Talk:Aileen Cannon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fixed Judge Aileen M. Cannon's page

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.

---

Some clown put label under her name "Trump Court Jester". This is not right. Where are people's sensibilities. You you politicize Wikipedia, no one will use it. 47.192.114.252 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This judge did not rule in favor of Trump based on the legal arguments they provided. The judge found her own reasoning to rule in their favor in her order asking the attorneys to elaborate in certain ways. If you do not label these actions correctly, and if you closet the page, no one will use Wikipedia as it does not accurately represent malfeasance. 2603:7081:7746:700:54AE:FA51:FF67:E571 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

So we know who did it now. Also, are there NO reliable sources that state that her rulings ARE within good jurisprudence. 2603:8081:8900:349:5A3A:DFD3:E7EA:3002 (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2022 (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.

Blatant political misinformation

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.

---

"She ruled in favor of Donald Trump on September 5, 2022, and surprisingly enjoined the Department of Justice from using the materials seized from Donald Trump's home in any criminal investigation, an unexpected move which has no precedence in the law." Is a blatantly lie to spread political misinformation and needs to he immediately removed. A "citation needed" is insufficient as this is actively spreading blatantly misinformation. 76.20.186.149 (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The judge created a legal fiction to protect the person that appointed them to their lifetime office. The judge should recuse herself from the case because she is unable to be impartial. 99.37.244.168 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Too many wikipedia editors are insufficiently trained to assess the judge's favoritism at play here. 2603:7081:7746:700:54AE:FA51:FF67:E571 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

She was Appointed by one of the parties in the case. This is a blatant conflict of interest on her part and she Should have recused herself from the case. Not doing so unquestionably demonstrates Bias on her part. 38.67.247.68 (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually every President appoints slews of judges and while their past rulings offer a glimpse into their political leanings, it’s extraordinarily rare to find a judge ruling in their appointer’s favor, as seemingly happened here. In fact the smack down she received from the higher court was two Trump judges and an Obama judge, I believe. In these actions going all the way to the Supreme Court, a significant number of judges would have to be stepping aside, which is not the norm. 2601:646:4100:65:3DB3:FD2E:EF46:3DAF (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

^ruling in favor without legal basis, I should have said. 2601:646:4100:65:3DB3:FD2E:EF46:3DAF (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This article would lead you to believe that her ruling is not supported by anybody. It only cites biased media reports (NTY, CNN, The Atlantic). There are just as many other reports that support her ruling in this case. Get the political bias out of this article. 108.189.61.166 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to link additional sources here that meet WP:RS critera, and we can discuss whether and how they could be added.Dialectric (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, the article contains this: Among her most notable critics was Trump's former Attorney generalWilliam Barr, who went on Fox News twice within a week to criticize Cannon's opinion and blast it as "loyalty to the president who appointed her". which incorrectly presents the the quoted text as the words of AG Barr. Using the link to the CNN Politics page reveals that the quoted text is the words of the CNN Politics writer, not Mr. Barr Eduardobaston (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the "loyalty to the president who appointed her" quote could be confused as attributed to Barr, which is not supported by the source. I have removed this specific quote.Dialectric (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s roundly criticized by nearly every expert in the field, that I’ve seen, and the subsequent higher court responses and the words from special master Dearie seem to side with the vast, critical majority. 2601:646:4100:65:3DB3:FD2E:EF46:3DAF (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2022 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2022

Her published opinion should not be called a "ruling" as that would imply she legally owns the case, which she does not. The case is owned by Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart and as such, only he can issue rulings in regards to it. BlueLibrarian (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done: A ruling is any official or authoritative decision, decree, statement, or interpretation made by a judge on a point of law. It doesn't necessarily imply that she owns the case. For clarity's sake, however, it has been changed from "ruling on Trump" to "granted Trump's request". Hextor26 (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Information needed, cannot find anywhere else reputable

This is simply a request for editors or someone who's really knowledgeable about looking up these things to add the following to this page: 1) When she arrived in the US; and 2) When and where she was naturalized as a US citizen. For all I can tell from Wikipedia - or anywhere else on the web - we may have an undocumented alien as a federal judge. Johnd39 (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I would assume that the background check required when she took her clerkship, if not the one for when became a prosecutor, would have turned that issue up. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A Miami Herald piece from Sept 2022 says her father is from Indiana.Dialectric (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The same piece linked above said Cannon grew up in Miami. starship.paint (exalt) 03:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation Issues

