This article is ratedList-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects.

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) ofWikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit theproject page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted fromthis draft on 30 March 2021 by reviewerBD2412 (talk ·contribs). United States:PresidentsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject Presidents of the United States (assessed asLow-importance). Politics:AmericanLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byAmerican politics task force (assessed asLow-importance). United States courts and judgesMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theUnited States federal courts,courthouses, andUnited States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. LawMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for thelegal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. ListsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize alllist pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.

Hello all!

By now we're all aware that Biden has made his first judicial nominations and I wanted to try and reach consensus on cosmetic issues when it comes to creating new articles. If there's anyone who regularly edits judicial articles that you feel I've missed, feel free to ping/add them to the discussion.

• Question #1: Do we use the "status" parameter when new nominees are announced?

I've had a user argue the point that "Intent to nominate" is not a thing and they switch it to "nominee" automatically before it's even submitted to the Senate. So with that in mind;

• Question #2: What should be the standard, what should be displayed? As "intent to nominate" or just strictly "John Doe is a nominee..."

Points. PerMOS:POINTS:

• Question #3: What's the consensus on how points/full stops should be used when displayed in the infobox? With or without? Personally, I've heard arguments both ways.

• Question #4: Is there a consensus on when this page should be moved? i.e. When nominations are officially submitted or when any nominee has been confirmed?

And just for clarification, I didn't take these questions directly to the project page because not everyone who edits said article(s) are part of the project, but if you want to include any of those members, feel free!

Pinging.JocularJellyfishBD2412LacrimosaDiesIllaSafielShemtov613Aaron CantonExtraordinary WritTommyBoyStar GarnetNevermore27

@Snickers2686: Your ping didn't work for some reason, so I just saw this. We can leave the status parameter blank. When I added the new nominees, I forgot to change it. I think we can just use "is a nominee" because typically the nomination comes in the days after. Only rarely is there a glitch. I don't think there's a consensus in points in the infobox. I don't use them; others might though. I don't think this page should've been moved yet but I'm not going to get into an edit war about it. –JocularJellyfish^Talk_Contribs15:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JocularJellyfish: The only thing I question about the "announced nominee" vs. "nominee" thing is, when a nominee is announced and we say they are the nominee since the announcement happened, does that border onWP:CRYSTAL since nothing has been officially transmitted to the Senate? For example, Gorman and O'Sullivan were announced by Trump on 7/13/18 but never submitted so why they were announced nominees, they were never the nominee, right? As you note, it rarely happens that way, but it has happened.Snickers2686 (talk)21:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Snickers2686: I was thinking of those two when I wrote my reply. Considering how rare it is (fewer than 1% of the time for sure), I think we can plan for the 99% of cases rather than the rare contingency. –JocularJellyfish^Talk_Contribs22:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now:

• Fed. Cl.: 3 current, 1 future (elevation)
• T.C.: 2 current,
• Vet. App.: none
• C.A.A.F.: none, one set for December 6
• C.M.C.R.: court size not set
• D. Guam: 1 current (Tydingco-Gatewood has been serving on an expired term since 2016)
• D. N. Mar. I.: none, one set for July 29
• D.V.I.: none, one set for November 10

Star Garnet (talk)19:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are they worth tracking? They'd be somewhat easy to track down for previous presidencies, if rather tedious. But as the current presidency's page functions effectively as a current events tracker, I have no issue with it being different than previous pages.Star Garnet (talk)20:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Garnet: We had a discussion like this for the Trump page in 2017 and we decided against it because Wikipedia is not a newspaper (or at least that's what a more experienced editor said to me). –JocularJellyfish^Talk_Contribs15:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a conversation addressing hearings specifically, but regardless, I don't see howWP:NOTNEWS is applicable. We're not creating articles about individual hearings, and the hearing is a fundamental step in the appointment-confirmation process. Particularly with regard to unsuccessful nominations, which I'll get around to tabularizing eventually, but also here. It turns out it's easy to find going back through Reagan, and the Congressional Record will have information going back much further. For Trump:

Successful nominees:

Unsuccessful nominees:

