Talk:Christine Blasey Ford/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Additional sources

These sources may provide some room for expanding certain details of Ford's life...[1] and this wedding announcement [2]. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

In 2018, she alleged that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, in what she described as a "rape attempt."[3]

However, Christine Blasey Ford did not report this alleged offense to the police at the time. And she admits she had been consuming alcoholic beverages at the time, and she has admitted she does not recall other details. She does not remember the exact location, she does not remember how she got there, or where she went afterwards. Brett Kavanaugh has denied the entire allegation, and many people believe Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations have been politically motivated because Brett Kavanaugh is under consideration to become a United States Supreme Court Justice. Ninemilecreek (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:OR, particular the section on synthesis. Bradv 00:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Introduction section should be a full summary of the entire article

Introduction section should be a full summary of the entire article.

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

Stop removing stuff from the intro section.

Sagecandor (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

AgreedCasprings (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fine as is. The extra fluff does not all need to be in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

We can mention in the lede she is the author of a book. Sagecandor (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's what this is about. I reverted the following addition to the lead by User:Sagecandor.

With Helen Chmura Kraemer, she is co-author of the book How Many Subjects? (2015) published by Sage. She is a contributing author to books including Handbook of Mental Health Interventions in Children and Adolescents (2004) from publisher Jossey-Bass, and Psychologists' Desk Reference (2013) published by Oxford University Press.

In my edit summary, I explained that these items were already mentioned in Publications, and there is no evidence they're of such greater importance than her other published works that they must be elevated to the lead.

Note the presence of not merely book titles and year of publication, but also Wikilinked publishers as if this were an advertisement for a catalog.

We're not shopping here. We don't this level of detail in the lead. If someone wants to briefly summarize her publications, fine. Otherwise, leave it out. KalHolmann (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. We can briefly summarize her publications. Sagecandor (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Merging sexual assault content to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

Please join the discussion here. Sandstein 06:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2018

[Add a subheading of "Political Activisim" and include the below text and supporting references] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4byu123 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Political Activisim

Ford has been active in left-leaning political protests against President Trump. Associates for Ford regard her as an ally for "liberal causes." https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-trump/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/17/metoo-spurred-christine-blasey-ford-to-open-up-about-alleged-attack-year-before-kavanaugh-nomination-friends-say/ 4byu123 (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

"On September 17th, 2018 female alumnae from Ford's High School Circulate Letter Of Support, many claiming to have been victimized while at the school themselves, though they didn't name any particular male student as an offender." 130.63.243.187 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't need to include this letter, for the same reason as not including the letter from the 65 people in support of Kavanaugh. These things have no lasting significance, add nothing to the coverage of the subject, and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Bradv 19:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

References

The proposed edit is obviously, blatantly inaccurate. The women cannot possibly be alumnae of Kavanaugh's high school. He attended an all-male high school. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Yeah a bit off, not alumnae as you point out. Fox ran it, but basically just women that knew him while in highschool from social events and the like. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually I misread the item. They are alumnae of Ford's high school, not Kavanaugh's. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ha then I misread your misreading. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Couple therapy and then individual therapy

If you look at the post article, there are two sets of notes from a therpist. The first from the couple therpist. The second is from her therpist. The article needs to make this clear.Casprings (talk)|

@Casprings: Our only use of WaPo's report of her 2013 individual therapy session is in the lead, where we Wikilink attempted rape. We omit the quotation marks within which The Post enclosed those two words, and do not refer to their origin from a therapy session.

Our only mention of a therapy session comes later, under Sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. We refer once to "session notes from her therapist written in 2012."

I don't see why we must recount that there were two separate sessions with (presumably) two different therapists. How is that significant to our narrative? It's more detail than we need. KalHolmann (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy and it goes to support her claim. Not a lot of text to say she said it in couples therapy and her therapy session. Having two sets of notes to support her versus one is actually kind of an important detail.Casprings (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Casprings: I trust you are not suggesting that as Wikipedia editors we should take it upon ourselves to support Professor Ford's claim. KalHolmann (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest as Wikipedia editors we go for accuracy, especially with BLP. By excluding this basic fact we are making the claim seem less supported then it actually is. The reality is that this is a huge deal in her life and BLP suggests that we should be as accurate as possiable.Casprings (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Naming the other boy

