Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Style of District Judge titles

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but I'd like to get a determination for the proper style for the title of a United States District Judge. U.S. Congress and White House style guides state that on their documents the title should appear as "United States District Judge for the XXX District of STATE". But I keep getting these reverted to "Judge of the United States District Court for the XXX District of STATE". I'm wondering if it's getting confused because the style guide on Appeals Court judges is "Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the ### Circuit" and some of the less detailed government agency guides just have a generic judge guidance to use "Judge of XXX Court". Was there a Wikipedia discussion on the preferred style or are different people just kind of going by what they think looks right? --Asdasdasdff (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

List of conservative US justices listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of conservative US justices to be moved to List of conservative United States judges. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Nominees

So I'm confused about something. Articles are always made for nominees to any federal or territorial court. Now I'm being told that because a nominee may not be acted upon that it fails WP:USJUDGE or that we may never know if they'll get the office that it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Yet there are scores of former nominee articles out there that remain and some who may be renominated under any administration like William F. Jung or Diane Gujarati for example, that have never been contested or removed. Some have gone on to hold other offices, like Clare E. Connors, whose nomination expired but went on to become the Attorney General of Hawaii. I'm just wondering, do any and all expired nominees for a judgeship (or any office for that matter) automatically have to be deleted/removed because their nomination failed or may still be pending? Snickers2686 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: I took a look at the policy, and I think it merits a change. Pending nominees, at the minimum, should have articles. There might be a case for deleting an article for a failed nominee from 10 years ago (e.g. Linda T. Walker), but more recent nominees should stay. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 00:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: See, I'm like you, it doesn't make sense to me. Currently the John C. Truong and Danny Lam Nguyen articles I created are undergoing an AfD discussion and I'm being told that because they're nominees they don't meet standards for an article. Sooo...what happens to the multiple articles that have been created for former nominees then? What about the other D.C. Superior court nominees or D.C. Appeals Court nominees? It seems very messy to target some articles and not others. Snickers2686 (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: Because there's a high chance of them being confirmed, you should probably save the content of the articles in your user space before they're deleted. That way they'll be easy to recreate in the future. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 02:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

So I think the policy as written means these types of articles should be deleted. That's the letter of the law. Now, the fact is we have historically had these types of articles. So the spirit of the law has allowed their creation. But if we want to ensure that these types of articles should stay--which I think they should--I think we are going to need to change the policy. Marquardtika (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

How can these still be live nominations, unless they were resubmitted by the new president following the change of administration? BD2412 T 19:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: Trump renominated some on 1/3, and their nominations don't expire until the Congress ends, or until Biden withdraws them. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 23:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Is that unusual? BD2412 T 23:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears to have happened last time around. E.g. Glenn Fine was nominated in the 114th Congress, Congress returned the nomination on Jan 3, 2017, and then he was re-nominated in the 115th on Jan. 4. The nom. was then withdrawn by the President on Feb. 27. I suppose maybe we should look back 8 years prior to that in order to see how things work in a more administratively normal presidency, but I haven't done that. jhawkinson (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

So it seems that a seat is opening up after Roslynn R. Mauskopf's appointment as Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. However it seems that Mauskopf's seat won't be vacated and a new seat will be created instead. Could someone explain how this works?2601:241:300:B610:CD83:FB95:B31D:5D37 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Hugo Black

Hugo Black, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Category:Judges who died in office and Category:United States federal judges who died in office

A deletion discussion has been initiated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 2#Category:Judges who died in office, encompassing Category:Judges who died in office and Category:United States federal judges who died in office, and Category:Judges who died in office. If these categories are deleted, their contents will be upmerged into Category:People who died in office. BD2412 T 16:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Melville Fuller

I've been working on Chief Justice Melville Fuller's article for some time now, and it's reached the point where I'm about ready to send it over to GAN. But before I do that, I really would appreciate it if some of you would take a look through the article and provide some feedback. I trust it will be worth your time: Fuller is a fascinating figure whom I've greatly enjoyed "getting to know" through my research. Thanks in advance for any comments you all might have. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Bringing federal judges into compliance with WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NCP

Because most federal judges' article titles were pulled from their encyclopedic FJC pages, they are frequently not the names the judges were/are commonly referred to. Apart from being out of step with WP policy, this is annoying when researching a judge whose page doesn't make it clear that they are known by their middle name, etc. This is something I encounter constantly in my current project to add images to as many federal judges as possible (about 15% done, able to provide Commons-eligible photos for 90% of judges). I am planning to research the various permutations of the names of federal judges as they've appeared in the press. I've begun this project here, for judges with surnames starting with A. Among these pages, I found 49 to be properly named, 60 that should be moved, and 5 that I wanted to gather input on. I'm not intending to move particularly famous judges' pages, but I will examine them nonetheless.

I search newspapers.com from the beginning of judgeship to death. I search (phrases starting with "judge ..." unless the judge was primarily known for something else/served for a short time) for "first middle last", "first initial last", "initial middle last", "initial initial last", "first last" and "middle last", as well as permutations involving multiple middle names, matronymic surnames, maiden names, married names, and nicknames. I also calculate a total portion of all references that include a suffix. To arrive at the proper page name: if a version of the name occurs at least 10% more than any other version, it should be used unless is requires a parenthetical disambiguation that another version of the name (occurring at least 15% of the time) does not. If several possible name versions are within 10% of each other, and one is a "first last" version, it should be used because WP:NCP treats that as the default unless the individual is "much better known by some other name."

I have two questions (see the "Several Possibilities" section on the page I linked to): should I treat initialed names the same as others, or should I refrain from using them unless there is no other common name for the judge? Albert Barnes Anderson was referred to as A. B. Anderson 83% of the time, so clearly that was the name by which he was known. But I'll admit to not loving initialed names, as they remove a level of specificity, and it's worth noting that the press would sometimes refer to a person by initials even if that wasn't their common name. Other cases: M. W. Acheson (65%) or Marcus W. Acheson (24%) for Marcus Wilson Acheson, A. C. Angell (56%) or Alexis C. Angell (35%) for Alexis Caswell Angell. In the cases of William J. Allen (50%) or W. J. Allen (49%) and Charles F. Amidon (47%) or C. F. Amidon (45%) for Charles Fremont Amidon I feel like the case is clear for the inclusion of the first name, although I would add mention of their use of initials to their page.

Second, at what percentage of mentions should a suffix be included? In the case of George Ross Anderson Jr., he was referred to as G. Ross Anderson 83% of the time, so clearly that's a change to make, but "Jr." was only included 47% of the time. Should a suffix be included if it is mentioned 45% of the time? 50%? 55%? I would lean towards at least 50%, as WP:NCP lends itself to simpler names. I also recognize that suffixes are probably the likeliest thing to change about a person's common name after they've died.

I plan to carry this out over several months, editing pages that link to a judge as I move the judge's page, except for court and template pages that I feel can be edited all at once at the end. Most of the moves can be easily accomplished because the redirect that I'd be moving over usually only has one line in its history. But if @BD2412: would be willing to grant me WP:PAGEMOVER rights, that would save me (and administrators) from dealing with hundreds of technical edit requests. I'd also be happy to reformat my user page into a subpage on of the WikiProject, if the documentation is worth preserving.