I also just noticed that reappointments haven't been included, which seems pretty ridiculous, as they are literally "judges appointed by x".Star Garnet (talk)18:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Garnet: The hearings are already in a specific nominee's page, so why include them here? And what's the issue with reappointments? I don't follow that one. It's noted if/when they're reappointed by another president, what more needs to be said.Snickers2686 (talk)21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason information should live in only one place is...? The hearing date is also arguably more relevant here (which effectively chronicles the appointment process) than it is in the scope of a judge's life, particularly with regard to the five-minute hearings district judges receive. The hearing date also only appears in the articles of Trump appointees and scattered others. Then there are unsuccessful nominees that areWP:ONEEVENT cases, which are notable only in the context of the president's controversies pages. There is, I suppose, the possibility of2021 in the American judiciary, and previous years, which could more explicitly chronicle a set of events (nominations, hearings, confirmations, taking office, senior status, deaths, similar events on state supreme courts; there's certainly enough media coverage and historical research to justify such pages; SCOTUS decisions are properly chronicled already, but perhaps something for notable lower-level court cases is warranted). This becomes more realistic as the articles for state supreme courts justices come closer to completion. And a reappointment is still an appointment.Star Garnet (talk)23:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wording currently says 31 total made up of 14 future appeal court vacancies and 17 future district court vacancies.

I changed this to 13 future appeal court vacancies and 18 future district court vacancies but it was reverted. Ref 4https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/future-judicial-vacancieslists the 18 district court vacancies:PR, MD, VA-E, LA-W, TX-S, IN-S, AR-W, IA-S, MN, CA-C, CA-E, CA-N, OR, CO, KS, NM, UT, WYSo I'd suggest the revert shouldn't have taken place as regards the district courts future vacancies.

As regards the Appeal Court vacancies only 11 are listed so I can see an argument for the page to list 29 total, 11 appeal court, 18 district court as per the official US courts link. Have therefore changed to that for now. I was presuming the extra 2 appeal court vacancies for 13 are the 2 in the 2nd circuit (Cabranes and Pooler)https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1445924934203625474?s=20 that are listed on the 2nd circuit wiki page but not yet on the US Courts website. Feel free to change from 11 to 13 appeal courts to reflect these additional 2 vacancies but I can't see any argument for reverting the district courts from 18 which is supported by the US Courts link. I also haven't seen evidence of a 14th future appeal court vacancy as per the revert but feel free to change to 32/14/18 if I've missed one?Andrewdpcotton (talk)22:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the 14th future appeal vacancy must be Bernice Donald on the 6th circuit. I had been going to suggest that given the current sourcing is a single tweet from May this report might not be reliable given it is not yet reflected in the US Courts list. However I found a more recent article from University Colorado Boulder that supports the story that she intends to take senior statushttps://www.colorado.edu/today/2021/10/14/judge-bernice-donald-deliver-stevens-lecture-oct-19. So there is a reasonable position for listing 32 total, 14 appeal, 18 district. Would be worth including the UC Boulder link and the Cabranes/Pooler source as well though.Andrewdpcotton (talk)23:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are judges with expired 10 year terms in each of Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and Virgin Islands Territorial Courts. On each of the individual pages these are described as vacancies. On this page however we describe the territorial courts as having no vacancies. Obviously the judges can remain in post indefinitely until a new nominee is put forward (or they are renominated themselves) but there seems to be an inconsistency in how we describe these territorial court "vacancies".— Precedingunsigned comment added byAndrewdpcotton (talk •contribs)11:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla:The fact that shoddy journalism exists doesn't require us to repeat inaccuracies, regardless of how generally reliable the source is and particularly when they're easily shown to be false. You seem fairly reasonable from a brief glance at your other work, so I'm not sure why you're hung up on this. The Times article is even more inaccurate than just 41 vs. 40 for Reagan; using the term "federal judicial nominee" properly, Biden had 42 (11 circuit, 29 district, 2 claims) while Reagan had either 45 or 52 (1 SCOTUS, 8 circuit, 32 district, 3 tax, 1 territorial, and 7 for DC courts, which most people probably wouldn't count toward the total). So it would be accurate to state that Biden and Reagan had an equal cumulative number of circuit and district nominees confirmed, but that's not what the news articles state. FWIW, here's a listing of the 41 1981 Article III confirmations:

Star Garnet (talk)05:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except three RS contradict your OR, simple as that. Maybe write NYT and make your case for a correction.soibangla (talk)06:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no OR involved; to state unilaterally that Reagan holds the record would be, but to state that he had 41 confirmed in 1981 is routine calculation. If you took the time to read through the 127th edition of the Congressional Record, you would find exactly 41 confirmations for Article III judgeships (a specificity only heavily implied in the articles, but necessary for encyclopedic content, particularly on a page that includes Article I and Article IV judgeships). I've done the work of noting the relevant pages. A search of the congressional nominations database would show the same (taking care to includeJustice O'Connor and exclude the territorial appointment in the Virgin Islands), and an advanced search of the FJC biographical directory spits out this exact list of judges. Now, if you want to say that that throws the reliability of the media coverage out the window, so be it; I have no attachment to the statement being there, just to its accuracy. I did just send an email to NYT, so perhaps this inane conversation will soon be moot.Star Garnet (talk)08:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Garnet:If you took the time to read through the 127th edition of the Congressional Record I would be conducting original research from a primary source, rather than providing reliable secondary sources, the latter being how we do things here. In case I miss it, please ping me when the NYT issues a correction and I will cheerfully celebrate your triumph and mercilessly taunt catie.edmondson@nytimes.com, but until then your version is in stark violation of one of the core principles of the encyclopedia and should be promptly removed. That's not inane, it's...the law.soibangla (talk)14:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Garnet: I see you're doubling down with your argument with this source[1] entitled "White Male Federal Judges." Entering that phrase into the "find" box, one sees it is an opinion piece of that title that is illegible. Would you care to remove it or shall I?soibangla (talk)18:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: I didn't notice that it was an opinion piece, and for that I apologize; I just chose the article (out of a few dozen) with the clearest phrasing. It's replaced now with a standard piece of journalism. You seem to be burdened by misconceptions ofWP:NOTGOODSOURCE and its interplay withWP:OR as well asWP:PAYWALL.Star Garnet (talk)19:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(And yes, I knowWP:NOTGOODSOURCE isn't official policy, although it is well-established; it highlights the purposely flexible terms OR uses in regard to secondary vs. reliable primary sources.)Star Garnet (talk)20:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Garnet: Your new source is also illegible[2] and failsWP:V. If your version persists 24 hours from now I will escalate this issue. Seriously, this is an easy slamdunk andI'm not sure why you're hung up on this.soibangla (talk)21:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: It is a slam dunk, but certainly not in the direction that you think it is. Excerpt of the article, available at the link (which isn't even necessary): "The growing conservative dissatisfaction with Mr. Reagan's judicial nominations was reflected recently in Missouri when conservative Republicans were credited with halting the imminent nomination of Judith Whittaker, a Kansas City corporate lawyer, to the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals. But it's not just conservatives who are unhappy with Mr. Reagan's first-year record of 41 judges." All authoritative sources and contemporaneous secondary sources line up against a poorly fact-checked and nonspecific NYT article (where the only glaring issue is the sensationalized headline that could easily be the editor's fault) which got copied to other outlets.Star Garnet (talk)21:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Garnet: If you've got the text, then why don't you just provide a link to it instead of a blurry image that doesn't passWP:V?which isn't even necessary? Well of course it is. And it's not just NYT, it's also Axios, it's also The Hill, and now it's also WaPo, "now on par with Ronald Reagan’s record."[3] These are four current reliable secondary sources compared to your original research and one 40 year-old source.soibangla (talk)22:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally,Star Garnet: I googled the quote you provided, and parts thereof, including with the date, but I didn't find it. Maybe my google is broken.soibangla (talk)22:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: Yes, four news outlets copying each other, not a peer-reviewed paper on presidential judicial appointment history, which is what you'd need to have more than aWP:SNOW chance. And the text is already available at the link, via the OCR drop-down, as it always is on newspapers.com. This is clearly a case ofWP:OLDSOURCES, of the variety where "older reports tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing." And there is no issue with sources being offline, but as you continue with this challenge, OCR output is inelegant but more than enough for V.Star Garnet (talk)22:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now, newspapers.com doesn't make much of an effort to make that dropdown visible, do they?OCR output is inelegant but more than enough for V except when it's, you know...totally illegible. Do you have cause to believe it'sfour news outlets copying each other? Because if you do I reckon we can just toss out the whole idea of multiple reliable sources, fold up the Wikipedia tent and go home. Now 22 hours remaining on the clock.soibangla (talk)22:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be a dispute over the exact number, I changed the note to "largest number of Article III judicial nominees confirmed during a president's first year in office in decades" since that will be acquire regardless of the exact number.67.173.23.66 (talk)00:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kilian Noah,EJSpaich, andSnickers2686: The DC courts are not federal courts. The don't belong on a page of federal judges.Star Garnet (talk)18:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Garnet: I know that, I wasn't the one that added them.Snickers2686 (talk)19:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several reverts (here,here andhere) of my align left placement of thepicture Joe Biden with Ketanji Brown Jackson, without the editors giving any reason why they insist that the picture should align right.