There are many citation issues here on this particular page. As to be expected given that this person is a political hot topic. Somebody should investigate. 47.223.57.163 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What is going on here? Information presented should be backed up by citation. 47.223.57.163 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Please be specific about what citations, or lack of citations, you find issues with.Dialectric (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe everything should be cited now, if anything isn't, please state so. starship.paint (exalt) 09:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Needs work

The level of detail included on the recent controversy is grossly in excess of the norm on judicial biography pages, to the point that it is unreadable--and to make matters worse, a good deal of it is thinly-disguised editorializing . I did my best on a cleanup earlier but I see that Starship.paint restored all of their earlier text. I suggest moving back to a more pared-down approach and including a "main article" link to Trump v. United States for readers primarily interested in the case's blow-by-blow (though that article also appears to have major problems). Iowalaw2 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(1) Not all the text was restored, in fact some was left deleted as a compromise. (2) Not all cases are equal; how many district judges have ruled over a case between a former president and the current government? The Trump case is easily the most important thing Cannon has done, and will likely be so for the foreseeable future; this is her legacy. (3) The Trump case has received vast amount of WP:RS attention and is thus afforded appropriate weight. (4) It is obviously significant that Cannon was thoroughly overruled by the Eleventh Circuit, and should be documented thus. (5) What thinly-disguised editorializing, is there anything beyond what the reliable sources have highlighted? starship.paint (exalt) 14:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For example: describing Colloton as a "conservative" judge, implying that Cannon was unusually inexperienced by citing the ABA guidelines, describing the alleged partisanship of the Eleventh Circuit panel, including an extraordinary amount of information about the Eleventh Circuit decision. Plus there's just a lot of bulky writing. If you want to write more about this case, I suggest working on Trump v. United States, or perhaps an op-ed to your local newspaper. Iowalaw2 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2023 (U

I did not go beyond the reliable sources. (a) describing Colloton as a "conservative" judge [1] NYT: She worked as a federal prosecutor, clerked for a conservative federal judge … As a clerk, she worked for Judge Steven M. Colloton. (b) allegedly implying that Cannon was unusually inexperienced by citing the ABA guidelines, same NYT source At the time of her nomination, Ms. Cannon had been a lawyer for 12 years, the minimum threshold to meet the American Bar Association’s qualification standard. (c) describing the alleged partisanship of the Eleventh Circuit panel, see [2] Politico: Two of the three judges on the panel, Andrew Brasher and Britt Grant, were appointed to the court by Trump. The third, Robin Rosenbaum, was appointed by President Barack Obama … The appeals court’s opinion was unsparing toward Cannon and replete with indications that the appeals judges took a vastly different approach to the document fight than she did. and also see [3] Politco again The three-judge panel’s unsparing ruling … The panel of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that U.S. district Court Judge Aileen Cannon erred … The ruling was issued by 11th Circuit Chief Judge William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, and two of Trump’s own appeals court picks, Andrew Brasher and Britt Grant. starship.paint (exalt) 01:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

As a compromise on length, I will trim the other judges out. starship.paint (exalt) 12:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that a very large portion of the content (10,534 characters) has now been removed by Iowalaw2, including from the lede which no longer summaries the content of the article. I'm concerned that the article no longer makes clear the overwhelmingly negative response the subject received for her actions in Trump v. United States which is a big issue for the subject. Is the subject being whitewashed? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Introductions to biography articles, without exception to my knowledge, do not contain information on individual cases. Virtually all federal judges preside over many cases that receive news coverage, so a different rule would be untenable. For example, the intro to William H. Pryor Jr., one of the most prominent and controversial judges in the country and the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, does not describe any of his many highly controversial cases.

If you want to add a sentence adding that some media commentators criticized Cannon's decisions, go ahead, I have no objection. I am not trying to "whitewash" the article, just align it with the general best practices for judicial biography articles. Iowalaw2 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:WHATABOUT William Pryor? No, what we should we doing is following Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. If we fail to do that, we fail WP:NPOV. starship.paint (exalt) 01:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want to add a sentence adding that some media commentators criticized Cannon's decisions, go ahead, I have no objection. - but who removed the content of many legal experts (law professors Ryan Goodman, Peter M. Shane, Orin Kerr, David Alan Sklansky, Samuel W. Buell, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.; former White House ethics chief Norm Eisen, former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, and Trump's former Attorney General William Barr) criticising the decision? [4] You apparently did, Iowalaw2, and I didn’t restore. starship.paint (exalt) 01:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The previous state of the article frankly looked vandalized--I'm pretty shocked that it was written by an apparently experienced editor. General biography articles should not have lists of takes by law professors on judicial decisions. Otherwise almost every judicial biography article would have them. Again, this is a perfect case for the use of Template:Main. And your "compromise" leaves in much of the most inappropriate editorializing content (for example, describing Colloton as "conservative," the snarky aside about the ABA, etc.). Along with some stuff that's just bizarre (for example, Cannon's bar admission date and sister). This is a BLP that must conform to WP:BLPSTYLE.