I welcome any feedback. Should any of my benchmarks change? etc. Star Garnet (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Another consideration that we need to keep in mind is the potential for ambiguity. There is certainly only one Albert Barnes Anderson; there may be multiple notable people who could be referred to as "A. B. Anderson". I am not aware that I have the ability grant rights on this project, as I am not a Bureaucrat here, but I don't think you need a grant of rights to move pages where there is project-based consensus to move them. BD2412 T 19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

As an administrator, you can grant the right, which would essentially allow me to delete redirects with multiple edits in their histories before moving the page there. Regarding initialed names, is the solution to go with the most common non-initialed name? For Anderson, that would be "judge Albert B. Anderson" (3747 hits) as opposed to "judge A. B. Anderson" (23531 hits), "judge Albert Anderson" (1127 hits), or "judge Albert Barnes Anderson (90 hits). Star Garnet (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with that solution, provided that you take care to avoid ambiguity. For example, if "Albert Anderson" was the most common usage, that would conflict with the disambiguation page, Albert Anderson. BD2412 T 20:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: user group changed. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Star Garnet: I'm sorry I should have spoken up earlier. I don't understand the scope of this work, but entering an edit summary of "redirect" is not good. It makes editors unfamiliar with this work-at-scale believe you are redirecting the entire article. A proper edit summary would indicate what you were changing about the article you are editing, i.e. the name of the person. Further, it seems like they should be tagged as minor edits, as they seem uncontroversial? I'm not trying to make more work for you, but I don't think this edit summary usage is proper. Thank you. jhawkinson (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I would not tag these as minor edits. That's more for fixing common typos or the like. There could, in theory, be an objection raised to a page rename, even where the bulk of sources seem to use a different formulation. BD2412 T 03:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

re minor edits: I was not referring to the page renames, which I am confused about the merits of, and worried about (but didn't raise). I am referring to the edits to existing pages that change whether they wikilink to a redirect through a middle initial or not, e.g. this. jhawkinson (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jhawkinson:: I'm happy to at least change my edit summary. Perhaps 'repipe' or 'WP:COMMONNAME link' would be sufficient? Star Garnet (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Star Garnet: One thing. I would be a bit more circumspect about moving U.S. Supreme Court justices. Perhaps hold those off for last. I know some are the product of previous move discussions. BD2412 T 03:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't foresee moving any more than a few unilaterally; certainly not if there's been previous discussion. I considered opening a discussion on Barbour, but I was dissuaded when re-reading the policy on opening a discussion. With that said, at least some of Livingston, Grier, Curtis, Campbell, Miller, Woods, both Lamars, Moody, and Clarke are improperly named. I suspect a few more as well where my perception has been influenced by a single biography's title, etc. Star Garnet (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Star Garnet:: My original thinking had been that you should use something like "Wikilink to Joseph Bataillon not Joseph F. Bataillon per WP:COMMONNAME; see WT:WikiProject United States courts and judges". But you're right you can get a lot of the benefit by using static text that is more clear. Certain not "repipe" if you're not changing a piped link! Perhaps "Wikilink judge names to their WP:COMMONNAME per WT:WikiProject United States courts and judges". As for doing moves unilaterally, I don't really think you should be doing that at all for pages of any prominance, and certainly not for supreme court justices. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jhawkinson:: There's no reason to believe this move would be controversial. One minor post on the talk page in 16 years, and about half of the links to the page were piped to change his middle name to an initial. The page name was simply a relic that nobody had cared enough to change, despite having known enough about the subject have piped away from the page name. And while most SCOTUS justices and Speakers have pages prominence, Barbour's is not one. Star Garnet (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Does WP:COMMONNAME override WP:OFFICIALNAMES then? Cause that's the impression I'm getting. And in the case of a judge with nominals, wouldn't WP:JR/SR still apply? That's why I don't get why John Antoon was moved when the court website uses a nominal within his name...? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The nutshell of WP:OFFICIALNAMES states that "common names are generally preferred over official names as article titles...[except in cases with] specific-topic naming conventions," which leaves WP:NCP (the more detailed WP:COMMONNAMES) as the guide for judges. As for WP:JR/SR, that doesn't overrule the rest of WP:NCP, which states that "the 'First Name Last Name' format applies to the majority of biographical articles", with the main exception being when "they are much better known by some other name." So the reasons to include a suffix are that "they are much better known [with the suffix]" or, per MOS:JR, as a disambiguator in cases where the suffix is "well-attested." In the case of Antoon, the disambiguator doesn't apply, and he is well known both as "John Antoon" and "John Antoon II." I'm happy to hear any suggestions for what constitutes being "much better known" with a suffix, and there is quite a bit of gray area. My two cents would be that the guidelines favor simplicity, but that's just two cents in a large pot of money. Star Garnet (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thinking of writing an article on Rebecca Cryer

Rebecca Cryer was an Oklahoma state district court judge, which falls below our threshold of notability, but she was also a survivor of the Oklahoma City bombing, and has just died of COVID-19. Source. BD2412 T 16:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Done. BD2412 T 06:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Biden judicial appointment controversies: Re: Rodriguez

Regina Rodriguez has been nominated to the District of Colorado. She is a previous nominee under the Obama administration. Biden has pledged to nominate a more diverse group of judges, i.e. more people of color, public defenders, etc. I found an article that says since Rodriguez's first nomination, she is now a "corporate lawyer" and that's created controversy, even though she has the support of her home state senators. See article here: "Should a Corporate Lawyer Become a Biden Federal Judge?" (Although looking at it now, I realize it's an opinion piece) And I'm just wondering if because of this contention, does her nomination warrant placement in and start of the "Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies" page? Snickers2686 (talk)

I think our judicial appointment controversy pages have typically only included circumstances in which the nomination has actually been held up in the Senate. BD2412 T 18:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Notable opinions

Most federal judge (more so circuit judges than district judges) articles have a "notable opinions" section. Logic to me says those have to be sourced so as to indicate why they're "notable". So if they aren't sourced, should they be removed? e.g. Thomas L. Ambro has plenty of notable opinions attributed to him, but little to no sourcing whatsoever. Secondly, do links/citations directly to a court opinion count as a source or do they need secondary sources, e.g.: See "Notable opinions" section of Andrew D. Hurwitz? I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

There will certainly be a difference between what legal scholars consider to be notable and what the lay press reports as notable. That said, I would prefer to tag unsourced items as needing a citation, rather than removing them entirely. Obviously it was someone's judgment that these are notable, and they might be able to back that up with sources. BD2412 T 19:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

With respect to district and circuit judge's: if the case has enough notability to have a Wikipedia article it is a notable case; and if it is that judge's opinion, it is an opinion of that judge in a notable case.

I think this breaks down when applied to a SCOTUS justice. Pretty much every SCOTUS case is a notable one, so applying this approach would essentially list every opinion authored by that justice, which is not what we want.

But for district and circuit judges, it may be workable. TJRC (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts

I'm having a hard time figuring out why there are some columns that show no active serving judges....logically, I understand to mean there are no more active judges currently serving from that presidential term, correct? So someone explain to me why they need to be kept. I was told when I was reverted that it was for consistency among tables but if you look at all the district court tables, they're all different depending on the appointing president so I don't understand how that holds up. Then I was told it was because no judges were appointed during that term. So you're telling me a president appointed no judges to an entire circuit's district courts for a whole four years? I find that hard to believe. So if anyone can provide better reasoning, please, by all means....What am I missing? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wiley Blount Rutledge#Requested move 17 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wiley Blount Rutledge#Requested move 17 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Public domain pictures of federal judges

Any tips on where to find public domain pictures of federal judges? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William B. Gunter

An editor has proposed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William B. Gunter to delete the draft for Georgia Supreme Court Justice William B. Gunter on the grounds that state supreme court justices are not inherently notable. Participation in that discussion would be welcome. BD2412 T 18:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Federal judicial service: Heading or subheading

I was always under the impression that federal judicial service warranted its own heading in an article once a judge was commissioned, because, to me, logically they begin their service as a federal judge and that's separate from their legal career when they were a practicing attorney. Lately I've been reverted by one editor who claims that their judicial service falls under the heading of "Career" and requires no subheading. What's the consensus? And along those same lines, if a nominee is a magistrate judge, to me that also falls under "federal judicial service" (as is noted by the FJC) and could typically be subheaded under "Federal judicial service" based on time as a magistrate versus time as a district or circuit judge, but again I'm reverted and told that it's "highly unnecessary"....Why? I don't get it. Are there new rules within this project concerning headings/subheadings or is the typical status quo still the norm? I don't want to start an edit war but I just don't get why I'm being reverted based on the feelings of one editor who, in my mind, is going against common practice. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: I agree with your views on the practice. I'm fairly confident it was the common practice with judges nominated by Presidents Trump and Obama. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 23:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Tagging other active editors to gain a consensus or other opinions: User:BD2412; User:CookieMonster755; User:Eastlaw; User:Extraordinary Writ; User:Doncram; User:Glo145; User:Karthanitesh; User:Knope7; User:Nsaum75; User:Presidentman; User:R'n'B; User:Quadell; User:Shemtov613; User:TommyBoy; User:WilliamJE; User:Whoisjohngalt; User:Y; User:Eddie891; User:Star Garnet