But there is no rule that pictures have to align right, only a guidance that this is the default:MOS:IMAGELOC. And even this guidance is illustrated by a picture that aligns left! As can be found in many other suitable instances, e.g. the Early Life section ofBill Clinton. Right below is the guidanceMOS:SECTIONLOC, which is contains my reason for placing it left: The picture should appear in the section Supreme Court of the United States, which it belongs to. But due to the long Infobox Joe Biden Series, this is not the case if aligned right, at least not in many monitor resolutions / scalings. It leads to a large empty white gap on the left, which is not good use of screen space. And in some scalings the picture is pushed below the section it belongs to.

Therefore I haveplaced the picture left again in the correct section, as well as removing the fixed pixel size in favour of an "upright"-value, as recommended byMOS:UPRIGHT. Please do not undo without first discussing here. Thanks!Sprachraum (talk)04:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sprachraum: As I adjust my resolution, I do see your point about the image creating a whitespace gap. But this, to me, is preferable to the left-aligned image, as the left-aligned image pushes the entire table to the right at my resolution, leaving a large gap there instead. So neither solution works for all resolutions, and the left-aligned image looks worse to me. Also, thank you for starting the discussion, however I believe any page should be at status quo during a discussion like this, meaning your edit should not be applied until the discussion reaches a consensus.Clay (talk)16:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clay: Hi Clay, thanks for your reply. With issues like these, one does have to actually DO the change in order to gain the visual effect that can be discussed! To your point: If I reduce font size a lot, I get the same you describe, i.e. the picture pushing the table right. But that is only because then the with of the screen allows so much space that the whole table plus the picture can be shown. With any slightly large font size, this does not happen – and importantly, the picture is shown in the section where it belongs. Now thatMIAJudges has reverted yet again (to the fixed pixel size as well, which means he/she has read none of the guidelines I linked above), if I keep the same reduced font size you seem to have used, there is no white gap anymore – but the picture drops far down into the section "United States courts of appeals", where it does not belong! So this really is worse no matter what the font size. But it seems everyone here is so dogmatic about align-right that they cannot appreciate the upsides of the alternative. So I'll be off to other pastures and more important matters.

@Sprachraum

Unfortunately when you change the placement of the picture to the other side of the page it messes up the alignment of the charts for the judges. Therefore numerous editors have reverted it back to the original.

Either way the proper procedure for such a major change like that (As virtually all federal judicial pages have the pictures on the right side) is to first go to the talk page, gain consensus & then make the major change. Therefore the picture has been reverted back to the original & if consensus is gained, the change can then be made. While I’m sure you have good intent, with the change messing up the charts alignment, I am respectfully against the change.