I have explained the reasons why the general consensus on Wikipedia is to not summarize cases in intros. (None of the Supreme Court justice articles do either.) If you want to note that Cannon was the judge in Trump v. US, that's fine, but a procedural-posture blow-by-blow is not appropriate; that gives too much weight as judges just preside over too many cases. I'd encourage you to look at the norms in high-quality judiciary articles worked on by specialist editors if you want to continue working in this area. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Iowalaw2 wrote: I'd encourage you to look at the norms in high-quality judiciary articles worked on by specialist editors if you want to continue working in this area. Since you have around 339 edits and Starship.paint has over 51,000 since May 2011, perhaps you might reconsider your stance? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Esowteric, Iowala2 specializes in legal writing on Wikipedia. I think he understands Wikipedia just fine. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

A. B., Iowalaw2: this was simply a reminder that we are not in a courtroom here. There's no harm, and a lot to gain by all parties, in being collegial. "It's not what you say, but the way that you say it," as that earworm of a song goes. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight: Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each ... and An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. ... imo, Trump v. United States is highly significant (at this point in the subject's judicial career). The coverage is as much about the subject's handling of the case, as the case itself. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any point in opening an RFC to help establish local consensus? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Esowteric: - not at this point because the scope of Iowalaw’s objections are too large and vague. RFCs can more clearly decide regarding the inclusion of one sentence or the inclusion of one paragraph. What Iowalaw2 is attempting to do is dramatically deleting large amounts of content which are cited by reliable sources. The resulting RFC may simply be too messy to decide between any individual piece of content. starship.paint (exalt) 03:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Iowalaw2: - why are you continuing to insist that there is most inappropriate editorializing content when I have already proven to you, on this talk page, with quotes, that these details about the conservative judge and the ABA came directly from the New York Times? [5] clerked for a conservative federal judge … As a clerk, she worked for Judge Steven M. Colloton … Cannon had been a lawyer for 12 years, the minimum threshold to meet the American Bar Association’s qualification standard… Even more perplexing is that a simple mention of having a sister, or a lawyer having a date of passing the Bar, is considered bizarre to you. Miami Herald: [6] Cannon, who was born in Cali, Colombia, but grew up in Miami along with an older sister. Politifact: [7] She was admitted to the Florida Bar in 2012 and has no discipline history … Cannon was previously licensed to practice law in California. Records from the State Bar of California show that after being admitted to the organization in 2008… These are simple biographical details that reliable sources have covered. This seems more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT despite what reliable sources report. starship.paint (exalt) 03:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I have been adding sources to the article to justify WP:DUE inclusion of any actions or words in this case. When I couldn't find multiple sources to back up certain quotes within the rulings, I have deleted that content. Again, content has been cut down. If anyone has any doubts of the importance of Trump v. United States to Aileen Cannon, take note [8], there are 56 sources in the article at this version, of which 52/56 feature Trump v. United States. Of the 4/56 remaining sources, 2 are primary sources about her judicial commission, and 2 are secondary sources on United States v. Hoeffer. starship.paint (exalt) 13:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'm getting anywhere with @Starship.paint. I have no objection to either a RFC or just inviting input informally from people who may have encountered similar issues, such as @Marquardtika or @Snickers2686, who have worked on tons of these, including earlier versions of this article. Issues like this come up occasionally--e.g. Linda R. Reade used to have a very long description of the Postville raid litigation. After the more recent edits I'll concede that the article is at least getting more readable versus the prior drafts. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Cannon has been the subject of widespread and detailed criticism concerning her role in the matter of Trump. There have also been narratives about Cannon as a product of the Heritage Foundation and the very effective grooming of raw talent by the Federalist Society to take their places in the judiciary. Cannon is fairly nondescript and barely notable except for the events related to the matter of Trump. The recent cleanup has greatly improved the page, although there's lots more that could be sourced and detailed concerning her conduct and competence. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC) add Federalist Society.17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Every federal judge is notable, and the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with judicial nominations (you're thinking of the Federalist Society). And the last thing the article needs is even more political commentary. Iowalaw2 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I said barely notable. Added Federalist Society. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Iowalaw2: - aren’t getting anywhere? The removal of around 500 words of old article text, ignoring references (from before you touched the article), a reduction of around 25%, begs to differ. Around 100 words were added, so a net change of -400 words, net reduction of 20%. That’s compromise. The remaining Trump v US stuff, it’s heavily sourced, it’s WP:DUE. I could add even more sources. Law professors are saying that the 11th Circuit opinion shows that Cannon was “very wrong” and also said this may be her most important case ever. Relevant? Important? Reliably sourced? All yes. starship.paint (exalt) 23:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Judge Aileen Cannon is not presiding over Trump’s arraignment