Oh and on a side note, I've tried to talk to this editor about their reverts but anytime I try and engage on their page they tell me that the discussion should happen on the specific page in question or they'll just delete my question/comment on their talk page without engagement. Very frustrating. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this: it makes sense to separate the fed. judicial service section from the career section (that's probably how I would do it if I were writing an article from scratch), but combining it with the career section isn't too problematic (particularly if the separate sections would be very short). There is one thing I do feel strongly about, though: please do not use the rollback tool in these sorts of disputes, as you did here. Rollback is only for vandalism and other things listed at WP:ROLLBACKUSE; using it in a good-faith content dispute is an easy way to get the right revoked. More generally, is this really worth fighting over? Surely there are better uses of time than arguing about subheadings. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I pretty much concur with what Extraordinary Writ has written just above....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty much my take as well. Should the vast majority of federal judges have a section on that segment of their career? Yes, although in the vast majority of those articles, content about judges' tenures is sorely lacking. But for freshly minted federal judges, for whom jurisprudence generally isn't established, shrug. Star Garnet (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this connects up well with the discussion of notable opinions, above. Almost every federal judge, after any significant length of time on the bench, has presided over some trial where they received news coverage for a ruling they made. BD2412 T 04:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices

The good news is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices has gone from over 2,000 missing pages at one point to under 1,000 today. Nevertheless, I really don't want to see this go another year without getting cleaned out. Some of these drafts have been around since 2015! Note that many of the drafts from Arkansas, Connecticut, Maryland, Missouri, and Montana have content or links to state biographies of the judges containing all the necessary information, so those should be very easy to get through. BD2412 T 07:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ideally, I'll be of some help, but I can't make promises. There are endless rabbit holes on WP (four general categories that would take 24/7 effort for years for me to be at all satisfied), as you certainly know. My instinct is also generally to spend too much time on a new article than is efficient for putting these out. Star Garnet (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States federal judges who died in active service

The recently created lists of United States federal judges who died in active service have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States federal judges who died in active service. Please weigh in on the discussion there. BD2412 T 08:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion is still in progress, and could benefit from some additional and informed perspectives. BD2412 T 20:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Update: The discussion was closed as no consensus, but I decided to collapse the lists and move the article to Deaths of United States federal judges in active service. Thank you to members of this project who weighed in for keeping the article. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:EASTEREGG

Hello Project Members,

I have a question. As far as I know, all federal judicial articles style the appointer field as [[List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden|Joe Biden]] (obviously replace Biden with any preceding president) and I've always accepted that an unspoken rule/styling aspect of any said article. Does that violate WP:EASTEREGG in the sense that it should only link the appointing president's article or should it link the list of federal judicial appointments?

Same theory for law schools. Again, I was under the impression that you display the parent university but can link to the law school, i.e. [[Harvard Law School|Havard University]] does that violate WP:EASTEREGG too or is it acceptable? Do we just link the parent university in the infobox or is it acceptable to link the law school while displaying the parent university. I've heard conflicting rationale articulated in edit summaries, hence why I'd like clarification. Thoughts? TIA. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I rarely see linking to the more specific subtopic, as is the case with each of these, as WP:EASTEREGG. Simply linking to presidents' names verges on overlinking. Star Garnet (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Rarely see" in what context? Because as far as I've noticed, it's in nearly every infobox of any judge/justice as well as linked as such under the "appointed by" column in the former judges section of any court page. Can you clarify? Snickers2686 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

(I'm agreeing with you.) Those rare instances tend to be where the larger topic is itself rather small, at least on WP. Presidents' pages, in contrast, are bloated and not efficient for navigational purposes. Star Garnet (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect to law schools, I would think you would just directly say [[Harvard Law School]]. With respect to the names of the appointing presidents, I am of two minds. BD2412 T 20:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And those two minds would be...? Just curious. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

With law schools, I would just directly say the name of the law school. We have articles on them, they have their own names, and they are degree granting institutions. So I don't see why we would link to the parent university. For the appointing president question, I don't really have a strong opinion. Marquardtika (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Re "those two minds would be", I suppose that an editor who clicks on, e.g., Joe Biden, expects that the link (in this context) will take them to Joe Biden, but will not be particularly shocked to be taken to List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden. BD2412 T 02:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Joshua M. Kindred#Requested move 14 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Joshua M. Kindred#Requested move 14 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 11:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana C. Reyes

The recently created article Anna C. Reyes (who was recently announced as a nominee to the D.C. district court) been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana C. Reyes. Feel free to chime in if you wish. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 20#Warren Ferguson

Discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 20#Warren Ferguson as to whether a redirect to a fictional minor character from the Andy Griffith Show can be considered the primary topic of the name over Ninth Circuit judge Warren J. Ferguson. Please feel free to comment in that discussion. BD2412 T 06:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

FJC information

Note: The below mentioned topic is currently involved in dispute resolution

I know the FJC database isn't perfect, as things need to be amended and updated occasionally, but I was always under the impression that when it came to any federal judge's bio, FJC took precedent over any other publication/source out there; as it's used as a citation in scores of judge articles and as an external link on nearly every like-minded page that I know of.

I bring this up because there seems to be an issue of inconsistency when it comes to reporting an education background.

Example: José A. Cabranes See: College vs. Columbia University

CatchedY (talk · contribs) contends that because the court bio and/or school publication lists Cabranes as graduating from Columbia College and not Columbia University then the category should be Columbia College alumni, yet Cabranes' FJC bio says he graduated from Columbia University, so I contend that it should be Columbia University alumni. As I said in the linked thread, using the FJC search database, it only returns 19 judges as graduates of Columbia College. I get the parent college vs. undergraduate college argument (I think), but which has controlling precedent in regards to established information? I say it's the FJC Bio when it comes to anything relating to a federal judge (in theory), however I don't there's anything amongst the project that I could find that states that. Snickers2686 (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue on a more visible talk page. Based on the edit history of Cabranes' page, I can see that at least one other user @Wallnot had a similar issue with the educational background after I did and it would be great to reach a consensus on this issue as to prevent future edit wars from taking place between other Wiki users. Additional comments from other members would be extremely helpful! CatchedY (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

There’s nothing in the project stating that FJC necessarily controls. Even putting that aside, though, there is no conflict between the sources. An alumnus of Columbia College is an alumnus of Columbia University, which is why the former is a subcat of the latter. The sources CatchedY cites don’t contain different information than FJC; they’re just more specific. That’s the point of the parent university vs undergraduate college argument, as you put it. Given the lack of a real conflict between the sources and the fact that CatchedY has provided multiple reliable sources showing that Cabranes graduated from CC, there’s no reason to mechanically defer to FJC. I don’t think the compilers of FJC were so careful as to distinguish between CC and CU as we have here; more likely than not, they took info from the judges’ own CVs. Plenty of CC alums probably describe themselves as having graduated from CU. Wallnot (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with @Wallnot. You contended that "[the fact that FJC articles has controlling precedent] is how it's been understood amongst the project" but I fail to see any written evidence in the project claiming it to be the case after a long search through the project's talk history. Again, the FJC is definitely one of the most reliable sources out there, but nowhere in this project claims that it's the sole authoritative source that we must adhere to when it comes down to the judges' biographies.

Even the project has stated that "the FJC database is not presented in an encyclopedic style, and does not address many important aspects of the courts and judges profiled therein." And one such "important aspect" is their undergraduate education. For example, a graduate of Columbia College (New York) is, literally, a graduate of Columbia University (think Harvard College vs Harvard University, or Yale College vs Yale University), and it just comes down to personal preference. There is no conflict between the two. Some people simply put Columbia College (like Cabranes) on their resume/official bios, and other people pick Columbia University. Or think another way - a lot of judges have been Rhodes or Marshall Scholars, and FJC articles may state that they graduated from the "University of Oxford," but not mentioning the specific college they attended. For example, the FJC states that Neil Gorsuch graduated from "University of Oxford," but a number of other sources, from the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/03/neil-gorsuch-mentor-john-finnis-compared-gay-sex-to-bestiality) to the official website of University College, Oxford (https://www.univ.ox.ac.uk/news/om-takes-oath-in-us/), claim him as an alumni. He also states his University College affiliation on his PhD thesis (https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:688e5b8c-bb06-4d86-abe0-440a7666ffc1/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=MS.D.Phil.c.19040_ocr.pdf&type_of_work=Thesis). The categories, and even his infobox all claim he is an alumni of University College, Oxford, even the FJC clearly says the University of Oxford and not otherwise. This is similar to labeling him as a graduate of Columbia College, which, does not inherently contradict with the fact that he graduated from Columbia University, but rather makes his affiliation more precise by adding him into a sub-category of Columbia University alumni.