MIAJudges (talk)17:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out how to fix it, but the newly announced nomineeRobert Kirsch is pointing to an article about someone else. We could disambiguate it asRobert Kirsch (attorney) or something else.Marquardtika (talk)21:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor 2603:8000:CF00... other editors - why is archiving the Senate roll call vote sources not done? Is there a specific reason?—Ganesha811 (talk)19:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should Delaney and Wamble be removed from the list now that they have withdrawn? I didn't want to do this on my own without knowing the protocol, but hoping someone with more experience might if appropriate2603:7000:9402:6483:C428:4AE2:CABB:ADDA (talk)12:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Others might be able to give better advice, but I know right now that both are still active nominations (neither the White House nor congress.gov show that they were withdrawn). Now, they did ask to be withdrawn, but some sort of action needs to be taken on the White House end for that to be official. This is just my opinion, though. If the consensus is to keep, remove, etc., I understand.Losipov (talk)17:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait until there's an official notice from the White House that their nominations have been withdrawn otherwise you verge onWP:CRYSTALSnickers2686 (talk)19:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idk if this has been discussed on other presidents' judiciary pages, but would it be informative to put the American Bar Association ratings for judicial nominees in our tables? We have the info going back to (at least) 1989[4].Nevermore27 (talk)20:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor; I believe they started handing out ratings under Kennedy if not Eisenhower. I'm not sure how easy those earlier ratings would be to track down, but I'd find them interesting and informative.Star Garnet (talk)20:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snickers2686: you're probably the most active editor on this page, would love your input.Nevermore27 (talk)22:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not hearing any objections I'm going tobe bold and see what happens.Nevermore27 (talk)01:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I think it gives undue weight to the opinion of one interest group. Lots of people and groups have opinions on judges, if we add them all the chart becomes unwieldy and less useful. I would say it makes sense to have ABA ratings (and other interest groups' opinions) in the individual nominees' articles. --Coemgenus (talk)15:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coemgenus: that's a fair critique, my reaction to that is to say that it's factual that the ABA has had an outsize influence on the conversation of nominations, though admittedly moreso in the past than currently. Prior to Trump, presidents would submit their prospective nominees to the ABA even before they were officially nominated to get a rating. ABA ratings are brought up in committee hearings regularly whereas I don't hear any other groups' ratings discussed.Nevermore27 (talk)15:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does any other group go even remotely as far in their evaluation, i.e. 40-100+ interviews in addition to a lengthy interview with every nominee before their hearing, on top of a deep dive into their writings and other background measures? Like Nevermore27, I'm unaware of any other group that has more than a minute fraction of the ABA's influence. Even in this era where they don't pre-evaluate prospective nominees, it's almost certain (although unverifiable) that Wamble and Holland didn't get hearings solely because of their ABA evaluations. Their ratings also go back to the 1950s, although they're only easily accessible back to 1989.Star Garnet (talk)16:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it gives a bit too much weight to one of many organizations that issue ratings regarding judicial nominees. While I do recognize their historical importance in the past, the ABA is also a lot less important regarding judicial nominations now than arguably ever given that the Trump Administration did not pay much attention to their rankings and even the George W. Bush Administration pivoted away from ABA deference. I also think the ABA rankings may not be relevant to this specific Wikipedia page given that this page is merely a list of presidential nominees and appointees to fill governmental positions. Adding information regarding a non-governmental organization's determination on a candidate seems far more relevant for that nominee's individual page rather than the broader "List of Federal Judges" page. For example, non-governmental rankings on the qualifications of U.S. Attorneys or members of the Executive branch are typically mentioned on the individual's page instead of their respective Wikipedia "list" page. Additionally, while I do think this may warrant mention on the individuals page, virtually all nominees either get a Q or WQ regardless and there are very few exceptions who get an NQ and go on to be confirmed.LosPajaros (talk)22:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LosPajaros: in response to your last point I think it's useful for readers to be able to see all the ratings cumulatively (and sortably) rather than being expected to go to each nominee's page individually.Nevermore27 (talk)15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the desire to see these ratings, however, aside from the fact it gives arguably a bit too much weight to a single non-governmental organization, the rankings aren't very relevant as almost all nominees will get a qualified or well qualified ranking regardless. Nominees to positions within the federal judiciary are almost always qualified even if they individually might not be super well liked by liberal or conservative interest groups. The rankings are certainly interesting to people who follow the judiciary closely and can be fun trivia, and I understand the need to address when a nominee gets a Not Qualified ranking, but those are few and far between. As such, and this is again just my opinion, the rankings are only really notable and receive any sort of tangible attention from the Senate or the media when they get a Not Qualified. The information of a nominee getting a Qualified or a Well Qualified being added into the current list format is ultimately a bit redundant and doesn't really provide any new information.LosPajaros (talk)17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful information for anyone who is interested enough to visit these pages. You say it gives too much weight to an organization, my contention is that it simply acknowledges a prominence that already exists within the system. I certainly appreciate your feedback, and I hope anyone who reads this discussion feels well-informed to make their own mind up either way.Nevermore27 (talk)17:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, although I do want to stipulate that my contention regarding undue weight of the ABA isn't that the organization isn't prominent, it's that the organization isn't relevant regarding the flat, neutral purpose of what this specific Wikipedia page is for. The current page provides information relating to the status of judges as judges within the federal judiciary. things such as confirmation votes, date of service, active service, etc. I am not denying that ABA rankings aren't interesting but rather that this information doesn't fall in line regarding the relevance of these judges and nominees service as *public servants* within the federal judiciary. Hope that clears up my position a little bit regarding this!LosPajaros (talk)18:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

