, on its face, the change was more POV than the existing word. However, I noted that there was no citation for either characterization or that there had been a change from the "past". I've therefore just changed the article to be completely neutral and just quote what he said in the interview. Unless we can cite something to describe his views in a particular way and that they had changed (from when?), we should leave it neutral and let the quote speak for itself. Anything else is WP:OR.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I can certainly see some advantages to this approach. I had considered doing so myself, but decided instead to open this discussion thread. I am also changing the thread title accordingly, to reflect the existence of three primary options. LHMask me a question 14:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As the editor who are the original change form "tradition;" to "conservative" I am fully satisfied with your edit, which avoids the use of normative linage (i.e. as if anyone who didn't accept Roberts views on jurisprudence or Federalism as being non-traditional. Well done. Lestatdelc (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Seizures / Football Captain Background, Americans for Safe Sports Example

i was going to use Chief Justice Roberts as a counter-example to the principle that tackle football damages the brain. But now, having glanced at this health section, and on the Understanding that it's credibly and properly reported, and verified correctly, i'm now missing a templar for an "Safe Sports America" counter-example on gridiron brain injury hazard. The last thing We need is any recurrent or lurking brain injury for the next and future Associate Justice Appointments.

This is absolutely not a point connected to the Chief Justice's extraordinary capability and well-known brilliance. This is only a note of concern about the dysharmonies of gridiron, and the long latency of its total deleterious effects. i was very much hoping this would go the other Way, and be an uncategorized but silent risk state, a Complete, 100% Harrison Bergeron case, and it's not. There's a recurrent idiopathic seizure being reported here, with a 60% prognosis of recurrence reported in this Wikipedia article, as of J015 - 09月28日. A fall of "5-10 feet" of the Chief Justice of the United | States, is a very serious Interanacional Security Incident. i don't know if it can be pinned on a Youth Athlete Review Herstory of Gridiron Football, but it's another, more dark and serious point of reconsideration on Gridiron (again, not the Chief Justice Selection, but the still-lurking epileptic risks). The last thing i want to see is the Chief Justice reporting that s|he'll need to retire early because of, or even as a partial result of a contributing factor, of Gridiron Decades Back. H|er brane integrity outranks all but a handful in the U|S. Exceptions might include the Governors, the President, the Speaker of the Hh|ouse, the Senate Leader, an Associate Justice the Chief Justice esteems and mentors as an equal, for succession optionality. That's about all i can imagine, with that last unrecognized and inexpressible by anyone but the Chief Justice.

This remark is wholly dependent on the accuracy of the Sources used by the Wk³ calm⁴unity, which i openly confess i have not root-traced, or even checked on a first-pass. i don't want to get trapped by a "citation lookup failure".. i know Wikipedia is reliant on regular root-tracings and calm⁴unity discussion. If the Sources unravel (i have some private doubts, at times, about the stability of this media environment.. i once changed the Semmelweis article, for example, with "learned helplessness" Seligman, et. al. "yoked-dog depression" causal mechanisms with a speculative "or" chain, and it persisted, and may still persist [the theory is very properly applied, and meets the evidence, but probably doesn't meet Wk³⁶ Standard, except thru my own Semmelweiss "amateur scholar" assertion of posthumous, inferential diagnostic applicability, and i lack a medical degree and psychiatry residency⁵]), this remains as a mark of concern for the hidden latency costs of gridiron, with Chief Justice Roberts returning to a perfect "Harrison Bergeron" Case, with an unseen black swan neurological plaque-up risk.

50.247.188.115 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Political Party Affiliations of Federal Justices

Frankly, listing political parties on the justices' profile pages should be irrelevant. Justices are supposed to be non-partisan even though they have their own beliefs. Now, I've noticed that all the liberal/Democratic members of the Supreme Court (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) all have their political party affiliations absent for those reasons. For the sake of consistency, I went and removed those affiliations from the conservative/Republican members of the Supreme Court (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Gorsuch). However, my edits were reverted by another user. Can we discuss this and try and come to an agreement for the sake of consistency? 134.129.205.232 (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I make mistakes it's my first talk. Judges are non-partisan in they don't discriminate between the two parties when it comes to rulings. But they're still members of those parties and all of the justices except of Kegan is registered either Republican or Democrat. Even during their senate hearings they all confirms their party affiliations which I linked as reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianfixerupper (talk • contribs) 03:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

23. dec. 2018 : Roberts intervenes in the Mueller probe

... "Those papers must be filed no later than New Year’s Eve. Once he receives the full briefing, he can reject the Corporation’s appeal or he can advance the matter to the full court for consideration." thrilling ... --94.114.120.31 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination Date to D.C. Circuit is Wrong

The article incorrectly states that Justice Roberts was nominated for a seat on the D.C. Circuit on May 10, 2001. He was actually nominated on May 9, 2001. See 147 Cong. Rec. S4773 (daily ed. May 9, 2001). 108.48.3.219 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done TJRC (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Institutionalist?

Somebody could edit the article to include the theory that Roberts is really more of an "institutionalist" than a "conservative" or some more typical ideological description. For example, the individual mandate for Obamacare was not in the revenue portion of the bill and it was really a stretch to dub it a "tax" and that was underscored by the fact that Obama himself said it was not a tax both before and after the first Obamacare ruling. The reporting was that, after writing the dissent (which was quite persuasive), Roberts decided it wouldn't be good for the Court to overturn Obamacare and thus he decided to allow it to pass muster as a "tax." That would, so the theory goes, mark him as more of a person looking to preserve the Court as an institution rather than, say, a moderate Republican or a liberal-leaning conservative or some such description. Paradoxically, though, it was also argued by some that the reputation of the Court actually went down after it was learned that Roberts had also written most of the dissent, then decided to go the other way. Anyhow, this would make a fascinating addition to flesh out the article.