The judges' record of attendance of Columbia College can all be founded in alumni magazines, obituaries, and even NYT articles and profiles, etc., which I find to be more authoritative than the FJC when it comes down to specifying their education credentials and matters dealing with their personal and private lives - I doubt think the FJC would include information such as names of their children, spouses, the name of their high school, or the clubs they participated in and varsity sports they played in college. Plus, the Columbia University alumni category has been overpopulated (with 4,600+ articles) so I would recommend moving them back to the Columbia College (New York) alumni category. CatchedY (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@CatchedY: I didn't say I didn't understand the difference between parent university vs. graduate school or undergraduate institution. My quarrel is for consistency sake. If you have two independent sources providing conflicting information, which one should control? That's my question. You seem to think a magazine or whatever self-published source you find controls over the FJC that has been used for scores of judges, and I'm asking why. If it varies on every judge's preference and/or what they list in their resume, that doesn't sound like a WP:RS to me. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I see little problem with your argument that the FJC should control over other sources when the information are in conflict, but my point is that the information are not "in conflict" as you have claimed. You seem to argue that Columbia College and Columbia University are not the same entity. Columbia College is the undergraduate college that granted Neil Gorsuch's undergraduate degree and there are a number of sources that can prove this (https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/education-neil-gorsuch or https://www.college.columbia.edu/news/neil-gorsuch-cc-88-confirmed-supreme-court-united-states). Categorizing him (and other judges) as Columbia College alumni does not excluded them as Columbia University alumni. A Columbia College alumni is a Columbia University alumni. They belong to the sub-category of Columbia University alumni who graduated from the undergraduate college. I did go to Columbia and I can verify this. It makes the categorization more precise, because there are also people who graduated from the undergraduate engineering school or general studies college, for non-traditional students, and by no means this is "conflicting information." Stylistically, it maybe a trivial nuisance, but ontologically, they are the same.

My only problem with JFC is that it is quite limiting. In many situations, independent, third party-sources can offer far more information that the FJC does not contain, and they are less conflicting than they are complementary. For example,

https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/gorsuch-neil-m the FJC information on Gorsuch only contains info on his DOB, Federal Judicial Service, Higher Education Credentials, Professional Career and nothing more. I believe most of the sources should get (and have gotten) those basic information correct and I have no problem with using FJC when we are discussing those details. However, the FJC is also lacking in other more personal biographical details:

Made no mention of his family, her mother was an EPA administrator (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuchs-mother-once-ran-the-epa-it-was-a-disaster/)

Made no mention of his high school, a prominent DC-area prep school mired in the Kavanaugh confirmation controversy. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/kavanaugh-gorsuch-georgetown-prep.html)

Made no mention of his previous law firm (he worked for Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick but the FJC only said "private law practice"), his personal legal philosophy, famous rulings, personal life details (i.e. he is an Episcopalian), bibliography, and the list of omissions goes on... The FJC is an authoritative source, but it is also quite limiting when it comes down to other matters. Still, qualifying him as a Columbia College alumni, complements the information already provided by the FJC, and does not constitute any serious detractions. It is akin to specifying which law firm he worked for when the FJC only said "private practice." CatchedY (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@CatchedY: Why would the FJC include information about his mother? That's not their purpose. Ironic how you link to his FJC profile which says he graduated from Columbia University and in the same breath say there is "no conflict". Um, if one source says Columbia College and another source says "Columbia University", that is a conflict, in theory. Yes, yes, I know, one is a subcat of the other, so yet again I ask, which publication should control? You never answered that. Snickers2686 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

How is that ironic? The independent, secondary sources do not detract from the FJC profile but can offer more information beyond what is already given in the FJC, so why shouldn't we use the more detailed one? Saying someone who graduated from Columbia College does not contradict the fact that they are graduates of Columbia University. It implies that the person already graduated from Columbia University. Again, you keep suggesting a conflict. I have argued to great lengths, and have written multiple times, as does @Wallnot, that there is none, even in theory. It's like adding which major, or which specific school he went to at Columbia University (just like every major research university, it's made up of a bunch of undergraduate and professional schools). As Wallnot argues in the comment below, saying someone who is from California, already implies that he is from the United States of America.

And the fact that the FJC does not include information about his personal life and other matters I have pointed out is precisely an example why it is limiting in many aspects. If a preponderance of sources showed that Gorsuch worked for this law firm called Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, while the FJC said "private law practice," which source should we "control"? Are you going to delete all the sources that point out which law firm he worked for because they are not WP:RS to you? CatchedY (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s like saying there’s a conflict between sources if one says an article subject is from the United States and another says he’s from California. So no, there is no conflict, even in theory.

As to your other question, you still haven’t explained the need for rigid rules on which source should “control” in case of conflict. This isn’t a court and we can exercise our judgment to weigh available sources, which is what Wikipedia editors do across the site. In this instance, as you yourself pointed out, we have a preponderance of sources indicating that Cabranes graduated from Columbia College. These sources are all reliable. Why on earth would we put in place a rule that requires us to defer to FJC rather than exercising our best judgment? Wallnot (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@CatchedY and Wallnot: So if someone is from or lives in the state of California, it's implied they live in the United States, but again, Wikipedia appeals to a worldwide audience, to thus we always include "U.S." in whatever infobox/context that may be necessary. Again, I don't need you to explain the difference to me, I already know it. So because two editors don't see a conflict, that's the end of the discussion? If the FJC is so limiting, then why is it used as an EL and source in every fedral judicial article? Because it contains RELEVANT information to the subject. WP:RS lays out the criteria of a reliable source, so I'm not sure where you're getting that I would delete an RS just because I don't deem it as such, I never suggested that. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

But we are only limiting our discussion to categories here, which is where we disagree on. I see no problem adding a line that says U.S. in the text. And there is no category that says "People from California, United States." There is only "People from California" (which is a sub category of "People by state in the United States") or "American people." Which one would you pick? Would you forsake precision for the sake of context because people may not know where California is? This is my point of contention.

I said the FJC is limiting, but it is only a critique. I understand your point about relevancy as I have repeatedly emphasized that it is the most authoritative source out there, but I also stressed that when it comes to information that is NOT RELEVANT or SEMI-RELEVANT to his judicial career, or when the FJC is missing any detailed info, other sources should be taken into consideration. The FJC only provides a broad outline but is missing many details, even when it comes down to info that is RELEVANT to the subject and I highlighted the lack of deliberation on his "private law practice" as a key omission. CatchedY (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You’re suggesting we should exclude information we know to be true because we should treat a different source (which, as CatchedY pointed out, does not purport to be authoritative with respect to judges’ educational backgrounds) as “controlling”. You have provided no reasons why that source should always control or, indeed, why any source must always control, rather than making case by case judgments, as is done on the rest of the project. Why is that?

To respond to the point you raised in your reply:

Wikipedia appeals to a worldwide audience, to thus we always include "U.S." in whatever infobox/context that may be necessary. What’s the point of this analogy? Are you suggesting we should rename the category “Columbia College, Columbia University alumni” so that people who aren’t familiar with Columbia are aware that the one is a constituent part of the other? If not, this seems like a non sequitur.

Wallnot (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Nominee notability

I have a question about federal judge nominee articles, are they notable enough to stand up in their own right? I understand WP:USJUDGE says "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent." thereby, to me, meaning being a nominee does not confer nobility, however once confirmed, then nobility is established as a federal judge. Is it sensible to create a nominee article based off of an announcement from the White House (along with other sources) or do we keep said nominees in a draft article until confirmation (being as they might not pass nobility for just being a nominee). I've had three nominee articles go to AfD or WP:Draftify for this reason (Tiffany M. Cartwright - still in active AfD by the way; Ana C. Reyes and F. Kay Behm) I in no way claim WP:OWN however, consistency in this regard, to me is muddled. If you're an autopatrolled author, you can create a nominee article and no one bats an eye, but if you're like me and have to have it patrolled, then it becomes an issue, and potentially flagged from less experienced users. Is there any more concrete guidance in this regard? Snickers2686 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that the typical nominee to the federal judiciary is not appearing out of thin air, and probably has some indicia of notability from doing whatever it is that got them to the point of being nominated. The trick is to find that. Imagine if the subject had never been nominated, and there were no nomination-related sources. How would you go about demonstrating that they were already notable? BD2412 T 06:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I guess according to Star Mississippi, if there isn't significant coverage, then it doesn't warrant an article. Apparently they've created a new standard for what they deem "notable".