of course! I do understand your position I just think the information is both relevant and useful for anyone who is interested enough to seek this page out.Nevermore27 (talk)18:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, while I find the information very interesting and closely examined it, I have an issue with the complicated display and multiple designations to indicate a majority of the vote vs. substantial majority vs. minority. It also treats this like it is a legally decisive and necessary part of the judicial confirmation process when it is purely advisory. If we’re going to keep this, please display the majority vote with a superscript if it was not unanimous.Merrill559 (talk)04:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Merrill559: there is nothing in the information, as it is presented, suggesting it's a mandatory part of the process. But if it would help the column stay, I think a note describing its historical significance as an advisory rating could be worthwhile. As to the complexity of the ratings, unfortunately that is a direct transcription of the ABA's own ratings system so I don't see a way to alter it without rendering it ineffective. If there is no notation of majority or minority, then it is a unanimous rating.Nevermore27 (talk)04:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is inherently indicating that it is a part of the official confirmation process because it is displayed next to items that are part of the official process. We have the nomination date, the confirmation date, confirmation vote count. These are all parts of the confirmation process. The ABA ratings are not relevant to the official proceedings in the Senate when all of the other information is. I do not think it belongs in this section at all.Merrill559 (talk)21:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not only about the the official parts of the process, this wiki article is not managed by the Senate Judiciary Committee or the U.S. Senate where only "official" things are allowed to be included. The ratings are relevant and informative. In many cases, these ratings are already included on the articles of the judges themselves, this is just an effort to compile them all and include them for informational purposes.Nevermore27 (talk)22:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, but I fully understand what Wikipedia is. The information curated in this article is about federal judges appointed by Joe Biden and has, in the past, been an excellent source for tracking progress on the active nominations. The ABA rating is more relevant to the decision of whether or not a Senator will vote to confirm that nominee. Just being relevant is not a good enough reason. It is also relevant what law school the nominee graduated from, but it’s just not necessary information.Merrill559 (talk)02:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually law school is not relevant to judicial nominations =P. But I guess we just don't agree.Nevermore27 (talk)02:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, law school is a factor that plays too great a role in whether a Senator will vote to confirm a Judge or Justice (and an even greater role in the ABA’s board decision in rating justices; it is a fact elite school graduates get better ABA ratings on average than non-elite law schools). Just look at the Supreme Court and the “diversity” of law school alumna. It definitely plays a factor, I would argue greater than ABA rating. My view is that ABA ratings are even less relevant than the nominee’s Alma mater in the eyes of a Senator deciding on how to vote. For example, Sen. Lindsay Graham’s lobbying for a University of SO Carolina Judge. Home field, home university.Merrill559 (talk)01:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs removing as it is too much information and it is not helpful information, the inclusion is also undue weight to the ABA.PicturePerfect666 (talk)04:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think its information worth including.MappedTables (talk)05:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s undue weight, and adds confusion.

What value does it give the casual reader? Why are only the ABA ratings included?

It also gives an impression it is mandatory for the ABA to give a rating and it is somehow part of the official confirmation process, when it is not.

the ratings are also confusing to the casual reader as what is majorly/minority? what do the ratings themself mean? How are they reached? Can a nominee contest a rating? Do senators pay them any attention? How, when, where and why ratings given?

The inclusion is confusing and a reduces the simplicity of the article which is completely avoidable.

Apart from liking it or more information inclusion (simply for the sake of it), why in your opinion should it stay?PicturePerfect666 (talk)06:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added this language to the reference note, idk if this will help.

"Since 1989, theAmerican Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has provided ratings for Article III and IV judicial nominees. The Standing Committee is a 15-member body that reviews legal writings, interviews relevant people and the nominee, and investigates claims. Prior to theGeorge W. Bush administration and again during theObama administration, nominees were submitted to the Standing Committee for evaluation prior to officially being announced. Although the committee rates prospective nominees, it does not propose, recommend or endorse candidates for nomination to the federal judiciary, it is purely advisory.American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary: What It is and How It Works
Ratings key:
WQ: Well Qualified
Q: Qualified
NQ: Not qualified
^sm: Substantial majority (10-13 votes)
^m: Majority (8-9 votes)
^min: Minority"

Nevermore27 (talk)15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose its inclusion as it is undue weight. Why did they start in 1989? why are these ratings given. Also inclusion is Wikivoice endorsement. Also the Ratings key is confusing to the casual user and potentially even the more qualified and well read user. It is more problematic than it is helpful and in my opinion and needs removing.

There are no amount of explanations that can be added which will help as the article simplicity and access is diminished by the addition of the pros and the tables become more complex by the addition.