But dubbing him an "institutionalist" really avoids the question. Just recently in the Census case, Roberts again voted with the liberal wing of the Court, and yes there is a liberal wing even if Roberts doesn't want to admit it. Instead of an institutionalist, Roberts would better be depicted as a Nelson Rockefeller-esque Republican who is, for all practical purposes, mostly a Democrat. That is a more persuasive explanation as to why he rewrote Obamacare twice in an effort to save it when the legislation certainly did not attract Republican votes in Congress. Indeed, Obamacare only passed with votes at midnight, votes in a blizzard, votes paid for with the "Cornhusker Kickback" and other deals and compromises. Admit it, Roberts is really a Democrat, or at least mostly a Democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Surveying sources for potential moving/renaming?

We have a hell of a lot of articles on men named "John Roberts" here on Wikipedia (the disambiguation page currently has about 70) and I'm sure the number will only grow. I'm sure the Chief Justice's prominence warrants "John Roberts" directing to his page, but have we considered moving him to "John G. Roberts" or "John G. Roberts Jr." lately? He's referenced by his full name quite often (though many sources admittedly just use "John Roberts"), and that's how he's always referred to himself. I mean, the image of his signature in the infobox shows that's how he signs it. If someone wanted to do a survey of online sources it might shed some light. Certainly we'd redirect "John Roberts" to him for the foreseeable future.  White Whirlwind  咨  02:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't move this page. It is at the clear common name of the clear primary topic of that name. bd2412 T 02:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Did you read my post? I didn't ask for an ipse dixit. I'm talking about surveying because quite a few sources list his full name.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it really a good idea to post his signature? Unsafe and violation of privacy

Is it really a good idea to post his signature? Unsafe and violation of privacy Mairamaira (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Um, it's not exactly private info. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Heritage (Welsh or English)

The article mentions that John Roberts comes from Welsh/Irish heritage.

However, the Roberts family tree in the United States ends with George Roberts (born 1858) and Mary (born 1859). The census states the parents of both came from England (not Wales).

To give this the benefit of a doubt: Roberts is a Welsh name. The census also says he was a coal minor. The major coal mining operations during the time period was in south Wales (Merthyr Tydfil), so if he really came from Wales, then we'd have to assume the census used England as a catch-all for both countries. If we could find the parents that migrated to the United States, then we could prove or disprove whether John Roberts has Welsh heritage (not taking DNA into account). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:8180:4C60:CCAE:16A6:B194:1E98 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Need to change his age

Should be changed to age 65 on inset Shep9882 (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Change current age from 64 to 65. Justice Roberts' birthday was earlier this week. Mablatch (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's sometimes slow to update due to caching, if it hasn't updated for you click here. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

Under "Trial of President Trump", change "Chief Justice Roberts is presiding over the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, which began on January 16, 2020." to "Chief Justice Roberts presided over the impeachment trial of Donald Trump from January 16-February 5, 2020." Smahdeey (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done JTP (talk • contribs) 22:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Harvard College or Harvard University

Let's avoid an edit war. Please see these edits ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and help arrive at a consensus. TJRC (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

My opinion—as I've mentioned in my edit summaries—is that the practice of using "College" instead of "University" for specific undergraduate departments is archaic and pedantic. In North American practice, it was only ever used for a handful of elite Ivies like Harvard and Columbia, and has been moribund for decades. The whole practice of referring to attendance at universities' constituent colleges is mostly unwarranted, in my opinion, but I admit that it remains stubbornly common for certain famous law schools, med schools, business schools, and music/theatre schools. I'm happy to hear other editors' thoughts.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
And I favor keeping "Harvard College": it is more specific and therefore provides more information. I don't think there is any Wikipedia-wide consensus that properly identifying a college within a university is archaic; and in an encyclopedia pedantic is a virtue, not a sin. TJRC (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent Fall Health Section

On July 8, 2020, given the recent health-related news concerning Chief Justice Roberts, I posted the following in the Health section of the page:

> On July 7, 2020, the Supreme Court press office announced that Roberts had suffered a fall at a Maryland country club on June 21, 2020, which had been serious enough to require sutures and an overnight stay in the hospital for observation before being released the next morning; doctors ruled out the possibility of a seizure recurrence, and believed that he suffered the fall as a result of merely being dehydrated.[1]

Since then, EEng has changed it multiple times to the following:

> On June 21 Roberts fell at a Maryland country club and required sutures;[where?] he stayed overnight in the hospital for observation. Doctors ruled out a seizure and concluded that Roberts has been dehydrated.[2]

In doing so, the rationale provided was that "it's a complete waste of electrons and reader brain cells to recite who made the announcement, the date of the announcement, and so on, unless there's some controversy about the circumstances of the information being disclosed."