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiffany_M._Cartwright Snickers2686 (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of "Justice" as an honorific prefix

Under MOS:HONORIFIC, MOS:PREFIX states that:

(a) "styles and honorifics [are] derived from a title, position or activity, including The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable"

(b) "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it..."

Under WP:Manual of Style:, I believe that the inclusion of justice as an honorific prefix would be appropriate for all current and former Supreme Court justices. In regards to (a), jurists who serve or have served on the Supreme Court are called justices—the term judge is generally seen as an insult when referred to a SCOTUS justices, and hardly any RS refer to a justice as "judge" for this reason (at the very least, the overwhelming—and I mean overwhelming—majority of RS). I believe it also appropriate given the difference which exists between the terms justice and judge. This is not something limited simply to the United States, but also something clearly apparent in other countries throughout the world (see Chief justice and Associate justice, where the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Philippines are among some examples). It is orthodoxy to refer to those who serve on the Supreme Court as justices, and no source to my knowledge brazenly titles them differently, hence (b). GuardianH (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this, and would think that it is an uncontroversial statement. BD2412 T 02:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As it doesn't seem that there have been any objections thus far, can we go ahead with the inclusion of justice as an honorific prefix? GuardianH (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment So just for clarification, the style would be Justice (insert name) vs. The Honorable Justice (insert name), correct? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes. I speak from primarily a perspective on judges in the United States like, e.g., Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Antonin Scalia. GuardianH (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I think there's a terminological misunderstanding here. An honorific is not the same as a title. Justices have both an honorific—The Honorable—and a title (justice). So Sam Alito, e.g., is The Honorable Justice Samuel Alito. Justice does not belong in the honorifics category because it is a title. You’ve also materially misquoted the guideline—(b) is not a criterion for what counts as an honorific, it is a criterion for the exception to the general rule that They are not usually used in running text. I would add that this discussion belongs at WT:MOS/BIO. Wallnot (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Justice is an honorific, though the understanding of it is sometimes confused. Justice is primarily used to distinguish members of a higher court from a lower court, and thus it doesn't seem that the application of The Honorable is appropriate as it applies to any judge (judge and justice should not be confused). Robert Hickey, the author of Honor & Respect: The Official Guide to Names, Titles, and Forms of Address, states that:

"Justice is a title and honorific for a judge of an appellate court.  The given name of an associate justice is not used unless there are two justices with the same surname.  Judges of lower courts are addressed as The Honorable (full name), but current justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are not.  However a retired associate justice is addressed as the Honorable (full name) and in a salutation or conversation as Justice (surname)."

(Note that a retired Supreme Court justice is referred to as The Honorable because the person is no longer a member of the Supreme Court and that it seems Hickey speaks from an American perspective.)

In Australia, The University of Technology Sydney's "guide to addressing judicial officers" further notes that Chief Justices should be addressed as "Chief Justice" whereas other judges of the court are addressed as "Your Honour" (the abbreviation of The Honorable). The university's guide goes on to combine both justice and judge, stating "If you’re introducing a superior court judge to somebody outside of court you should introduce them as “Justice …” and you should refer to them in conversation as 'judge.'"

Concerning members of the Supreme Court in the United States, however, I think that the honorific prefix of justice is appropriate given the greater emphasis it has in the country—as I mentioned before, referring to SCOTUS justices as anything different has the appliance of being insulting. This is noted in Professor Bryan Garner's Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, on page 480, where he states that:

" [Speaking about judges and justices concerning mistakes in the address] Chief Justice Rehnquist, during oral argument, has corrected counsel who have addressed him as 'Judge.' .... [Quoting Glanville Williams' Learning the Law ] What are the proper forms? Williams recommends "'Mr. Justice Smith' (or Mrs. Justice Smith, as the case may be)...when speaking of him in public.'"

For these reasons, I continue the contention that we include "justice" as an honorific prefix to members of a Supreme Court, especially members of the Supreme Court of the United States, where it seems a greater emphasis is placed on it than in other countries. GuardianH (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, the proper place for a discussion about an MOS/BIO issue is at WT:MOS/BIO. Wallnot (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges

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.

---

Should infoboxes in the biographies of SCOTUS judges contain the political party field (e.g. "party = Republican")? If yes, what should they be based on? (E.g. which party appointed them, voter registration, or something else?)

For background, see this discussion at the talk page for Neil Gorsuch from which this RFC spawned, and a similar recent discussion at the talk page for Brett Kavanaugh. Endwise (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Generally no - Being a SCOTUS justice is an officially non-partisan position. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says exclude any unnecessary content. Since a justices political party is not significant to their position as a justice, it's unnecessary to include the political party in the infobox. The only situation it might be relevant is if they've previously held a notable partisan position (e.g. Earl Warren was a former Republican governor of California). Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• No - for current members. But allowable where deemed required for former members. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally no - I agree with Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Even though a justice would be nominated by a president of a particular party, and perhaps (but certainly not always) confirmed by a senate with a majority of the same party, it is generally irrelevant to them as a judge. And we may not even really know their actual political affiliation, which may change (without publicity) during their term in office (even if we knew their affiliation at the time of nomination). While this RfC came about for Neil Gorsuch, who was nominated by a Republican, confirmed by a Republican-majority senate, and generally (but certainly not always) votes in alignment with other justices who were nominated by Republican presidents, that does not necessarily mean he is registered as a Republican. We have recent examples (Souter & Stevens, or going back a little further White & Blackmum) who voted more closely with justices nominated by the party other that than the president who nominated them, and even if they were in the same party as the president when they were nominated (which I don't think is certain), we don't know if they switched parties or became independent subsequent to confirmation. And for a judge, it is not relevant anyway, since tehy are supposed to be non-partisan in their jobs. Now, there are some justices who served in other capacities - Taft and Hughes come to mind immediately, besides Warren - whose party affiliation is relevant (not just might be) to those positions and for them we should include the political affiliation. But for pure judges, the only relevant (let alone truly verifiable in most cases) information on party affiliation is the party of the president who nominated them (and maybe the senate that confirmed them), but we already include the name of the president than nominated them in the infobox. I suppose if necessary we can include a line (or lines) for "Party of nominating president" and "Majority party of confirming senate", but those are not necessarily the same, or necessarily the same as the justice's own party. Rlendog (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, we should not. There are rather famous cases of presidents of one party appointing justices with different political leanings, for political reasons. There are justices who were expected to have one set of views based on their appointing president, and had or came to have a different set. It is impossible in most cases to specify what this affiliation is, and dubious to refer to the affiliation of the appointing president. BD2412 T 18:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, but with caution. If a justice's political party is discussed and sourced in prose, I don't have a problem with including it in the infobox because it's the sort of information that the average reader might be looking for. We should not simply be using the nominating president's party: for one thing, although it's far rarer now, presidents have appointed justices from the opposite party throughout American history (Howell Edmunds Jackson, Benjamin N. Cardozo, William J. Brennan Jr., etc.). But if reliable sources clearly say "Justice X is/was a Republican" (whether because of voter registration, participation in party politics, self-identification, etc.), it's fine for the text (and by extension the infobox) to say the same. (I know Kavanaugh has stated on the record that he's a Republican.) Political party is relevant biographical data: it's regularly discussed in the scholarly literature (see, e.g., this helpful table), and presidents undeniably consider potential candidates' political views when deciding whether to nominate them (for instance, as our article explains, Brennan was selected in no small part because Eisenhower thought appointing a Democrat would help him politically). We should certainly be careful not to impute a president's views to his nominees, but as long as it's reliably sourced I don't see a need to alter our longstanding practice here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally no: Open to doing this on a case by case basis if the political party is a defining feature, but I generally agree with BD2412's rationale. We shouldn't seek to overly simplify something that can be nuanced and complex. Marquardtika (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• (ec) No, in general. It's not a partisan or elected position. The politico-ideological lean, if any, of a justice's opinions during their time on the bench is best conveyed in text in the lede rather than using their supposed political party (or of the president who appointed them) as a proxy indication. But yes, for justices who held elective positions previously, meaning Sandra Day O'Connor, Earl Warren, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• No Supreme Court justices are technically independent. TFD (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• No to the political registration of unelected judges; Neutral on adding (R) or (D) beside the name of the nominating president (in the "Nominated by" field), as a possible alternative, serving the same purpose. Lindenfall (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• No for the reasons that have been highlighted above. Also trying to glean a judge's political party affiliation from their judicial rulings seems like a project that could go off the rails pretty quickly....DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• No Judges are not elected officials, they are nominated, which means that while the information on who nominated them is undoubtedly valuable, on most occasions we don't have enough information on their party allegiances, or the information we have is purely speculative and possibly outdated. In fact, their party-political orientation can change in time and can be a matter of degree, of elective affinity so to say, rather than being a matter of disciplined belonging and absolute loyality: so any information on that orientation runs the risk of being inaccurate and misleading. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally no, by which I mean only if its corroborated by independent reliable sources. It should not come from the party of the appointing president or perceived partisanship. Judges go to great lengths to appear nonpartisan, so I don't expect that the high bar we should set for determining what party they belong to to be met. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, in general per WastedTime. The Justices/judges who ran or served in a partisan elected office, yes. --Enos733 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Case by case basis - I've already discussed this at length before, but I feel strongly about this and my position has not changed at all. I would absolutely support including the political party in the infobox of a SCOTUS justice under 2 circumstances:
  