On Sept. 18, 2018, User:E.M.Gregory changed "with another boy watching" to "with a boy named Mark Judge watching." (The BLP stub of Mark Judge was created four hours ago by the same E.M.Gregory.) Although The Washington Post on Sept. 16 named Mark Judge as the other boy, we have not previously done so in our BLP of Professor Ford, and I reverted it. At this hour, neither the BLP of Brett Kavanaugh nor Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination have named Mark Judge. It would seem that Professor Ford's BLP is to be a testing ground. I hope other editors will discuss this matter with a view towards reaching consensus as to how it ought to be handled. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The initial letter that was released had Judge's name redacted, but it's common knowledge now and easily sourced. There's no longer any policy-based reason to exclude it. Bradv 16:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

https://www.newsweek.com/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-1126145 another secondary source. Sagecandor (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, if we do name Mark Judge, should we not also include his denial of Christine Blasey Ford's story? That is something E.M.Gregory left out, although he may have intended to add it later. KalHolmann (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I just added the link. I had no further intentions. Although we sure need to be careful to keep this page neutral. But notw tha tyou meniton it, yes, we do need to add his statement of denial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure I understand the objection here. Ford's decision to come forward turned her (a minor academic,) and Judge (a minor writer,) into major public figures. Neither is a WP:BLP1E. And while I do not understand the implication of "test case," with profiles of him in several major national publications, I see not policy-based argument against adding his name and a link to the article about him to this page. And the other Kavenaugh page. I'm all about user friendly, and, our users will expect to be able to link to information in an article about him. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: I meant naming the other boy in Professor Ford's BLP would be a testing ground for Wikipedia, where it has not appeared as such apart from your Mark Judge stub. KalHolmann (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Judge Kavanaugh denies being present at any such party.

In the current section of the Wiki titled "Sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh" after the sentence referencing the polygraph, a new sentence with the following:

"Judge Kavanaugh in conversation with Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, who serves on the Senate Judiciary committee, "told the senator he was not at a party similar to what his accuser described." 4byu123 (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, agree that this belongs on the page, per WP:NPOV and WP:BALASP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done: That's a no-brainer. I changed the BLP accordingly. KalHolmann (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

We already have that he denied the accusation, and this particular tidbit is in some private conversation with Orrin Hatch (the same dude who attacked Anita Hill backed in the day [3]). Additionally, per sources this whole "I wasn't at that party" begs the question of how he knew what party was being referred to since at that point Ford hadn't said what and when the party was [4]. So keep it out. He'll have the opportunity to say he wasn't at some party when he testifies again. Volunteer Marek 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Section on political affiliations needed

There should be a section on her activist commitments, including donations, now that it is being covered in multiple WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Already in the article. Sagecandor (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Add exact language from Wash. Post indicating Ford's uncertainty regarding the timing and "key details" of the event

Under the current heading: "Sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh" The current Wiki language states: "According to her, the sexual assault took place in the summer of 1982 when she was 15 and he was 17" The cited Wash. Post source for foundation states: "After so many years, Ford said, she does not remember some key details of the incident. She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982, when she was 15." The current Wiki language is NOT NEUTRAL. Accompanying the language "the sexual assault took place" should be the relevant language that "she does not remember some key details" and "she believes it occurred." To leave out this language WHICH IS DIRECTLY QUOTED IN THE WASH. POST cited source misrepresents a key aspect of the cited source/authority, namely Ford's uncertainty about the actual timing of the event as well as in Ford's own words "some key details of the incident."

Current language: "According to her, the sexual assault took place in the summer of 1982 when she was 15 and he was 17" Proposed language: "After so many years, Ford said, she does not remember some key details of the incident. She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982, when she was 15." [exact quote from Wash. Post article: 4byu123 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Current language is fine. Volunteer Marek 21:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The current Wikipedia language is deceptive and misrepresents the original source. Moreover, other mainstream sources are reporting on the allegation in a manner consistent with the proposed language. For example this just publish AP News source on the same states "Ford says that at a party when both were teenagers in the early 1980s" indicating Ford's uncertainty surrounding the timing of the events. The current language should be changed to the proposed for NPOV purposes. 4byu123 (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Source: "She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982, when she was 15". Text: "According to her, the sexual assault took place in the summer of 1982 when she was 15". Current language is fine. Volunteer Marek 21:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

How convenient you leave out the immediately preceding language from the source ""After so many years, Ford said, she does not remember some key details of the incident. She said she believes . . . ." There are only four years in high school. To not remember whether it was Freshmen, Sophomore, Junior, or Senior for such an alleged tragic event is worth noting. Not to mention she can't remember "some key details of the incident." The current language is a distortion of the source used as a reference. It should be changed to simply reflect the actual language of the referenced source. Tell me that's not too much to expect from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4byu123 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you juror No. 1. As told to you before this is an encyclopedia we do not speculate. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 22:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime Phone, I'm quite sure jurors are expected to be neutral. Bradv 22:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: My point is, this is not a court room. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 22:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes is "not a court room" and we are not "jurors" but Wikipedia does seek a reputation of being objective and factual, aka encyclopedic. Its apparent that is not the case. I simply try and correct the record using the precise language from the cited source and several editors with obvious political opposition to Judge Kavanaugh and a bias towards his accuser Ford reveal themselves to be little more than political activists masquerading as Wikipedia editors. I get it. Not surprising. Sad, but not surprising. 4byu123 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