That not being a sufficient reason to not only revert an edit, but to do so in an incorrect manner (not only is "On June 21 Roberts..." not grammatically correct, but the EEng edits resulted in an unambiguous geographic scope edit from AnomieBOT that doesn't arise when my edits are the ones in place), I reverted the edit back to the original formatting, only to have it reverted back again with the reasoning that "/stare decisis/ is for jurisprudence, not encyclopedias. Just because other articles are bloated with paid-by-the-word irrelevancy doesn't mean this one should too.The prior paragraph attributes "no cause for concern" to a particular source because it's a subjective evaluation. In contrast, it's useless verbiage to give attribution for straightforward facts about which there is no apparent doubt or controversy. WP:TENYEARTEST: In 10 years no one will care who transmitted these facts or when."

However, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "[e]ven though Wikipedia's policies and guidelines always take precedence on Wikipedia, in the case where something has not been codified on Wikipedia, there is nothing wrong in considering how reputable sources approach the same topic as a starting point or point of reference." As I've explained in the edit summaries, the formatting with which I authored the paragraph in question on this page is consistent with the formatting of similar paragraphs in the health &/or personal life sections of the William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, & Ruth Bader Ginsburg pages as well as the very paragraph above the paragraph in question (re: "an official Supreme Court statement"). Moreover, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "[an encyclopedia] is expected to be internally consistent." The formatting precedent in question is not, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense," and so it is not "wrong to argue that the precedent should be followed [on this page]," hence this whole argument "in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles," as it "is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred."

Moreover, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would actually seem to overrule EEng's invocation of WP:TENYEARTEST given that the latter directly refers to consensus in that "consensus can change later on," which is true. But right now, because I've sufficiently illustrated that my claims are backed up by what the relevant consensus is at the current time in the here & now (given the consistency within recent subject matter articles elsewhere on Wikipedia), I believe the original formatting by which I authored the paragraph in question ought to - and, per Wikipedia's published recommendation, must - stand. Brucejoel99 (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that a less wordy version is better. I agree that it doesn't matter who announced it, or on what date (although, if you really want to include that, it can go in the footnote). Also, "before being released the next morning" is surplusage, already inherent in the phrase "stayed overnight". BD2412 T 21:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Like this: "Roberts fell at a Maryland country club on June 21, 2020, and required sutures and an overnight stay in the hospital for observation; doctors ruled out the possibility of a seizure recurrence, and believed that the fall was merely due to dehydration.[3] BD2412 T 21:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the point on surplusage, but to be fair, the Supreme Court press office announcing the incident more than half-a-month after the incident occurred was actually a part of the overall story of the incident (as per the linked WaPo article sourcing the incident), but in any event, if consensus were to nevertheless deem it unnecessary, would something like: "On June 21, 2020, Roberts suffered a fall while at a Maryland country club; the fall was serious enough to require sutures and an overnight stay in the hospital for observation, though doctors ruled out the possibility of a seizure recurrence, believing that he suffered the fall as a result of merely being dehydrated" work? Brucejoel99 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
What is the advantage of "suffered a fall" over "fell"? Or of "serious enough to require sutures" over "required sutures"? Obviously if he fell and required sutures, the fall was that serious, and he suffered from it. BD2412 T 22:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll concede the point on it being serious enough but, with regards to "suffered a fall," it's again a matter of internal paragraph-to-paragraph grammatical consistency: "had a seizure" --> "suffered a fall."
Something like this (if consensus deems mentioning of the press office unnecessary): "On June 21, 2020, Roberts suffered a fall while at a Maryland country club, requiring sutures and an overnight stay in the hospital for observation; doctors ruled out the possibility of a seizure recurrence, believing that he suffered the fall as a result of merely being dehydrated"? Brucejoel99 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, I think, although I don't think grammatical consistency is an issue. We say "had a seizure" because "seizured" would be an awkward construction. BD2412 T 23:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I only skimmed the opening wall of text because it appears to be parody. But picking up with the last few posts:

  • suffered a fall while fell at a Maryland country club – It's silly to say he "suffered a fall while at" a place when he simply fell there, plain and simple. As BD points out (more gently) the "grammar" concern is nonsense; such ideas are of the sort preached by WP:MISSSNODGRASS.
  • requiring ... an overnight stay in the hospital for observation – The source doesn't say the fall required the overnight stay for observation, just that he did stay overnight for observation; indeed the official statement said the overnight stay was "out of an abundance of caution", so decidedly not required.
  • doctors ruled out the possibility of a seizure – There's no need to rule out the possibility of something when you can just rule it out, period. (The source says nothing about possibilities.)
  • seizure recurrence – Readers not suffering from short-term memory deficits will readily see that once you've ruled out a seizure, then perforce you've ruled out a "recurrence" of the seizure mentioned two sentences earlier.
  • believing that he suffered the fall as a result of merely being dehydrated –
    • merely – The source says nothing about "merely"
    • suffered the fall fell – This poor Chief Justice is always suffering, suffering, suffering
    • as a result of ... being dehydrated – Dehydration is mentioned twice in the source: the official statement is quoted as saying His doctors ruled out a seizure. They believe the fall was likely due to light-headedness caused by dehydration but the Post's voice simply says, Doctors believe he was dehydrated. The latter is perfectly adequate, as readers not mentally defective will surmise for themselves, after being told (a) that it wasn't a seizure and (b) that doctors think he was dehydrated, that the doctors connected the fall to the dehydration. We needn't beat them over the head (the readers I mean – not the doctors or the Chief Justice).

Amazingly, after all this there's still no answer to the reader's most urgent question: What part of the judicial anatomy was injured? Since I've been forced to actually go look up the Post story, I now know that (along with some other details). Thus:

On June 21, 2020, Roberts fell at the Chevy Chase Club and required sutures to his forehead; he stayed overnight in the hospital for observation. Doctors ruled out a seizure and believed dehydration had made Roberts light-headed.