(1). There is documented proof that they are a registered member of a political party.
(2). They have held a partisan position in the past.
Sure, SCOTUS is nonpartisan, but I already talked about this argument in the discussion linked above. If a U.S. Senator, Congressperson, Governor, or any other politician were to become a SCOTUS justice, does that necessitate the removal of their political party from their infobox? There are actually plenty of cases of this happening, and it seemed to be non-controversial in the past to include it. Today, it is less common for SCOTUS justices to have held political positions in the past, although I still strongly support the inclusion of the Republican Party in the Brett Kavanaugh article infobox for the reasons highlighted above. The only other justices that I would normally support the inclusion of their political parties are John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. However, while both Roberts and Thomas held political positions in the past (both under Republican administrations), I am unable to find any source definitively stating their membership in a particular party, which is why I only support inclusion currently for Kavanaugh. If someone is able to track down Thomas's or Roberts's voter registration, then I would support inclusion. (a 2006 NYT article describes Roberts as "undisputedly a Republican", but I consider that to be speculation) One other interesting case is Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission (which is considered a partisan position), but the only source for her membership of a political party comes from the GOP website, which, while being accurate, is a source that I would not consider definitive for inclusion in the infobox. I actually think that the vast majority of editors here (e.g. @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:, @GoodDay:, @Rlendog:, @Extraordinary Writ:, @Wasted Time R:, @Marquardtika:, @Muboshgu:, @Enos733:, etc.) would agree with my position here; it seems that most comments would support some form of inclusion on a case by case basis despite saying "no" in the survey. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Will answer in 'discussion' section, below. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4: Being an appointee to a partisan position does not necessarily imply being a member of the party. BD2412 T 21:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: Well then I am not sure what the criteria is for including a political affiliation is. Should an individual’s political party be included in the infobox only when they are directly elected on their respective partisan line to that position? In my opinion , if an individual’s political affiliation is public and they have occupied a partisan position at any time, even if they are not currently holding one, then I would support their infobox containing their political party. Politicsfan4 (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Appointment to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, specifically, is not a partisan office, despite the rather fuzzy rule that no political party may hold more than four seats. There are no specifically Democratic or Republican seats, so it is entirely possible for a Democratic president to appoint a Republican or other-party member, or a member with no party affiliation. Furthermore, if the White House were to make such an identification with respect to such an appointment, that does not mean that the appointee identifies accordingly. To the extent that an objection might be raised as to the party of an appointee, that would be a matter for the Senate to resolve in their vote on the nomination. I would generally take as evidence of party affiliation that someone had been a candidate for elective office for a specific party, or had served on an actual party body like the DNC or RNC. For federal judges, however, the individual is supposed to leave their party affiliation at the door, and there are indeed federal judges who have previously held political office with one party, but who ultimately exercised a judicial philosophy completely at odds with that party identification. BD2412 T 05:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: - What would you support in the case of a justice such as Brett Kavanaugh, who held a partisan office in the GWB Administration (White House Staff Secretary), and has repeatedly stated that he is a registered Republican? I can completely understand not including a political affiliation for justices who have not served in partisan roles or who have never revealed their affiliation publicly, as their role as a judge is nonpartisan, but this seems like a clear case in which it should be included. Indeed, almost every other Staff Secretary aside from Kavanaugh has their political party in the infobox. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

We need to maintain consistency across our infoboxes. Kavanaugh's affiliations can be discussed in the text of the article. BD2412 T 18:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: As an example, would you support the removal of William Howard Taft's affiliation as a Republican in his infobox since he served as Chief Justice? Like Kavanaugh, he served in both political and nonpolitical positions. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The question seems disingenuous. To what political office was Kavanaugh elected? BD2412 T 22:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: I don't think an office has to be an elected position for it to be political. Kavanaugh's term as Staff Secretary for George W. Bush seems political enough. As I have said before, almost every other White House Staff Secretary with an article includes their respective political party. Almost every member of Biden's cabinet, or any President's cabinet, as an example, has their political party included in their infobox, despite not necessarily ever running in an election. Another example of this would be members of the federal Reserve - Jerome Powell, the chair of the Fed, is listed as a Republican in his infobox despite never standing in an election. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• No - Per GoodDay's rational. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally no per Iamreallygoodatcheckers.  White Whirlwind  00:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, but Justice's biography articles should have a special template that does not include political affiliation. The question should then be if it will be the leading infobox while they are still serving. On the template in question, within a bio, yes, it is serving the purpose of an article that includes personal details like the political party of a government official. Louis Waweru  Talk  02:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, my understanding is that it's formally not a political appointment, unlike cabinet members. I'm puzzled by the suggestion above that we should have different standards for current vs. former justices – I can't think of any reason why we would do that. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Political party is irrelevant for sitting Justices, but is relevant for former Justices, who are analyzed and open to critical judgements on if they were corrupted by partisan bias and thus upheld or failed to perform their mandate. Having political affiliation of a sitting Justice in a two-party system elevated to an important fact make it a gravity pit, trapping eyes and search engines (which try to provide more context in results using leads and infoboxes). More puzzling would be why it would be missing for a former Justice's biography. There should simply be a template for judicial figures. Louis Waweru  Talk  10:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• No. In general, labeling individuals who are primarily notable for being Justices of the United States Supreme Court on the basis of the party of the president that appointed them is not exactly a method that passes WP:V (Extraordinary Writ provides evidence that this method actually leads to verifiable errors-of-fact). It makes sense to me that justices who had served in political office and ran for office as a member of a political party (i.e. President Taft) should have their political party in the infobox, as that's a defining characteristic of the individual's role as a politician. But that is the exception, not the rule. And, in general, the vast majority of sources that cover the lives of justices don't really seem to give all that much weight to the personal partisan affiliation of the justice, so putting that in the infobox might result in issues with WP:BALASP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• No, unless the Justice has held an elected position under that specific party, like William Howard Taft mentioned above. A previous appointment to a position, whether some would deem it partisan or not, is not relevant enough to be in the infobox. It would have a place within the text though. StalkerFishy (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd rather we 'not' put political parties on to current US Supreme Court members, or for that matter any US court members who weren't elected to their positions. Heck, last I heard, Biden was planning on nominating an anti-abortionist (go figure) to one of the lower courts. So, political party & court seats don't always mix. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What about other positions such as US Attorneys, Cabinet secretaries and others who have not held elective office? This is a far-reaching site-wide question. Probably a Village Pump matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Those are inherently political positions, though. A judge’s political party, or that of the president who appointed them, shouldn’t factor into their decision making whether R, D, or unaffiliated. The appointing president’s politics do and are supposed to factor into a cabinet secretary’s decision making, even if that cabinet secretary is nominally independent in their private life. Wallnot (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it reliably sourced anywhere? Beyond primary docs like voting registration. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe what’s being proposed is including the political party of the appointing president, not of the judges themselves. Wallnot (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, regardless of the infobox issue, there's no doubt that Gorsuch was a political appointment, per Trump's campaign promise to lock in anti-abortion voters who might otherwise have been offended by his stance on gender and related issues. See these, among many many RS discussions of it:

• Gorsuch Furor Shows GOP’s Struggle to Build Ideology-First Court
• Gorsuch Wins, the Filibuster Loses
• How Justice Neil Gorsuch Has Helped Republicans Reshape The Supreme Court SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether you're responding to me, but nothing I said contradicts Gorsuch's appointment being politically motivated. But there's a nominal difference between a political appointment and a politically motivated one, and, this being law, nominal differences matter. Wallnot (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia infocruft is not a matter of law, right?👮‍♀️ These labels and infobox mentions have all kinds of problems in many topic areas. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

They’re descriptive of the legal status of judges. Wallnot (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Apparently we disagree. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What kind of information should the infobox reflect if not the legal status of the appointee? Wallnot (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What's your view on that? I have no opinion just yet, except that this is a site-wide issue and it's being treated as a local issue. But to respond: We could have his nickname, his hair color, his mother's ancestry, his hobbies, status of hunting, fishing, & truckdriving, licenses, etc. Anything at all. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

My views is, I wish you'd state your position in the survey. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion just yet, except that this is a site-wide issue and it's being treated as a local issue. directly above you. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Advertise the RFC to the appropriate Village Pumps. You won't be able to make its existence known to a wider audience, then that. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree that this is a "site-wide" issue. We are talking about a very narrow set of conditions – appointed judicial officers in a multiparty system where the judiciary is officially nonpartisan. There may be a few other countries where this is an issue, probably on a much smaller scale, but it does not extend to other offices. BD2412 T 02:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful, if you (Specico) & Muboshgu, stated your positions in the 'survey'. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This project has about 30 members last time I looked. What are we doing here? SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If you don't want to be here at this WikiProject, that's your choice. Nobody's forcing you to be apart of this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please be nice. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Always am. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, rephrasing: Please refrain from unconstructive talk page comments.👮🏻‍♀️👮🏻‍♀️ SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Always do refrain from such comments. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4:, for what you suggest in the survey. One might be tempted to ask - Why tag only the current members who were nominated by a Republican president? GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - It's not because I'm biased; it's because the only current member of SCOTUS that meets my criteria is Brett Kavanaugh, while for Roberts and Thomas I oppose inclusion because there is no source for their respective political affiliation. I would absolutely support the inclusion of KBJ's affiliation as a Democrat if someone is able to find a source for her voter registration other than the literal rival party's website. Sotomayor and Kagan, the other Dem nominated justices, I would oppose inclusion because they did not hold political positions in the past (while Kagan was Solicitor General, I don't really consider that political). Interestingly, it is known that Sotomayor is actually a registered Independent and Kagan is, expectedly, a registered Democrat, but that's a whole other story. I also oppose inclusion of a political party for Gorsuch, ACB, and Alito because they, like Sotomayor, Kagan, Thomas, Roberts, and KBJ, don't meet both my criteria. Essentially, what I'm saying is that I only currently support inclusion on Kavanaugh's infobox, and I oppose it for the 8 others for different reasons. I can go into detail for each specific member if you would like to fully understand my reasoning, although I kinda already did this on the previous Kavanaugh discussion. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

See my 'survey' position. I'd post more, but I'm tired of being edit-conflicted, each time I attempt to respond. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the reasoning behind your position. What makes former members different from current ones with regards to their political affiliation? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

My position is based on my choice of how it should be done. Anyways, I'll let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The info-box already shows which president appointed a justice, which is how we would determine their affiliation. So affiliation creates no additional information and is therefore pointless to include. TFD (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Poll: I have just noticed a series of party-related changes made to all justice infoboxes (except Barrett, possibly due to 30/500 protection). Do you support these changes? Or do you oppose these changes? CraigP459 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No poll required. I've reverted those 'eight' additions. No such additions should be made, while this RFC is in progress. The editor (@Tscdrwh:) who made those additions without a consensus. I welcomed to give his input at this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Tscdrwh has been making many big bold additions & deletions across several articles, since he came on line six days ago. So far, he hasn't communicated with anyone. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Focus on content (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather focus on Tschrwh & @Bluealbion:'s odd behaviour. BTW, who are or were you? Seeing as you've just started editing on Wikipedia today, mere hours ago? GoodDay (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, Tschrwh's editing behavior may be cause for concern. CraigP459 (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Lol. One blocked sock commenting on another. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tscdrwh/Archive. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Awolf58/Archive. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Avoid creating more exceptions and special cases to rules, or risk becoming a completely irregular framework. Instead it would be better to evolve the framework with tools that answer questions like this, in a way that new users will not run into the same question, rather than having them try and to understand what will look like politicization of the framework, as majority rule invents special situations and exceptions that aren't well defined. Louis Waweru  Talk  15:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've requested this to be closed at WP:Close requests. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:31, 8 August 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.

Senior status rescinded

This may be just a matter of general housekeeping, but if a judge were to rescind their decision to take senior status, my view is that even if it's noted via a letter or article, until it's rescinded at uscourts.gov, then it is still "active".

In the case of Judge David N. Hurd, there's been a lot of back and forth. On July 14, he rescinded his decision to take senior status (Source: "Biden pick for New York federal judgeship in limbo") Then on August 10, he informed the president he intends to stay active. (Source: Federal Judge Who Rescinded Departure Insists He’s Staying) Now obviously a judge can do that, however I don't think I've seen a case where a judge has done that while there's a nominee pending for their seat. So for the time being, I've left Judge Hurd's vacancy in the table on the N.D.N.Y. article but added a note explaining the rescinding by Judge Hurd. I've noticed some unregistered users outright deleting the Hurd vacancy from the table which to me seems like an overreaction, that's the only reason I ask what should be done in the future. In my view the Rodriguez nomination is still officially pending until if and when it is withdrawn by the White House. And according to uscourts.gov Hurd notified them of his intention to go senior on 8/10/22 (as of 8/11/22) Source: Future Judicial Vacancies however that may just be typo. It's very muddled. So if a situation were to arise like this again, what notification/source/site should control regarding information? Snickers2686 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Defining a "controversy"/controversial nominee

What is considered a "controversial" judicial nominee? What criteria, if any, should be used? Initially I would say if "blue slips" are withheld, but recent practice (since 2018) says "The lack of two positive blue slips will not necessarily preclude a circuit-court nominee from receiving a hearing unless the White House failed to consult with home-state senators. Hearings are unlikely for district court nominees without two positive blue slips" (taken from Blue slip#Senate) Significant news coverage of nominee/background/hearing interaction(s) from reliable sources? Senators blocking/placing a hold on nominees? Does anyone have other/different criteria? Thoughts? Snickers2686 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Senators blocking/placing a hold on nominees? I think this makes a lot of sense. I also agree that a lack of two positive blue slips does not necessarily mean a nominee is controversial. I would add, at the risk of stating the obvious, that the gold standard for WP:RS purposes would be a source directly stating that a particular nominee is "controversial". Wallnot (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sherman Minton Featured article review

I have nominated Sherman Minton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

When to move draft to mainspace

I'm curious about something. If all (or most) judicial nominee articles are going to be moved to and/or started in draft, when is nobility established for said nominee, once confirmed? In other words, when is it okay to move said article to mainspace? Once confirmed? Once commissioned? When they're sworn in? Do the same eventual criteria (if any is established) apply to Article I and/or Article IV judges as well? What about judges eventually confirmed to the D.C. Superior court and/or D.C. court of appeals? While I understand the need to start in draft (although I don't agree with it) something just tells me when it comes time to move some of these articles from draft it's going to be a very slippery slope (see: Tiffany M. Cartwright) Snickers2686 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say, firstly, that a draft can always be moved to mainspace if it meets the WP:GNG, whether the subject is confirmed or not, so always be looking for that; and secondly, if it does not, then upon confirmation. It would be a very rare (and notable) circumstance for a confirmed federal judge not to take all of the rest of the steps towards assuming the office. BD2412 T 21:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Even most non-controversial failed nominees receive enough coverage over the course of their careers to pass GNG, so implementing some sort of hurdle is unnecessary and counterproductive (leading to even more AfD arguments like "They're only a nominee!" when they pass GNG, like Cartwright, anyway). But yes, once confirmed, it's hard to imagine a scenario where an appointee doesn't pass GNG. The only way they don't take their commission is they die, receiving significant media coverage, or they refuse it due to scandal or personal reasons that receive plenty of media coverage. Star Garnet (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for policy change within WikiProject United States courts and judges