4byu123, we're not supposed to use "precise language from the cited source" - that's a copyright violation. What we're supposed to do is find several sources, summarize them in a neutral manner, and stick to the facts. The facts here are that Ford made an accusation, and Kavanaugh denied it. It is not our job to ask questions, to cast aspersions, to point out perceived flaws or inconsistencies, or to decide who's right and who's wrong. Bradv 00:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

2 boys or 4? Ford's story varied

@E.M.Gregory: Any inclusion of references to Mark Judge should also note Ford's inconsistent statement as documented by Ford's therapist wherein the therapist noted that Ford told her there were "four boys". 4byu123 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Washington Post: "The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room." This, detail belongs on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Added. starship.paint ~ KO 12:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Lie Detector Test

The WaPo article reads: "Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate." [emphasis added] Ben Shapiro pointed out on his podcast that the polygraph result as reported by the Post might mean something very different from the way it's being widely interpreted -- ie, not that her allegations about Kavanaugh were true, but that a summary truthfully reflected her allegations. I know Shapiro isn't RS for this sort of claim, but is there a NPOV way to include this nuance in the article? Scaleshombre (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Right now the statement is backed up by reliable sources and seems pretty clear to me. Unless you have something that says other wise best to leave as is for now. ContentEditman (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Shapiro is not a RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• WaPo is an RS, so I have added what they said. starship.paint ~ KO 12:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2018

Please change date of birth from "born c. 1967" to the correct date of: 28 Nov 1966. Source: U.S. Public Records Index, Volume 2. SusanCGriffin (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PackMecEng (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2018

Current sentence is: Ford teachers subjects including psychometrics, study methodologies, and statistics. Sentence should be: Ford teaches subjects including psychometrics, study methodologies, and statistics. Please change the word "teachers" to "teaches" because it will clarify the meaning of the sentence. The error was likely just a typo. 47.186.24.52 (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Liberal Political Activism of Ford

Suggested inclusion:

[sub-title] Political Activisim

[brief text objectively summarized from two sources] Ford has been active in left-leaning political protests against President Trump. Associates for Ford regard her as an ally for "liberal causes."

</ref>https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/17/metoo-spurred-christine-blasey-ford-to-open-up-about-alleged-attack-year-before-kavanaugh-nomination-friends-say/</ref>

Discussion:

Left-Leaning Political Activism of Ford should be noted in this case of "he said she said." Any POTENTIAL bias (hidden, undiscovered, inadvertent, etc.) of a witness goes to credibility and should be noted.

There was NO reporting of this allegation for 30+ years after the event. The timing of the 11th hour allegation is highly unusual and contrary to "normal order" of a Senate Confirmation hearing. Given the highly politically charged nature of Judge Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation ANY POSSIBLE bias of a witness such as Ford should at least be documented in encyclopedia format. These sources simply document Ford's political activisim. 4byu123 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4byu123 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the sources, heavy is just quoting mercurynews, and neither seem like sound journalism. Lots of politically-charged hearsay and speculation. I'm not going to respond to the points you made below that. Bradv 16:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: The Mercury News article quotes an associate of Ford, a percipient witness, to what Ford did, said, and what her political inclinations were for attending the rally. For you to point to "politically-charged hearsay and speculation" for NOT including this content in this matter is hypocritical and reflects bias on your part. The central issue is predicated on a 30+ years after the fact vague (Ford not certain of month or even year of alleged assault) 11th hour allegation that is wholly uncorroborated by ANY other similar instance in Kavanaugh's life INCLUDING the comments of his high school girlfriend who dated him in high school, including at high school events where drinking occurred. The Ford allegation is the epitome of unreliability in terms of legal standards of admissibility. Yet you use "hearsay" and "speculation" as a reason to disqualify the evidence of Ford's political activism. Think about it . . . Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh is far worse in terms of reliability according to legal standards given the fact that its 30+ years stale. The statements made by Ford to associates as reported in Mercury News are recent in comparison. Mercury News is a credible news source. The statements made by Ford as documented by Mercury News are recent and very relevant given Ford's left-leaning political inclinations and the highly political nature of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. It should be included in the Wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4byu123 (talk • contribs) 17:34, September 18, 2018 (UTC)