Finally, re the dates: as a matter of record the Post reports how they got the information, but there's no indication there's anything significant or controversial, or even unusual, about the fact that it wasn't disclosed earlier. In fact the strong implication is that, had the Post not inquired, it might never have been disclosed. If there was something the reader learned by the announcement date we'd include it, but absent that, calling it out gratuitously gives the faint implication that there's something unusual going on, which apparently there isn't. It simply adds nothing to the reader's understanding. (Investigative reporters and conspiracy theorists can, of course, check the sources.) EEng 02:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I still think "a country club in Maryland" is better. There is nothing about the Chevy Chase Club that makes it inherently interesting that he fell there, and "in Maryland" should be in the sentence either way, for readers who don't want to have to click through the link to find out where that is (I presume many readers will not be aware that Chevy Chase, in addition to being a world-renowned thespian, is also the name of the town). Do you have any objection, by the way, to including "The incident was announced by the Supreme Court press office on July 7, 2020" in the footnote? BD2412 T 04:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Well come to think of it, maybe he fell at a meeting of SNL fans; the name's ambiguous, after all. I don't feel strongly about either point, though we would normally name and link the specific instead vaguely stating the general, especially if you can do the former in the same or less space than you can do the latter (the Chevy Chase Club vs. a country club in Maryland). Adding an explanatory note in a source citation is weird, but if it will allow us to keep it out of the main text without a lot of arguing, I'm down with it.
So now we have:
On June 21, 2020, Roberts fell at a Maryland country club; his forehead required sutures and he stayed overnight in the hospital for observation. Doctors ruled out a seizure and believed dehydration had made Roberts light-headed.
(See, BTW, WP:TEMPLEOFFACTS.) EEng 05:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Works for me. I don't find an explanatory note in a source citation particularly weird, considering that the note also basically identifies the source for the source. BD2412 T 05:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
BTW, have you any idea what the OP means by an unambiguous geographic scope edit? EEng 05:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
None whatsoever. BD2412 T 05:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
As explained above, EEng, your initial edit resulted in [where?] - "The geographic scope near this tag is ambiguous. (July 2020) - being added into the paragraph by AnomieBOT. Brucejoel99 (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No, the bot didn't add the {where} template, I did – though I was un-a-where at the time that it's meant to be used only for geographical (not anatomical) whereness. What you mean by unambiguous here is anybody's guess. Are we done with this nonsense now? EEng 17:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I think we have a consensus. Please go ahead and implement the final proposed language. BD2412 T 20:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Weird how the revision history says it was AnomieBOT that added the {where} template, then. And sorry, I've been wrongly saying "unambiguous" as opposed to "ambiguous," which is what I should've been saying, given that the "The geographic scope near this tag is ambiguous" message is what accompanies the {where} tag. I sincerely apologize for the mistake. The consensus appears to be "On June 21, 2020, Roberts fell at a Maryland country club; his forehead required sutures and he stayed overnight in the hospital for observation. Doctors ruled out a seizure and believed dehydration had made Roberts light-headed," so I will change it to that. In any event, though, for future's sake: "Look, please, I beg you" to stop being rude & disrespectful, as you've been within both this talk page and your edit comments. Your conduct has gone far past mere acerbicness at this point, given that you've now felt the need to refer to my conduct here (which I assure you has been undertaken in nothing but good faith) as both "nonsense" & "parody," in addition to being a "complete waste of electrons and reader brain cells," which is frankly uncalled for & not appreciated, especially in comparison to my conversing with BD2412, whose conduct I greatly appreciate for having been much more respectful & much less offensive than yours. Thanks. Brucejoel99 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Look more closely: I added the {where} tag [7]; the bot merely dated it [8].
  • I should not have characterized your opening post as parody; I should have said that I hoped it was parody. All that lawyerly shortcut salad really was nonsense.
  • I didn't say your conduct was a waste of electrons and readers' brain cells; I said it's a waste to recite who made the announcement, the date of the announcement, and so on [9]
  • Me and BD2412 are a team: he lulls them into a false sense of security, then I move in for the kill.
  • I've never doubted or questioned your good faith.
EEng 04:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Disclaimer: EEng and I are not a "team". In fact, I appreciate having my conduct appreciated. BD2412 T 04:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Good move. Pretending we don't know each other makes the shtick all the more effective. I'll wire the money to the usual numbered account. EEng 04:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Honorifics

I know that the infobox on this page used to have an honorific prefix that was removed for consistency's sake but shouldn't this page and the pages of all other living American judges also have their honorific prefix in their infobox?? I don't know why American judges do not have their honorific prefix stated within their infobox and I was wondering if anyone knows why. I want to add "The Honorable" to Roberts infobox but I do not want to interfere with any community "doctrine" or policy that mandates that American judges should not have honorific prefix's stated within their infobox, and if there is such a policy please reply where I can find such policy. Thanks! ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Administration of Presidential Oath, 2009

An edit I made an hour or so ago, including this matter in the article, has been reverted by the same editor who removed a previous inclusion of the matter (not by me). He has invited me to start a discussion here. I feel my edit summary justifies the inclusion, but I will repeat my points and add to them.

1) Ordinary people as well as legal nerds use encyclopedias.