Looks like an increasing number of our nominee articles are getting AfD'ed, and subsequently draftified. The proposal thus is "Should we create all new nominee articles in draft space and move them to article space only upon the nominee receiving the advice and consent of the Senate?" I would be willing to do this and end the pissing contests that have been going on recently over nominee articles. And I suspect that more and more articles will be AfD'ed/draftified in the near future. Right now, just laying this out as an informal proposal for discussion. If there is sufficient interest, may do a formal proposal process. Safiel (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would add that WP:GNG likely favors draft space development. While Article III Judges have the presumption of notability, nominees likely do not. Safiel (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I would agree with a project-space instruction to this effect, provided that a nominee who demonstrably otherwise meets the WP:GNG could be initiated in mainspace. BD2412 T 19:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm just not sure how necessary this is. I'd put the mark somewhere north of 80% of nominees pass GNG, combining coverage of their nomination with their activities as lawyers/judges/academics. Star Garnet (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Correcting the titles of U.S. district judges

There's a common error on several U.S. district judge pages -- using the infobox title "Judge of the United States District Court for the (X) District of (State)".

The proper title format for a district judge, according to the White House style guide, the congressional style guide, the GPO style guide, and the judicial style guide is "United States District Judge for the (X) District of (State)". And, to the extent the AP stylebook matters, it also agrees that when referring to a district judge, "U.S. District judge" should be used rather than simply "judge".

Aside from the universal consensus of the federal government style guides, the other problem with "Judge of the United States District Court..", of course, is that there are multiple different types of "judge" who operate within the district court system. A "U.S. district judge" is a specific class of judge describing a specific role in the judicial process. Saying "Judge of the U.S. District Court" is akin to saying "Member of the Virginia Legislature" without clarifying Senator or Delegate. The infobox title should obviously be precise and follow established style rules.

Furthermore, the correct style just looks much better (the way it's intended to look in the address block of official correspondence). For example:

United States District Judge
for the Southern District of New York

Rather than:

Judge of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York

I'd like to set guidance (or at least get some concurrence here) that we can point to when correcting the titles so that we avoid the endless headache of good faith reversions by people who just don't know what the title should be. I don't want to make work for anyone else -- I've grinded my way through 60-some articles of historical Wisconsin legislatures, I can certainly grind through the entire federal district court judiciary if there are any concerns about uniformity. There's obviously going to be a lot of attention on the federal judiciary the next year or two, every time I look at one of these infobox titles I cringe. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Are there any established infobox norms you can point to for judges that don't use the format "[title] of the [court name]"? (Chief Justice of the United States being a special case.) "Judge of the U.S./United States district court for the" seems to have overtaken "U.S./United States district judge for the" as the more common terminology; the latter was predominant through the 1960s, then they were even for three decades, and the former has taken over this century. Not by an overwhelming margin, but roughly 3:2. It's also disingenuous to equate this with 'member of [bilateral legislature]' as the only rank that really matters for distinguishing (magistrate judge) is always labeled as such. Chief judges are almost always distinguished as well, and as to senior vs. district judges, the courts themselves often don't bother with the distinction. District judge is simply the default definition of 'judge' when referring to district courts. I wouldn't majorly object to a change, but I do think it's unnecessary and not necessarily beneficial. Star Garnet (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate someone engaging with this. Normally when I bring it up on an article talk page it's just dead silence, but I probably came to the right place this time. In my last career (within the last 20 years), I dealt with a lot of official government correspondence with a lot of judicial namelines and titles. Personally, I don't think I've never seen the construction "Judge of the United States District Court" outside of Wikipedia or the middle of a sentence.

Recent examples:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

I just don't know of another situation where Wikipedia just chooses to not use the proper official title for an officeholder. Like we wouldn't accept "U.S. President" in a President's infobox rather than "President of the United States" -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the situation is fine as is. Wherever someone is a magistrate judge or a bankruptcy judge, we refer to them as such. I think our readers are smart enough to grasp that the ones we refer to as just "judge" are the District Court judges. BD2412 T 15:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but the confusion of judge type is really a secondary concern to the fact that the title is wrong. If you saw it in an official document from the White House or Congress, it would be considered an error. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

While I sympathize with the sentiment, as with WP's capitalization guidelines and naming guidelines (e.g. Ivory Coast), WP doesn't care about particularly organizations' official stylization. And it's not as if the current usage is unheard of in court publications: [7] [8], and for some reason it's apparently the standard for dealing with impeachment: [9] [10] [11]. Star Garnet (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, its not unusual in the middle of a sentence, when describing a person rather than giving their official title. Again, it's akin to calling someone a "U.S. congressman" rather than "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives" or "Defense Secretary" rather than "Secretary of Defense". It's about proper vs colloquial. I can't really think of another example where we take a colloquialism and use it as an official title. Again, thanks for engaging in discussion on this--It's bothered me for years and I'm hoping to finally start getting to work on fixing these. Ah, also I like the comparison with the Ivory Coast article, because the title of the article isn't really my concern -- those often use colloquialisms, as appropriate. But the infobox contains the full official name of the country--as is also appropriate. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose changing the status quo without a consensus to do so. BD2412 T 18:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That's why I'm here! And like I said, I'm happy to handle the updates myself. I can probably get through the entire current federal district court system within a week. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

So, in the hope that there will be more engagement on this topic, I'm just going to address the counter-argument. The main rationale I've heard for why we would keep using the existing incorrect titles is that "Judge of the District Court" is a similar title format to other judicial titles, but that rationale has been overruled in other important analogues when uniformity was in conflict with proper official style.

Let's compare to the Wikipedia titles used in the U.S. federal legislative branch.

The situation with these levels of the federal judiciary (Supreme, Appeals, District) are quite analogous to the question of titles for the types of federal legislators (Senate, House).

• The accepted Wikipedia title format for a U.S. Senator is "United States Senator from (State)" (This is actually very similar in style to the proper format for a U.S. district judge that we should be using!)
• Yet the accepted Wikipedia title format for a U.S. House member is "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the (State)'s (Xth) district"

Why is it not "United States Representative from the (State)'s (Xth) district" (in order to match Senate style)? Answer: Because that's not the proper official title format for a U.S. House member. Both titles are describing legislators in the same federal legislative branch, but use different title formats -- because Wikipedians chose to use the proper title for each office rather than trying to make the two different federal offices match each other in style.

Let's further look at a comparison of U.S. senators to state senators, also somewhat analogous to our current judiciary question. All state senators' titles use the format "Member of the (State) Senate from the (X) district" -- which is the proper style, and it's also pretty similar to U.S. House style!

So really U.S. senator is the wild outlier from both U.S. House and State Senate style. Why should it be unique? Why not make U.S. senators use the title format "Member of the U.S. Senate from (State)" in order to get it into uniformity with all the other federal and state legislator titles? Answer: Because that's not the proper official style for a U.S. senator.

And if you look back a decade or more, you'll see there were times when some of these incorrect alternate title formats could be found in some articles on Wikipedia. But at some point Wikipedians decided to get serious about the the proper title format. As we can today!

The legislator titles are correct (federal and state). The non-district judge judicial titles are also correct (Supreme and Appeals), even the chief judge and senior judge district court titles are correct. Let's correct these district judge titles! -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything that is wrong or needs fixing with either of the current setups. Again, I oppose the proposed changes as unnecessary. BD2412 T 17:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Rebecca Bradley (justice)#Requested move 15 August 2023

Of interest to this project, I have proposed to move Rebecca Bradley (justice) to Rebecca Bradley (judge). If the request is successful, I believe that it would establish a general practice of using "judge" as a disambiguator for all levels of judges, including justices, unless there was a need to use "justice" specifically. An example of the latter case would be James A. Baker (justice), which distinguishes the subject from other judges named "James A. Baker". BD2412 T 03:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)