This an biographical article on Ford and not an assessment of her claims. WP biographies require sound sources rather than hearsay and speculation stuff (there is no wiggle room on that) and that is completely independent of reliability of Ford's claims. That is biographies of people claiming sketchy stuff still require sound sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please don't engage in victim shaming on Wikipedia talk pages. It is a violation of policy. Bradv 17:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: Where exactly did I ever engage in any sort of "victim shaming"???? All my comments were with respect to the reliability of Ford's uncorroborated allegations when assessed according to legal standards of admissibility and her potential political bias as indicated by her acts and own words. At no point did I say anything about Ford's character as an alleged victim. To say that what Ford said is "vague" (no recollection of even year of event) or "uncorroborated" (no mention to anyone for 30+ years) or to state that the "allegation" is the "epitome of unreliability in terms of legal standards of admissibility" is simply to state the objective facts. Where is the "victim shaming"?? 4byu123 (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@4byu123: This is an encyclopedia, not a court of public opinion. We report the facts about people and events, but we do not cast aspersions on their motives or engage in original research about their possible motives or "political bias". Now you may think that she's an unreliable witness, or that she's just making things up for attention, or that the $72 she gave to the Democratic Party somehow "proves" that she's lying, but those opinions are best kept to oneself, if they must be held at all. Biography of living persons policy applies to the article and the talk page. Bradv 18:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: "Now you may think" . . . Seriously??? In addition to slandering me as a "victim shamer" with no basis you now purport to know what I "think." I never said "she's just making things up for attention"nor did I say anything akin to Ford's political activisim "proves that she's lying." The entirety of my suggestions were only in reference to reliability as a witness. Pointing out potential biases of a witness is not "victim shaming" it happens all the time everyday in Courts around the US because its deemed relevant in the search for "the facts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4byu123 (talk • contribs) 18:42, September 18, 2018 (UTC)

@4byu123: See how that feels? I didn't attack you directly at all, yet you took it personally. Imagine how Ford feels right now (and Kavanaugh for that matter). Let's stick to the facts. Bradv 18:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You're saying that Ford is lying for political reasons. You're "victim shaming" to make that implication. That violates BLP. Not that hard. Volunteer Marek 20:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BALASP Page content needs to be WP:NPOV, and this can only be achieved by including material, including material about her political commitments, that is in WP:PROPORTION to the material being reported in the sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No that is not how "it can only be achieved". Including this stuff would be a straight up attempt to poison the well. Volunteer Marek 19:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

change professor in clinical psychology to professor in statistics Truthbeknown1861 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it has already been done.[5] PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Source is sufficient without consensus. KalHolmann (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

Change Occupation psychologist to occupation educational psychologist Truthbeknown1861 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: In identifying her publicly for the first time, The Washington Post reported on Sept. 16: "Christine Ford is a professor at Palo Alto University who teaches in a consortium with Stanford University, training graduate students in clinical psychology." Neither of your sources says anything specifically about Christine Blasey Ford, and none of the WP:RS I've seen describe her in any way that fits Wikipedia's definition of educational psychologist, whose "differentiating functions may include diagnostic and psycho-educational assessment, psychological counseling in educational communities (students, teachers, parents and academic authorities), community-type psycho-educational intervention, and mediation, coordination, and referral to other professionals, at all levels of the educational system. Many countries use this term to signify those who provide services to students, their teachers, and families while other countries use this term to signify academic expertise in teaching Educational Psychology." KalHolmann (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

The education listed needs to be updated as well as financial ties to pharmaceuticals. Her position with Stanford needs to be researched and rewritten. 2600:8802:6403:E100:D05A:6414:FA42:1853 (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You must provide "a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. 'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'." Also, provide links to reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Looks like people are trying to corridate coordinate on twitter for this article.[6] PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I searched dictionary.com, Google, and of course Wikipedia, but could not find the meaning of corridate. It sounds sinister and/or possibly sexual. Please help me understand. I'm dying of curiosity! KalHolmann (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I honestly have no idea! But what I meant to write was coordinate. Thanks for the catch! PackMecEng (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Now that I know what you intended, I presume your all-hands alert pertains to Dr Jess Wade's vow to edit Christine Blasey Ford today. I agree that when such a legend enters the fray, we must all beware of corridation. KalHolmann (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, that is why I linked it in my first message. It would be improper to coordinate off wiki in such a manner. While everyone is of course welcome to edit, that should be done here and not on twitter to avoid WP:MEAT. PackMecEng (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Thanks for stating your motivation—to avoid Meatpuppetry. "Some individuals may promote their causes," the policy explains, "by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets…. Recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." Are you insinuating that Dr Jess Wade is a new editor being recruited to Wikipedia by the Twitter user @STEMFatalePod? KalHolmann (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad I could clear that up for you! PackMecEng (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This all seems like the article could get some really good future editors.. and hopefully wikipedia will also.Casprings (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

What? Contributions have to meet your approval, since when? Total contradiction to the original intent of the site. If she is telling the truth then no amount of B.S. posted here should impact a person who as an established education and well established reputation, such as Judge Kavanaugh. Mdancey1 (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