2) Many millions of people around the world, one of the biggest global audiences, watched the inauguration. To many, probably most, of them it is the only aspect of John Roberts that impinged on their lives.

3) The incident necessitated the retaking of the oath by Obama.

4) By any measure, it is of more interest than anything contained in Personal life which has a Section to itself whereas this is merely a subsection.

5) The landmark judgements referred to by the reverter are not due exclusively to Roberts; the judgements are the collective judgements of the court. The function he carried out at the inauguration was exclusive to him.

For the record, I was about to change my wording from "Misspeakings occurred" to " Words were misspoken in both the administration and the taking of the oath" when I saw that my edit had been reverted. Aineireland (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC) Changed spacing. Aineireland (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I would include a single sentence listing the presidents Roberts has sworn in and mentioning the Obama flub and redo. BD2412 T 02:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Let's see ...
    • it is of more interest than anything contained in Personal life which has a Section to itself – The article is about Roberts. It's obviously going to cover his personal life in some detail.
    • it is the only aspect of John Roberts that impinged on their lives – It didn't impinge on anyone's life at all. It's purely a ceremony.
    • The function he carried out at the inauguration was exclusive to him – No, see, that's exactly the point: it wasn't exclusive to him – it was exclusive to whoever happens to be Chief Justice at the moment. He had no effective choice about whether to do it.
Something along the lines of As Chief Justice, Roberts has sworn in Presidents Barack Obama (2009, 2013) and Donald Trump (2017) would be OK I guess, but where do we put it? It's out of place as a little ===-subsection of On the US Supreme Court, and it would be even more ridiculous as its own ==-level section. (The fact that there's no real place for it underscores its status as miscellany, but I suppose I've made that point quite enough.) Believe it or not, since it's a statement of flat fact needing no other explication, I'd suggest we just stick it at the end of the lead.
However, I strenuously object to including the "stumble". As I said in the edit summary for my original removal, the incident
certainly belongs in a book on Roberts, probably belongs in First_inauguration_of_Barack_Obama, and might possibly belong in United States presidential inauguration. But here it's just trivia.
And trivia it is. The fact that something occurred doesn't make it worthy of inclusion (see WP:NOTEWORTHY). It was a particularly public stumble, but caused no controversy or problems in any way; retaking the oath was just belt and suspenders. Like every judge, no doubt he's stumbled now and then on the bench as well – said Reversed when he meant Affirmed, whatever, then corrected himself. If a judge misspeaks and there's rioting in the streets, that's worth mentioning in the article on that judge; if the error is fixed with no harm, no foul, and no lasting effect, then it's not something worth mentioning about the judge.because everyone makes mistakes (though it may be worth including in an article on the case itself).
If there were sources somehow saying that it was characteristic of Roberts to work without a script, that he'd messed up this way before, his character is such that something something something, then sure – then it reflects on the man. But absent that, no, because the incident neither reflects on him nor had an effect on him, which is the test for what goes into the article on him.
EEng 05:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The discussion now has all 3 of us agreeing on inclusion of the incident, differing on the way in which it should be done. 2 of us agree that mention should be made of the flub/stumble, though I seek a more neutral and anodyne way of putting it in my amended wording suggestion. I have no wish to emphasise the embarrassment of the situation.
To mention all those he swore in is ridiculous. As EEng rightly says of the ceremony, this is so normal as to be unworthy of comment; it is the aberration and consequence that make it so.
I want to emphasise strongly that for eleven and a half years it was considered appropriate that this be included, but EEng is correct that it had developed into an unnecessary drawn-out discussion.
I agree that it sat uneasily in its positioning. I would have given it a section but for reading the Style Manual which says that TOO MANY short sections are discouraged . This is, however, a guide and not absolutely prescriptive.
I am going to echoEEng in his "believe it or not" where he suggests putting it at the end of the lead ( this is not acceptable as anything referred to in the lead should be in the body of the article). Believe it or not, I propose to give it its short 3 sentence section. This will be a lesser number of sections than for William Rehnquist ,Antonin Scalia, Earl Warren or RBG. Roberts, of course may have others to come, almost certainly, legacy. Aineireland (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The number of years the material was present is irrelevant and doesn't mean it was "considered appropriate"; articles are full of all kinds of crap for years on end. The number of sections is irrelevant. It's a myth that everything in the lead has to be elsewhere in the article. And please don't reinsert material (as you just did) while discussion is ongoing. EEng 20:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the mentions of the incident in major sources shows that a sentence on the flub is warranted. EEng's mention of notability is irrelevant, since (as the WP:NOTEWORTHY section he quoted explicitly says) WP:NOTABILITY applies to the existence of an article, not its content. The question is one of due weight and WP:PROPORTION as part of WP:NPOV considerations.  White Whirlwind  18:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    No, I made no mention of notability at all, so I have no idea what you're talking about. What NOTEWORTHY says is that notability is not the test for article content. And that works in both directions: that fact that an incident isn't notable doesn't mean it can't be included in an article, but at the same time, the fact that it is notable doesn't mean it should or must be included. This issue has nothing to do with PROPORTION or NPOV because this isn't about any kind of controversy or dispute.