The article and the tables within the article have the strength of simplicity and easy access which is diminished by this proposal.PicturePerfect666 (talk)16:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an additional and in my opinion fatal reason why the ABA ratings cannot be included. That is the ABA are selective in the judicial nominees that they give a rating to. The ABA only give a rating to civilian nominees to the supreme court, courts of appeal and federal district courts. They do not give ratings for specialty, international, or military courts. As such the inclusion is undue weight and not in keeping with a neutral point of view. I am happy to be shown to be wrong on this point but that still does not get over the other issues with inclusion.

Additionally while this discussion is ongoing as perWP:BRD, I have reverted the bold addition while it is being discussed.PicturePerfect666 (talk)16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way there's going to be consensus to put it back with these aggressive arguments against it so you win.Nevermore27 (talk)16:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the characterisation of my contributions as 'aggressive'. I think that the use of such emotive terms adds unnecessary heat to the discussions here. Discussions must remain collegial and not stray into the realms of emotion to be productive. I encourage you to make your case for how these issues are overcome or the counter point to the issues, which I have raised. Please assume good faith when reading discussions, and avoid assuming entrenchment of positions.

I am merely pointing out the issues with the inclusion and the changes to the simplicity of the article. I am pointing out how this fails the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia on:

• Undue Weight - it gives an elevated position within the article to the ABA and the ratings they give
• Make technical articles understandable - this addition adds complexity and reduces understanding. Wikiepedia is not a legal journal for example.
• Neutral Point of View - The ABA only give out ratings to select courts and has only given out ratings since a specific time, meaning the information being included has been selected to be worthy of inclusion from a set point, as opposed to the information being an integral and mandated part of the process.
• Not Everything Gets Included - it fails on this point as while the information is true it does not enhance the article or the table. The inclusion of this could lead to the inclusion of other information which is not mandated or integral to the process, (the slippery slope/opening the floodgates).
  • Not Collections of Statistics - The information while it is explained is just another column of statistics, in this case, opinions from the ABA, which does not add to the tables or the article, beyond oh hey look what the ABA rating is. The ABA rating is in and of itself trivia, due to its non-mandatory nature.

While I agree the information is novel and potentially of interest to some, it has far more issues for the lay observer, and the article quality, which outweighs the interest to those who find it interesting or potentially useful.

Your opposition is noted. To be clear I was not referring to you alone. I thought it was a useful, informative column and I have given as good an argument for its inclusion as I can. With the opposition from you and others, there will *never* be consensus to put it back, so there is no point in trying to respond to you point by point. You have won.Nevermore27 (talk)17:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I not sure why the comments above are as passive aggressive as they are. Heading such as ‘Your opposition is noted.’ Is an example of this.

While I accept you do make your case well, I feel it does not outweigh or alleviate the concerns.

This discussion is standard Wikipedia practice and I am baffled by what is coming across as very petulant and bordering on being upset because your preferred version is being challenged. That is not collegiate, healthy or constructive.

The final paragraph is dismissive and is assuming bad faith by using wording like ‘the opposition from you and others, there will *never* be consensus to put it back, so there is no point in trying’, including your emphasis on the word never are adding unnecessary and makes trying to operate collegially very diffucult as you are ‘othering’ those discussing a position opposite to you.