FBI and the redacted letter

Moved here from unrelated talk page section above. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Per your owned footnotes the FBI provided the White House with her letter in a redacted format and the White House sent this redacted letter to the Senate Nominating Committee. This is subsequent to the original background materials being provided. The current sentence regarding this matter is misleading in that it leads the reader to belief that her letter was included with the original background materials provided by the FBI. Again, per your own footnote, the redacted letter was subsequently provided to the White House by the FBI. The White House then sent the letter to the committee members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:4601:2800:F00F:A9E:B46A:66AE (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have edited the relevant paragraph to clarify chain of custody from Feinstein to the FBI, which redacted Ford's name and forwarded the letter to the White House. I then cited CNBC's September 13 report that the FBI included the letter as an update to Kavanaugh's background check. Hopefully, this will eliminate the point of confusion you raised. KalHolmann (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, NPR on Sept. 18 quoted Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley: "The FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh is closed. The FBI is not doing any further investigation." According to a Justice Department spokeswoman, "The FBI does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation. The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to the national security of the United States. The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime. The FBI's role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers." KalHolmann (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Will Grassley eat his words? Later on Sept. 18, Ford's attorneys sent him a letter requesting that the FBI investigate the incident before the Senate holds a hearing on her allegations. "A full investigation by law enforcement officials," the letter said, "will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions." KalHolmann (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

On Sept. 19, NBC News tweeted a copy of Grassley's letter responding to Ford's attorneys. "It is not the FBI's role to investigate a matter of such as this," Grassley explained. "Before nominating an individual to a judicial or executive office, the White House directs the FBI to conduct a background investigation. The FBI compiles information about a prospective nominee and sends it to the White House. The White House then provides FBI background investigation files to the Senate as a courtesy to help us determine whether to confirm a nominee. The FBI does not make a credibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee." Grassley confirmed that the FBI "has supplemented Judge Kavanaugh's background investigation file in light of the allegations raised by your client." But Grassley held firm, tweeting from his own verified account, "As the FBI has said its role here is complete." KalHolmann (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

On Sept. 20, The Hill reported: "The FBI conducts background investigations for potential employees or appointees for agencies that request them by interviewing associates of the individual, performing local police checks and taking other steps to compile a report on the candidate. If derogatory information surfaces after an investigation is completed, it is up to the requesting body—in this case, the White House—to direct the FBI to reopen the investigation. 'I don't think the FBI really should be involved because they don't want to be involved,' Trump told reporters Tuesday, affirming his support for Kavanaugh." KalHolmann (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

On Sept. 21, CNN reported that Ford "will speak to the FBI on Friday in San Francisco about the death threats against her. The FBI investigation pertains only to the threats Ford has received since coming public with her allegations last weekend; it is not about the assault accusations against the Supreme Court nominee." KalHolmann (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Date of birth

Is MyLife a WP:RS? It reports her date of birth as 11/28/1966, but I hesitate to cite it without knowing more. KalHolmann (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It is consistent with the subject being 15 in 1982 at the time of the alleged assault, so the information is plausible. However, I would not consider MyLife a reliable source. Bradv 05:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So far the "time of the alleged assault" is only being reported as "the early 1980s". That DOB from a source you admittedly would not consider reliable isn't "consistent" with anything but itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The 1982 date was from another source referenced further down in the article. I added that source to the sentence in question. Thanks for catching that. Bradv 01:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's a passage from the WaPo story that was already cited in that sentence: "She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982, when she was 15, around the end of her sophomore year at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda." Here's what CBS recounts: "In the interview, Ford said she believes the alleged incident occurred in 1982, when she was a 15-year-old sophomore at an all-girls school in suburban Maryland." The CBS citation adds absolutely nothing corroborative to the narrative, but merely repeats what The Post reported. KalHolmann (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal confirms she was born November 1966. I have changed the lead and Infobox accordingly. KalHolmann (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, MyLife is not a reliable source, as a compiler of primary sources and public records, and apparently a user generated site that anyone can edit. Any information on it, even if true, is in potential violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY policy: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Her parents' foreclosure

In 1996, Ralph and Paula Blasey, the parents of Christine Blasey Ford, had their home foreclosed on. One of the judges involved in the case was Martha Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh. Even if this has nothing to do with her decision to go public, it's a notable coincidence. Would you include this in her biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD24:F700:ADBC:7CE0:33DF:4D6B (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

That was incorrect. Early that was reported but a few things turned out not to be true. First the foreclosure did not go though and second Kavanaugh's mother while a judge on that case ruled in their favor by dismissing it.[7] PackMecEng (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2018

President Trump actual tweet was "I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place," 65.48.168.183 (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. KalHolmann (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