    But for the sake of argument let's say a sentence on this is, as you say, "warranted". OK, warranted where? In every article in any way related to any aspect of the incident – John Roberts and Barack Obama and First inauguration of Barack Obama and United States presidential inauguration and United States Constitution and Oath of office and memory and Stage fright and ... ? I'll say it again: this incident neither reflects on John Roberts nor had any effect on him. It's an trivial incident, despite its large audience. It belongs in some of the articles I just listed, but not this one. EEng 20:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: Your cite to notability (WP:NOTEWORTHY is a subsection thereof) occurred in a paragraph arguing about notability as a standard. If a judge misspeaks and there's rioting in the streets — isn't "rioting in the streets" a reference to populace taking note of something? It seemed like that was your point. Anyway, the point of that subsection is to make clear that our subjective view of some incident's importance in a subject's life is irrelevant to whether or not we include it. It specifies that the standard for content inclusion is WP:DUE. How many other pages Roberts' flub might appear on is irrelevant to what DUE requires us to consider: whether the major sources here mention it enough to warrant a mention to keep WP:PROPORTION.  White Whirlwind  08:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
You better reread my post, because you're entirely missing the point; I was drawing a contrast to the notability test. And DUE and PROPORTION and NPOV have nothing to do with this, because the material we're discussion has nothing to do with any dispute or controversy; if we do present it in this article, I can't foresee any disagreement about how to present it. The issue is whether to present it at all – in this article; as noted repeatedly, it certainly has a place in two or three other articles related directly to the inauguration and the oath.
The question of what other pages should mention the flub is indeed an illuminating one, because it makes you think about why we include or exclude material in any article; for example, you won't find it mentioning in Barack Obama, and the reason it's not is the same as the reason it doesn't belong here. EEng 02:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: I fear you misunderstand WP:DUE. It is not now, and never has been, limited to "controversial" content. Along with WP:V and WP:OR, it forms the underlying principle governing what content is included in articles in the first place, not just how that content is presented. That's the point of the WP:NOTEWORTHY subsection: "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles.... Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." As I said before, the "flub"'s inclusion on other articles is irrelevant here: perhaps the major sources on Barack Obama mention the flub, and perhaps they don't. The question here is whether or not the major sources on Roberts mention the flub, since DUE operates upon article topics and subjects, and sources will necessarily mention an incident (like the flub) more when discussing some people (such as Roberts) than others (Michelle Obama, who was also a participant).  White Whirlwind  17:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Just like to say I support its inclusion. As others have mentioned, it was covered by major media organizations regardless of what people here think it does or doesn't reflect about John Roberts. It should be here because it involved primarily him and Obama. It is not routine, in fact it is the opposite--it is the only time a presidential oath of office has been readministered. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 20:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    "It wasn't covered" is an argument non-inclusion; "it was covered" is not an argument for inclusion. If that were the test we could include any random fact in any article. EEng 02:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Everything these people do is mentioned in reliable sources, including trivia. They pick their nose in public and it's on the front page of something. Is that now suddenly encyclopaedic too? It's purely an editorial decision on whether to include or not. This is definitely trivia. It shouldn't be in the article, much less have its own sub-section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I think WP:FART is the relevant guideline you're looking for, right? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
My initial reading of the discussion here was the opponents of inclusion had the better of the argument. However, I then spotted the extensive coverage of the issue at First inauguration of Barack Obama, where this gets 500 words. That suggests that the issue is a little more than a fart.
However, Oath of office of the President of the United States#Oath_mishaps list six other mishaps in inauguration oaths, and since the oath has been taken 75 times, these mishaps occur in almost 1 in 10 inaugurations, rather than being a unique event. That makes it look less significant.
So I can see a toss-a-coin case for a passing mention of this, but no case for a full section (at any level). It seems to me that a single sentence somewhere could note something like "Roberts has administered the oath at three inaugurations, including the 2009 inauguration of Obama where an error led to the oath being administered again the next day".
But no more than that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I find BrownhairedGirl's research and reasoning impressive and concur with her conclusion. I will not involve myself further, but will leave it to anyone else who wishes to include or place a sentence such as she suggests. Aineireland (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I would just like to add that if the flub is mentioned, the line should state that both participants in the exchange misspoke. As the lengthier analysis notes, Roberts was thrown off because Obama started speaking earlier than expected. BD2412 T 16:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
If a significant amount of major sources on Roberts mention the flub (and maybe also that Obama jumped the gun), then by all means let's include a sentence on it. Whether or not such "flubs" are common in history doesn't matter per WP:DUE: all we are to do is look at the coverage in the major reliable sources.  White Whirlwind  05:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I would add that, this being the article on Roberts, mentioning the flub without mentioning that it was a mutual error could leave the impression that it was Roberts alone who flubbed it. BD2412 T 05:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