Please cool the temperature it is unnecessary and no one else is commenting on the other contributors , everyone else is focused on the content.PicturePerfect666 (talk)00:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information is best included as a section on the ABA page about how they give advisory and non-binding ratings of nominees and have done so since when they began doing so.PicturePerfect666 (talk)17:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There already is oneNevermore27 (talk)17:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then leave the information there. It is best served in that section and not here. It is also potentially able to be split out into its own article as described below. The section on the ABA page also points out issues with the ratings, potentially being politically biased, and the ratings not determining how well a nominee will perform as a judge. This adds an additional criterion of inherent unreliability of the ratings, further strengthening the case that the inclusion is not neutral.PicturePerfect666 (talk)17:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ratings themselves (as a whole, not by administration), while they should be included here, easily qualify for an article of their own. Tons of media coverage and academic analysis of them. There may be a path for lists there without running afoul of NOTSTATS or LISTN.Star Garnet (talk)17:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with an article on the ratings by the ABA as a standalone article, but the reasons above in my opinion set out clearly why inclusion in the article series as proposed should not occur.PicturePerfect666 (talk)17:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Meant that as a reply to Nevermore, who I'd be happy to see leading the article creation, but thanks for the input.)Star Garnet (talk)17:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this process has soured me on the whole endeavour so no thank you.Nevermore27 (talk)17:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As an editor that was formerly very active in this particular project, I would have to emphaticallyoppose including ABA ratings in the chart. First, perWP:UNDUE. And secondly, makes the charts unwieldly wide.Safiel (talk)19:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's completely besides the point right now but the second point is just false. On any normal computer screen it's a marginal width increase.Nevermore27 (talk)22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree on this point, the width of screens is a of trivial concern.PicturePerfect666 (talk)00:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A bit late here but I agree that it isWP:UNDUE to include ratings from any single organization.Let'srun (talk)17:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just updated the page on theCourt of Military Commission Review to reflect its current composition. It has currently five members nominated by the Biden administration, however these are members of the armed forces. Should they be included on this page, or should it be reserved for civilian nominees? The pages for Trump and Obama have only included civilians, and would if so have to be updated.Alexander Bonaparte Caesar (talk)15:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should be included. First of all, thank you for your contribution Alexander. Second, I believe all judges that Presidents have appointed to the CMCR should be included. I don't understand why a distinction was made to include civilian judges only. I believe this page should include a section on the judges Biden appointed to the CMCR, and pages of Trump and Obama (and any other President) should be updated to include their non-civilian appointments to the CMCR.Procurator Delphenoi (talk)02:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does reference need to be made in regard to numbers confirmed during Biden's term and that it's more than Trump's time in office? What is the point of that: everything referring to or contrasted to Trump, as per usual? Why isn't mention made of fellow one-term Presidents Carter and H.W. Bush, unless there's some "point" that is attempting to be made?50.32.154.61 (talk)20:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead discusses numerical statistics regarding the number of nominations. While true that it isn’t talked about in the body that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed in the article. Many of lists have information about the subject not in the body included in the lead. This is pretty clearly the precedent for lists. It isn’t original research as it is cited by sourcesOlliefant (she/her)17:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davefelmer:Olliefant (she/her)17:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to not understand whatWP:OR is.WP:OR is not about citing stuff that's unsourced, it is quite literally doing your own research (with or without sources) to include new takes and analysis for something that isn't covered in the body.WP:LEAD specifies that article leads are to be summaries of the information expressly outlined in the body, it is not a place for unique info. Thus, the content is alsoWP:UNDUE.

I don't know what precedent you're referring to but all of the similar lists for other presidents don't contain this type of information. SeeList of federal judges appointed by George W. Bush,List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama andList of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump. Trump's article never included it despite him literally holding a lot of the records you cite for Biden a few years ago. The need is to stay consistent and adhere to project rules. This is simply an open and shut case of neither, and several rules being violated.Davefelmer (talk)22:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles should include additional information, and having more info in the lead is fairly standard for lists. See my newly promoted Featured ListList of Parks and Recreation episodes. It has info not in the body but that didn’t spot it from being promoted. Besides it’s not original research if it’s written in a source. If the article reads “ Biden appointed the most federal judges during the first two years of any presidency since John F. Kennedy” and Pew Reaserch Center says “ Among all presidents going back to Dwight D. Eisenhower, only Kennedy had appointed more federal judges than Biden at the same stage of his tenure.” Then that’s pretty clearly not original researchOlliefant (she/her)17:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked over it, your Parks and Rec example is extremely weak as it includes an extremely limited amount of info not in the body that largely amounts to a line at the top on what the show is about. A more direct example would be if that lead randomly went into how its viewership compared to other popular shows of the time and what critics said about a random season finale.

You also seem to continue to not understand whatWP:OR is. Again, the original research is you personally searching up random trivia and putting it in the article despite the actual article body not discussing it or even having a basis for it at all. By this logic you can literally add whatever you want to any article including right at the top of the lead as long as you find a source for the line. We both know that is not what the project is. And none of the similar judicial articles across the entire project have such trivia. You need to re-read the OR rule, and then readWP:UNDUE. This is one of the most obvious cases of it you can get.Davefelmer (talk)04:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/30 March 2021
• Accepted AfC submissions
• List-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• List-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• List-Class Presidents of the United States articles
• Low-importance Presidents of the United States articles
• WikiProject Presidents of the United States articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• List-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• List-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• List-Class United States courts and judges articles
• Mid-importance United States courts and judges articles
• List-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• List-Class List articles
• Low-importance List articles
• WikiProject Lists articles
• Wikipedia articles that use American English