New Article brings doubt on Mark Judge

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez Brings into doubt Mark Judges story. Casprings (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Sagecandor (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this a copy write violation? PackMecEng (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed quote. Added a full citation. Sagecandor (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Farrow and Mayer. That's a dynamite combination. Pulitzer Prize stuff. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Do you ever have anything constructive to say on a talk page, or are all your contributions snide and disruptive? KalHolmann (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Seen. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

BLP1E

This seems like a case of WP:BLP1E to me. Her story should be summarized at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, but there's no evidence she's noteworthy enough for her own article outside of this one event. There's a handful of other non-noteworthy material in here; nothing weighty enough to merit her own page. Bueller 007 (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

She has an extremely long list of peer reviewed published content. It needs to be added. However, she is WP:N with this alone.Casprings (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Most professors who've been working more than a few years have been published multiple times. Not noteworthy, certainly not worth a Wikipedia entry, else we'd see every tenured prof in the world on Wikipedia. Her prevalence is due largely to her proficiency in statistics. While commendable, that's not worthy of an entry in Wikipedia.Clepsydrae (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Scopus, she has two peer-reviewed journal publications and her h-index is two. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Look again and drop Ford when you search. She doesn’t use that professionally.Casprings (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed her 82 research items. She is, at best, co-authored, but for many she's simply listed as a contributor and not as one of the principle authors. This tells me she was assisting, almost certainly with the statistics, but not in the research or write-up itself. Not noteworthy.Clepsydrae (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

More than likely an independent article is justified. We have Anita Hill which is a close parallel, and also Monica Lewinsky. In the unlikely event that this fades away, we can look at deleting the article then, with the benefit of perspective.- MrX 🖋 13:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

See google scholar profile (also, one doesn't become a full professor with two publications..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Google Scholar grossly inflates. According to Scopus, 69 publications and an h-index of 36. Obviously that is respectable, but it's not WP:PROF levels for a biomed researcher. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur with both the WP:BLP1E assessment as well as the fact she doesn't meet WP:PROF criteria.Clepsydrae (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe we are at the point where this person is notable yet. Maybe after she testifies, if she does. I don't see where she is notable as a professor. Frankly, until there is more for the story this just feels like it's going to be a shingle for partisan editors of both persuasions. Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Bottomline: 1. She has revived media coverage for her academic work. 2. The current coverage clearly meets standard WP:N guidelines. 3. WP:BLP1E is not relavent because of #1. 4. Even if it were, the coverage is significant enough and widespread enough that she does not meet any of the 3 conditions outlined in WP:BLP1E.Casprings (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. I don't see significant third party coverage of her academic work - as others have said it's pretty thin to meet the academic guidelines, all of the coverage is on one event, and frankly it's the same coverage - all we have is a name that came up Sunday who has - surprise, surprise - a life history of some sort. You cited Anita Hill and Monica Lewinsky - both of those articles were created in 2001, years after their notability had been established. Now, a week of actual testimony and the resulting news coverage may change that, but right now I don't see her as stand-alone notable at all. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t. Mr. X did. I do dispute your overall assessment and if this article is to be deleted, it needs to go to WP:AFD.Casprings (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You are right, sorry about that. I think it should go to AfD and will do it myself this evening when I have time if someone else hasn't done it by then. Rikster2 (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rikster2: Of Anita Hill and Monica Lewinsky, you write, "both of those articles were created in 2001, years after their notability had been established." That is disingenuous. Since Wikipedia was not launched until 2001, it would have been impossible to create those articles (or any others) before then. KalHolmann (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Right, but by the same token they are not similar cases to this one where the historical significance, if any, has yet to have been established. Hill and Lewinsky were already established historical figures when Wikipedia launched in 2001. Rikster2 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Does not appear to be notable past the one controversy so WP:BLP1E applies here. As noted by several above she does not meet WP:PROF. So until she actually becomes notable probably best not to have an article yet. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Her notability is based on both her academic career and her involvement in a major event. BLP1E does not apply.- MrX 🖋 15:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Her notability as an academic is lacking and not to the level required to be notable. So still a BLP1E event. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

We are in a highly politicized environment. This is not merely "one event". Its importance is its potential to impact the appointment of a person to the Supreme Court. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Right, but your key phrase is "potential" impact. Right now it is WP:CRYSTAL to say what impact it will have. If she does testify that could change, but right now she is just a name and a letter. The coverage needs to precede the article, the article shouldn't anticipate it. Rikster2 (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read WP:BLP1E, specifically "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.". I would be fine with restoring the redirect for any information needed about her. Otherwise it is BLP1E and WP:RECENT. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Rikster2—according to her attorney Ford has not taken the position that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. Her impact has already been felt and will be felt even if Kavanaugh is confirmed. WP:CRYSTAL is not entirely applicable. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the redirect is closed. @Bradv: and @Rikster2: you going to WP:AFD or is this done also?Casprings (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough about it to take it to AfD. I was trying to avoid that with my compromise below, but that went over like a lead zeppelin. Bradv 01:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

An AfD would be clearly disruptive at this point. I would recommend waiting until the Supreme Court nomination is decided either way before considering AfD. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with K.e.coffman, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with K.e.coffman too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect Proposal

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.