Donald Trump was NOT impeached as president. Please take that out of the article that’s a lie. 2603:9001:230C:561C:999B:1237:6986:67CD (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Actually, Trump was impeached twice by the House of Representatives but was not convicted by the Senate either time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Conservatism in The United States

Is it appropriate that Conservatism in the United States series be linked here, especially considering that other conservative justices such as Scalia do not have the series on their pages, and that Roberts himself is not even listed in the series's category? I suggest removing it. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. Coincidentally, Roberts was just today removed from the template, so there's definitely no need to keep it here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2022

Change "as Chief Justice his salary is $255,500 as of 2014" to "as Chief Justice his salary is $286,700 as of 2022". Back it up with this trustworthy government source: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-compensation CoolCactusCat (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Swing vote is not the same as "median"

Regarding this part in the introduction of this article, which was recently updated to this present form:

He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy but, above all, an institutionalist; he has shown a willingness to work with the Supreme Court's liberal bloc, and between the time of the retirement of Anthony Kennedy in 2018 and the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, he was regarded as the primary swing vote on the Court. After Barrett's appointment established a 6-3 conservative majority on the Court, however, Brett Kavanaugh became seen as the body's ideological center and thus its main swing vote.

And this part in the introduction of the Brett Kavanaugh page:

Since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, he has come to be regarded as a key swing vote on the Court.

Somewhere later, the Brett Kavanaugh article discusses the "median swing vote":

Had Barack Obama's nominee Merrick Garland been confirmed in 2016, Stephen Breyer would have become the median swing vote when Kennedy retired. However, since Antonin Scalia was replaced by another conservative (Gorsuch), it was expected that Chief Justice John Roberts would become the median swing vote on the Supreme Court upon Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Here's the thing though. A swing vote does not necessarily mean that you swing the result of the whole court. It could be just on a personal level, where that justice (or some other voter) is prone to swinging in one direction or another depending on the case/circumstance, compared to those that are expected to be more ideologically stable and consistent. Moreover, there can be more than one swing vote. During the New Deal & court-packing bill era, the swing votes were Charles Evans Hughes (chief) and Owen J. Roberts, the justices that most often alternated between the sides of the Four Horsemen and the Three Musketeers.

Having the above descriptions about the "previous" (John Roberts) and the "current" (Brett Kavanaugh) swing votes in the introduction of the respective articles seem to be misleading and giving undue weight to the idea of the "median" justice. This is especially when, after Barrett's confirmation, media reports have still been referring to Roberts, not Kavanaugh, as the justice most likely to join the three liberal justices in certain cases (and the justice that the liberal-leaning people seem to primarily depend on to join them), generally in the context of stating that Roberts alone won't be enough now.

And the point that it's not all about being the sole median is further reinforced by this fact: according to some citations in the Roberts Court article, the court seems to have a three-way split beyond a simple 6-3, with the more conservative justices divided between those that adhere more to precedent (Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett) and those that are willing to overrule past precedent anyway (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch). 2603:8000:B600:4000:8505:5CF5:668:4D5C (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

No input at all for a month? Would it have helped if it was a formal edit request? 2603:8000:B600:4000:7910:2C3B:4C6D:53F9 (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
To address your points: It won't be possible to say until the final decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health is rendered, but there is scant-to-no evidence that either Kavanaugh or Barrett feel bound by precedent -- at all -- whenever the precedent doesn't suit their personal (i.e. "conservative," whatever that means anymore) moral and political paradigm.
Relatedly: Maybe the definition of "swing vote" will have to change in the near future, too, given the current "liberal" to "conservative" ratio on the Court, etc. But historically -- and for the time being -- "swing vote" meant a vote that could go from one of those to the other. Roberts is the only current Justice who has actually done that in any meaningful way.
In short, there is no reasonable basis to assert Kavanaugh or Barrett are "swing votes" unless you are some combination of naive or ignorant, and/or just straight-up acting in bad faith.
All of this, however, is completely beside the point: This is Chief Justice Roberts's wiki page. If someone wants to make the claim that Kavanaugh and/or Barrett are "swing votes" they can try to do so on those Justices' respective pages or wherever. I see no point whatsoever for this to be a part of Justice Roberts's page, and I'd delete that language if I could. 2603:8000:2503:CCD7:2DE4:622E:EF0C:14A4 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The main point is that being the ideological median of the court (which currently the Roberts and Kavanaugh article introductions claim is Kavanaugh) does not make the justice the most "swingy". The rest of the explanation are there to help explain that main point. (As a side note, the 3-3-3 split that dives in further than the 6-3 composition is elaborated in the Roberts Court article from some sources.) 2603:8000:B600:4000:F5F7:89A3:7D8E:E1B4 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

I think this sentence in the intro is grammatically awkward. I propose changing:

He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy but, above all, an institutionalist;[8][9] he has shown a willingness to work with the Supreme Court's liberal bloc, and between the time of the retirement of Anthony Kennedy in 2018 and the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, he was regarded as the primary swing vote on the Court.

To:

He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy but, above all, as an institutionalist.[8][9] He has shown a willingness to work with the Supreme Court's liberal bloc, and between the time of the retirement of Anthony Kennedy in 2018 and the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, he was regarded as the primary swing vote on the Court. 199.107.16.120 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Done.  White Whirlwind  20:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding Category Abortion

given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.

-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Undone. Please see Talk:Ketanji_Brown_Jackson#Adding_Category_Abortion for centralized discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges. Endwise (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

Remove the political party from the infobox. Justices aren’t part of political parties. You continue to degrade and destroy any credibility this site has or ever will, ridiculous. 2605:B100:308:2B19:1DD1:F07E:1C2E:7A73 (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is a contentious edit, or this has already been discussed, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. If there is an existing discussion on the talk page please contribute to that section. If there is no existing discussion you may explain why this edit should be made in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. Whinging aside, this is a valid and nuanced discussion to have (and similar ones have been done at in the past at Talk:Brett Kavanaugh). Feel free to do so here on the talk page but this would clearly be a controversial edit and therefore outside the scope of an edit request Cannolis (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Despite his/her abrasiveness, he/she may have a point. It looks like only Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh have political party affiliation noted in their infoboxes.  White Whirlwind  08:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: Considering the fact that this has been done and reverted, and referred to this page as the consensus, and this edit request is still open and on the list, I'm gonna close it as no, per consensus, just to get it off the list. Feel free to change this if you are still debating, I'm just doing some housekeeping. Fbifriday (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment after the request was denied

Opinion about Roberts' Republican affiliation discrepancy

This opinion section is a Wikipedia namespace essay

The above comments in this thread illustrate the controversy embedded between the key conflicting viewpoints regarding Roberts' Republican (GOP) affiliation discrepancy; certainly from the direct written perspective of the thread's participants, yet also from the spirit of the global WP editor community, as well as viewpoints that readers are accustomed to hearing in real-life vocal discussions.