Judge Aileen Cannon is not presiding over Trump’s arraignment 2600:4040:A198:6000:D81F:524:BA22:6CD0 (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Trump appointee will remain judge in documents case

Trump appointee will remain judge in documents case, chief clerk says (NYT), unless she recuses herself. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Judge Aileen Cannon is not presiding over Trump’s arraignment. 2600:4040:A198:6000:D81F:524:BA22:6CD0 (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for protecting the page

I propose that the page be protected. There already have been several edits by anonymous IP only editors, edits that have often warranted reversion. The page needs sound, fair stewardship.Dogru144 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Removing political commentary (again)"

I'm concerned that this edit by Iowalaw2 (an editor who is an expert in law) with the inadequete edit summary "Removing political commentary (again)" also removed valid and notable criticism of Cannon by other law experts. And deleting 6,678 characters is certainly not a minor, uncontroversial edit.

I also note that this edit had to be made "(again)" because a previous attempt to make similar changes was challenged and/or reinstated by other editors here. Such bold edits could perhaps be broken into smaller chunks and also discussed here on the article's talk page in the first instance (as also suggested by another reverting editor at Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, with a similar edit summary: "the commentary is notable and relevant. Such removals should be discussed in Talk first."). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 06:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Articles about judges obviously should not include laundry lists of professors' reactions to the judges' decisions from Twitter. Or plenty of other bizarre stuff in this article (e.g. noting that Cannon has a sister, or the snarky aside on the ABA guidelines on judges' ages). These are not good-faith inclusions consistent with NPOV. I limited the removals to things there could be no real defense of, versus the earlier attempt at a more sweeping rewrite (I still think the coverage of the cases is vastly disproportionate, but it's less wrong than these parts). I'll even leave in the discussion of Cannon's reasons for joining Fed Soc, even though they essentially just say "I joined Fed Soc because I like Fed Soc." Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave it for others here to decide whether or not they agree with you. I reverted before too many more edits piled on top of your bold edit. I'm glad that you removed from your reply above ... and nobody has ever tried to defend them. If the judge was not someone you had a political axe to grind against, you would never include them." ..., because that, to me, suggests that your edits are based on your perception of these people's motivations, which is sort of unspoken WP:OR or POV in itself. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I deleted it because I realize that most of the people here lack experience in this area, which is also a likely explanation. But this does tend to happen to articles about judges who get lots of attention in the liberal press. I would have the same objection to anyone loading up Mark E. Walker, a bete noir of the legal right who has been reversed as much as anyone, with conservative criticism. Iowalaw2 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There are no special rules for articles about judges. You may have an opinion that these articles should follow a standardised format, but unless this is supported by WP:RFC conclusions or other open WP processes, an opinion does not dictate content. Your removals include WP:RS commentary on rulings cited to the NYTimes and the ABA Journal. Removals of relevant RS sources should be discussed on talk first, and such sources cannot reasonably be described as "reactions to the judges' decisions from Twitter.". Dialectric (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't remove the NYT article (I just cleaned up the discussion of it a bit). The ABA Journal article is literally a roundup of tweets. I like Orin Kerr as much as the next guy, but there's no need to include his tweets in a Wikipedia article. Iowalaw2 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that "Removing political commentary" says it all, really. Who is to say that it was politically motivated, rather than motivated by a desire to make facts known. For example that Cannon may have erred in her rulings, or that she's too inexperienced to handle a high-profile case like XYZ? It is our job to state facts and not interpret. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The argument that Cannon is "too inexperienced to handle a high-profile case" is both plainly wrong (regardless of her flaws, her background is extremely typical for a federal district judge) and plainly a statement of opinion. That the you think that's "stating facts" rather than "interpreting" explains how the article got to its sorry state. Iowalaw2 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What is "stating facts" quoting from? It sounds like you would like to add your WP:OR regarding her experience. I am focused on content cited to WP:RS, and question why you want to remove those sources. Some opinions are relevant whether they are right or wrong, if the source is a known expert in that area.Dialectric (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a response to @Esowteric, not you. And no, I do not plan to add anything to the article, including regarding her experience. I left in extensive discussion of the errors in the case--too much, imo--but there's no need to also include hundreds of words of conclusory statements to the effect that "Professor John Doe also believes that she is a moron."Iowalaw2 (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said something along the lines of "we should be reflecting what reliable sources have to say about the subject", not interpreting or cherry-picking those sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Also bear in mind the non-mandatory WP:BRD and also WP:3RR. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies User:Iowalaw2, in my recent edit summary I misunderstood the edit history as 3RR violation, when your most recent revert was the second (after a revert and then an initial bold deletion). I think it is very clear, however, that consensus has not been reached here and the status quo should remain in place until it is. StereoFolic (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, though technically it might also fall under the BLP exception. Though I doubt consensus can be reached; the editors who loaded up the article with political commentary are not persuadable. They just assert that the tweets are reliable and not undue, and don't address the other quips littered throughout. We tried bringing in some other people the last time Cannon was in the news to no avail. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is what a reliable source has to say about Cannon's lack of experience, that you pooh-pooh:

"A review of the Southern District of Florida dockets show Cannon’s criminal work has consisted almost entirely of a few categories of cases: distribution of a controlled substance, illegal reentry of people who had previously been deported, felons in possession of firearms and child pornography or trafficking. Nearly all have resulted in plea agreements, and the four that did not were handled in brief trials that lasted no more than three days apiece in court." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually claim she's inexperienced. And you (characteristically) leave out the inconvenient parts of the article--she's a former federal prosecutor, she obviously has a lot of experience with federal criminal law, more than most federal judges. But anyway, I have no interest in going back and forth on this with you--you're wrong, ask any lawyer you're friendly with, but I'm not going to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. You've made your interest in the article clear, and it isn't a neutral one. Iowalaw2 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

BLPs should let the subject speak for themselves at times, which is why I think the reasons for joining FedSoc should stay, even if Iowalaw2 thinks those reasons are self-explanatory. But I agree with a lot of what else Iowalaw2 removed, since the text that was here was largely a pile-on. In particular, the Eleventh Circuit's overruling of her can speak for itself; there's no need to include legal commentators saying the same thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

As a compromise interim measure, I've attempted to remove only the aspects of the article that appear not to have defenders here. I left the op-ed and Twitter commentary, but I still think it's obviously undue weight. I also did a couple of bits of general cleanup. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You keep using "Twitter commentary" here, and yet the article doesn't mention Twitter nor does it use Tweets as a source. But maybe you "lack experience in this area". Cortador (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

More specifically: the bit about journalists confirming that Cannon was picked randomly should stay because that was only done because the randomness was questioned. Cortador (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Thank you Iowalaw2 for the partial restoration and discussion. I am still not sure what you are referring to as twitter commentary, as twitter isn't mentioned in this article, used as a ref, or mentioned in the ABA Journal or NYTimes articles on Cannon that you initially removed. I disagree with Wasted Time R's view that briefly covering RS articles focused on the rulings is 'a pile-on'. Dialectric (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Career

Edit reverted on October 12, 2022 left the last name of the individual that was deleted in a previous sentence. Could someone adjust the last sentence in Career referring to person. Erin1973 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

. Her impartiality has been called into question by several legal scholars, leading for calls for her to recuse herself from the case.

Since some users dont use this talk page I will. I belive this should be removed. The "experts" quoted in the articles used as evidence are left wing twitter activists with no legal expertise. Therefore it should be removed. 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek: a trio of legal experts—Norm Eisen, attorney and former U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic; Richard W. Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer, and Fred Wertheimer, attorney and president of Democracy 21—said Cannon should recuse herself from the classified documents proceedings, or the DOJ should launch proceedings to have her recused.

Salon:

• Former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore, who recently resigned from the team, told the outlet that the allegations in the indictment are damning.
• Carol Lam, a former federal judge and U.S. attorney, told MSNBC that Cannon's earlier rulings suggests "she bends over backwards a little bit more for the former president" but how that would play out in a trial "remains to be seen."