---

Given the apparent consensus conversation above regarding WP:BLP1E and WP:NPROF, I propose we restore this redirect to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination#Sexual assault allegation. This allows us to preserve the content of the article in the history, so that it can easily be restored in the future if consensus emerges that Ford meets WP:NPROF, and saves us all a trip to AfD. Bradv 15:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. But to repeat: 1. She has revived media coverage for her academic work. 2. The current coverage clearly meets standard WP:N guidelines. 3. WP:BLP1E is not relavent because of #1. 4. Even if it were, the coverage is significant enough and widespread enough that she does not meet any of the 3 conditions outlined in WP:BLP1E. I also would like to see this discussion at AFD versus a local consensus here.Casprings (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If it came to it, the AfD could suggest changing to redirect as opposed to straight deletion. I don’t think there will be agreement to redirect without an AfD discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no apparent consensus above. Without repeating my arguments, the article easily meets our notability standards.- MrX 🖋 15:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The coverage is significant enough and widespread enough that WP:BLP1E would not seem to apply. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose What's the rush? This page was started less than 14½ hours ago. Historical events are unfolding. I realize patience is in short supply among Wikipedians, but this would be an ideal time for us to cultivate said old-fashioned virtue. KalHolmann (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What's the rush to create a page given that she just released her name yesterday and it is not determined what significant impact she will have - if any - on the Kavanaugh confirmation? Rikster2 (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Because we are interested in doing it and it fits within Wikipedia rules. That is like asking, what is an editors motivation to edit any article.Casprings (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No, because if in fact this article is a case of WP:BLP1E as many of us believe then it doesn't fit within Wikipedia guidelines. That's the whole crux of the question. Rikster2 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I would support changing the article back to a redirect but that should be done though an AFD. PackMecEng (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Way to many references and notability now. To much to add to other page as it would over weigh it. Maybe in several months to a year can look again after what ever happens to see if it still meets notability. But for now I believe it does so, and easily. ContentEditman (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - all the sources in the article currently are related to Kavanaugh, which suggests that there's no independent notability here. Willing to change my mind if someone can provide sources pre-Sept 2018. Volunteer Marek 17:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Is an h-index of 36 really not enough in the field? That surprises me. So I think AfD should sort it out. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Withdrawn – consider this horribly unpopular proposal withdrawn. If anyone feels strongly about it they can take it to AfD. Bradv 00:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mark Judge (writer)

Should this article mention Mark Judge (writer)? The article is currently nominated for deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No. In the absence of new developments of unquestionable significance, we should at minimum await the outcome of WP:AFD, which incidentally is ongoing here. KalHolmann (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes He's part of the story and it is reasonable and user-friendly to help readers locate the facts about his I-was-a-high-school drunken-rowdy memoir. Not to mention the fact that the AfD itself has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of being deleted and holding an AfD on the new article about the "he" in a he-said-she-said but not on the new article about the "she" looks more than a little a little WP:POV,WP:BATTLEGROUND.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: The article has been kept and is no longer nominated for deletion. I also noticed Mark Judge's name appears in the article's prose, linked. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability

How does this person meet notability criteria? This person was a nobody a week ago. Is all I have to do is make allegations against a notable person, and I will suddenly get my own Wikipedia page?47.137.182.8 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps so, if hundreds of reliable sources worldwide devote significant coverage to you and your life. If your allegations are ignored by reliable sources, then no Wikipedia article for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Eh it's the news of the day and people get over excited. Give it some time and then take a look to see if it was worth it in a couple months. PackMecEng (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

LOL, know what you just did? Admitted that this was a political stunt from the time that Feinstein decided to hold on to a letter 3 months ago that still has not been given to the Judiciary Committee in it's original, non-redacted form. This page was created 4 days ago. How does being known for only one thing (making a questionable allegation against a federal nominee) make someone notable? I propose that this page be merged into the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination page. 47.137.182.8 (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

A section above basically covers this. Talk:Christine Blasey Ford#BLP1E but until the coverage dies down there is little to no chance of that happening. Just give it time to pan out and see where it lands. PackMecEng (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I admitted nothing, OP. She passes the Anita Hill test and the WP:GNG. Every single Wikipedia article was once four days old. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