Since the United States (US) is the ultimate mother/umbrella article that influences all other article topics affected by this discrepancy,…

…it might stand to reason that the current US talk thread could serve as the hub to host the centralized discussion regarding the degree to which Roberts is affiliated with the GOP, lest the longstanding WP-wide paradigm of Roberts/GOP-based fragmented edit wars and ever-changing inconsistent information[b] across the board continues onward.[c]

Perhaps a uniform neutral premise postulated in the first main mention of Roberts’ name throughout all articles, with content and style[d] that is contextual to each individual article, is an agreeable compromise between all sides[e] of this longstanding WP-wide dispute.[f]

How this appears in a main Roberts mention might be to the effect of the following, using the US infobox as an example platform:

This offers neutrality, as it prevents WP from arbitrarily picking one of the two main sides,[h] allowing readers to explore the footnoted/piped links and make an independent informed decision for themselves, instead of individual WP editors and admins telling readers which side to take of an issue that is not a universal fact.[i]

Alternative suggested edit for this article

[j]Consider the following syntax modifications as an alternative suggested method of displaying the Republican Party in the infobox:

Current
Assumed office
September 29, 2005
Nominated by…George W. Bush
Political party…Republican
Suggested
Assumed office
September 29, 2005
Nominated by…George W. Bush[k]
Political party…Republican

Closing statement

What we DO have as an existing universal consensus is that George W. Bush is a Republican, so let's all meet at that table, and build from there. 50.247.107.45 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes

  1. ^ In these two flowcharts of article-to-article influence within the American judicial and political systems, the flow of influence is asymmetrically downward, hence the arrows. As a practical example for the WP editor & admin perspective, for the past 17 years the influence of John Roberts on the US article has been limited to the same unchanging pair of two words copied from its title ("John Roberts") and the disputed presence of one additional letter (R); conversely, if a new law were to pass that fundamentally alters the American judicial system, the US really only has 1-2 sentences maximum that could possibly be affected, while the same judicial system change would likely lead to heavy reconstruction and overhaul of one or more entire sections of the John Roberts article
  2. ^ Note that the request to strip the infobox GOP link at the US talk thread was accepted, and the identically-natured request here in this Roberts talk thread was rejected
  3. ^ which ultimately confuses the average reader (who is oblivious to the editors' backstage area) while they navigate between the above articles using the texts' wikilinks
  4. ^ i.e. bare text word choice, explanatory footnote, piped link, etc
  5. ^ even the most "opposing" ones
  6. ^ as evidenced in non-Roberts applications such as the one that Cannolis has shown above me
  7. ^ Nominated by President George W. Bush (R) in 2005
  8. ^ Side A: Explicitly enmeshing Roberts with the GOP or Side B: Completely disassociating Roberts from the GOP
  9. ^ and might be eternally unconsensus-able anyways
  10. ^ In light of the above opinion…
  11. ^ Republican U.S. President (2001-2009)

50.247.107.45 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC) (2nd sig. for technical/format clarity)

Opinion

@Randy Kryn: The nature, context, and circumstance of the fresh court decision seems to cause a new surge in polarization from both left/right about the Supreme Court's partisanship level among the mass population, WP readers, and possibly editors too. The surge is noticeable around related WP talk pages, including here obviously.

Roberts is the most contentious because he casted an ambiguous middle-of-the-road vote in an otherwise very sharply left/right split court, and I think both main sides of this mass discrepancy want to "claim" him for their team (blank team or R team), and/or "label" him with the opposing team's identity to make him look bad.

Looking at the entire US historical lens since its founding that you’re familiar with, Dobby v Jackson could be up there in a top 10 conversation with cases such as Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board, Texas v Johnson, Miranda v Arizona, and obviously Roe v Wade.

With that said, how do you think this type of justice-party relationship should be indicated across the board in WP neutral tone?

Did John Jay do or say anything that might be relevant to the discrepancy?

Do the Articles of Confederation, US Constitution, and other founding documents shed light on this matter at all?

Any parallels/similarities between Jay and Roberts? 209.36.2.102 (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, but I've never edited this page or talk page and won't start doing so in the middle of such a dividing ruling. Jay and Roberts are two centuries removed from each other, and it's possible that Jay never even heard of or had any dealings with abortion. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutral Comment Hey everyone, I'm just patrolling requested edits, this is still open, it hasn't been discussed in about 10 days, and it has been added and reverted since then. I'm guessing this edit request is closed, by consensus? Fbifriday (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Barnes, Robert (July 7, 2020). "Chief Justice John Roberts was hospitalized last month after injuring his head in a fall". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  2. ^ Barnes, Robert (July 7, 2020). "Chief Justice John Roberts was hospitalized last month after injuring his head in a fall". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  3. ^ Barnes, Robert (July 7, 2020). "Chief Justice John Roberts was hospitalized last month after injuring his head in a fall". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 8, 2020. The incident was announced by the Supreme Court press office on July 7, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Roberts/Archive_5&oldid=1188695838"