Daily Beast:

• Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance [tweeted] that Cannon’s latest order "may tee up the issue of her fitness on this case.
• Andrew Weissmann, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, suggested the same—[tweeting] that Cannon's order is "off base."

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Carol Lam-MSNBC Contributor(Leftist)

Norman L. Eisen(worked with democrats for the first impeachment)

Richard W. Painter wrote an anti trump book

Fred Wertheimer left wing activist.

None of these people should be considered impartial considering they are anti Trump which make them impossible to be non biasewd. I would say the same for pro trump. Basic research shows they are not reliable. 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Joyce Vance is a Obama alum and left wing twitter activist.

Basic resarch will show that 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Salon is a left wing magazine wikipedia's own page on the site says that.

Daily Beast is another left wing site. 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

We should probably have a section about this in the article. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, and this is clearly relevant. – bradv 16:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a cottage industry of people giving opinions about how high-profile, ongoing legal cases are conducted. Per WP:NOTNEWS, I would leave all this commentary out, both here and in the Tanya S. Chutkan article and in any similar BLPs on judges. Wait until the cases are over and more dispassionate analyses are available. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Which part of WP:NOTNEWS do you think applies here? – bradv 17:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I don't think that reflexive, as-it-happens commentary on pre-trial motions has any lasting value. Wait and see what happens. If some of her rulings get reversed by a higher court, as happened last year, then that can be included. There's no rush. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd actually agree with Wasted Time R, much as I roll my eyes at Cannon's rulings. Let's wait and see. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

These are relevant expert opinions and the reason for removing them is incorrect and invalid. Andre🚐 18:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't.

Just because you believe something is relevant doesn't mean you are correct I belive that two users don't have the power to change somehting that is being debated. 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

These expert opinions, from very high profile people, are clearly significant and need to be adressed. Her role in Trump's cases has become a major debate in itself. Were it not for that role, she would be a very obscure figure that virtually noone had heard of, so most of her notability is derived from her involvement in Trump's cases. --Tataral (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the solution to this is to list some sort of descriptor for these people to be on the Left - so the reader can balance their opinions, especially in the lede. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed that says they are on the left. Andre🚐 17:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

We should keep the body and lead content. This is a major feature of reliable source coverage for the past month, and I have no reason to doubt that it will continue. We might add some content to the body about other legal experts defending her, especially after she made some decisions unfavorable to the defense (see, e.g., this NYT piece). NOTNEWS discussion are tough—we often have reasonable but opposite interpretations of the policy. I do think the arguments based on sleuthing the political leanings of source authors should be discarded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Update

I restored this and it was immediately removed again, in this edit. Any concern about the in-line sourcing can easily be addressed, per this thread. I'm not going to engage in this edit-war. @Starship.paint:, or any volunteer, please restore this article content. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I still believe it's best to leave it out, regardless of how many cites you can pile on. Legal pundits and their opinions are dime a dozen, what really matters is what happens in court and whether any of her decisions later get overturned or otherwise criticized by an appeals court. Wait and see what happens. Same applies to the Tanya S. Chutkan article and the Arthur Engoron article if there was one and the same for any other judge presiding over any other high-profile case. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing that happens in court will ever demonstrate anything othere than expert opinion that she was biased. There have been no credible expert claims of bias by the other two magistrates in RS. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I restored it. It's reliable enough and uncontroverisal. Andre🚐 16:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added several sources. Andre🚐 16:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, most of the current sources are still not good enough. (1) WP:RSP: Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. (2) WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. (3) WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. (4) New Yorker - OK. (5) Opinion article in the New York Times. (6) WP:NEWSBLOG by MSNBC that certainly reads like a column - "whacked-out rulings for Trump". So, only one (4th sources) of out six are okay. What we need are news articles from reliable sources. Also I am not sure how anyone would think that questioning a judge's impartiality is uncontroversial. starship.paint (RUN) 08:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

... and further down the article: (7) WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. (8) Plus a Salon article appearing in Yahoo News. starship.paint (RUN) 08:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

New Yorker plus actual Yahoo News gives decent content from five people, Stephen Gillers, Richard Painter, Norman Eisen, Fred Wertheimer, Laurence Tribe. Looks better now. starship.paint (RUN) 08:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. I'm fine with some legal experts per your changes. But the opinion article was a prosecutor with expertise, so a relevant expert. That's why I threw that one in. Andre🚐 23:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that indeed, the opinion article was written by a prosecutor. I just feel that it is stronger to have a news article presenting opinions and calling the person a "legal expert". starship.paint (RUN) 12:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)