OP, as for the last question in your first post: It depends. Are you willing to testify about your allegations under oath, under penalty of perjury? Neutron (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• You all are missing the point in engaging the wrong reason why Wikipedia articles exist, especially the OP. If a subject has a Wikipedia article, it has nothing at all to do with what it is. For a person, what a person does or who they are has absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not a Wikipedia article should be written about them. The only criteria is "is there enough reliable source material out there in the world to use as a basis for researching, writing, and citing about their lives". She passes that test. Perhaps two weeks ago, she wouldn't have. She does now. It doesn't matter why that source text exists, once it does, we've got something to use to write a Wikipedia article with. Who she is, or what she has done, is entirely inconsequential, so there is no need to justify the existence of the article on those terms. --Jayron32 22:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Jayron You are wrong about that being the only criterion. According to WP:BIO "If there is only enough information about one notable event related to a person, then the article should be titled specifically about the event." If there is going to be an article at all about Ford, it has to be about her accusations and not about herself, and she has no prominence aside from her allegations. The notability of her actions are also contingent upon this Supreme Court nomination and should probably just be housed in Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination or at least should make mention of Kavanaugh and the nomination process in the name of a new article dedicated to her accusations.Canijustedit (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC) "

You conveniently forgot to quote the only relevant part of that page that relates to this article. Let me quote it for you "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." In this case, her role is large enough to justify the article. Have fun tilting and windmills, this article is not going anywhere. --Jayron32 02:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Status of Heavy.com as WP:RS

This BLP cites Heavy.com as a source.

Personal life

According to the Federal Election Commission, she has made campaign contributions totaling $80.50, which included donations to the Democratic National Committee and Friends of Bernie Sanders.

On September 22, 2018, however, a previous citation to a different Heavy.com article was removed by administrator Neutrality, who explained: "WP:OVERCITE, this is just an aggregator of other reporting." (For the record, Wikipedia's Heavy.com page does not mention news aggregation, whereas Wikipedia calls the Drudge Report, in the first sentence of its lead, a "news aggregation website.")

I would like to cite the same article Neutrality removed, but in a different context, to support adding the period under Career during which Dr. Ford worked as the director of biostatistics at Corcept Therapeutics. Alluding to "an archive of an old LinkedIn page," Heavy.com reports Jul. 1, 2006 – Aug. 1, 2012.

I hesitate, though, not just because "an old LinkedIn page" seems sketchy, but because Neutrality provided a dual rationale in his edit summary. Unquestionably, the reference in question was WP:OVERCITE. Yet his other justification seems to reject not just that reference, but Heavy.com in toto.

I request discussion as to why we cite one Heavy.com article but not another, and guidance as to relying on "an old LinkedIn page." KalHolmann (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that Heavy.com is an acceptable source for a BLP. - MrX 🖋 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If it is a thing, we should be able to source it to better sources. PackMecEng (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Heavy.com is not an acceptable source for a BLP. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. Per consensus here, I have substituted a better source for our existing citation to Heavy.com, and will not use that website as a reference for any additions to this BLP. KalHolmann (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2018

There are many claims that perhaps overstate her involvement in the academic discipline of statistics. Based on her formal education and her publication record, she is a research psychologist first and foremost, and so, for example, statistics should not be listed as her discipline in the summary table. Further, in the second sentence, it claims that Ford is a professor of statistics, but the citation provides no evidence of her affiliation with the department, with her faculty profile simply listing statistics as a research interest. Many researchers perform extensive consulting on data-analyses with their less statistically-proficient colleagues, and may even write monographs for colleagues in applied disciplines (as Ford has) but that is not equivalent to doing research in the area of statistics, nor does it imply that she is a (bio-)statistician despite what one may claim. 2607:FEA8:8720:39A:5565:28D6:5891:CDAA (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm I think further instructions are found here. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Revealing inconsistencies and a dearth of evidence is not 'sealioning.' This is a disingenuous response to the fact that she does not have an appointment to the statistics department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:8720:39A:5565:28D6:5891:CDAA (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Template:Infobox academic directs that our Infobox parameter should list the person's major academic discipline. By definition, an academic discipline incorporates people strongly associated with a given scholastic subject area or college department. Since Palo Alto University is not organized into academic departments, their faculty listing for Christine Blasey, Ph.D. identifies her as "Professor, Palo Alto University" without specifying a discipline. That same listing does, however, declare statistics as her teaching and/or research emphasis and interest area. Additionally, we look to WP:RS. On September 16, 2018, The Mercury News reported that Helena Chmura Kraemer, a professor emeritus at Stanford who co-wrote a book and several articles with Ford, said the latter specializes in designing statistical models for research projects.

Our Infobox shows Ford's occupation as psychologist. Our lead recounts her academic career as a research psychologist at Stanford and professor in Stanford's Clinical Psychology Program. But occupation ≠ discipline. That's why Wikipedia's academic Infobox has separate parameters for each. KalHolmann (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Update. On September 26, 2018, Dr. Ford identified herself in writing to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as "a Professor of Psychology at Palo Alto University and a Research Psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine." She did not mention statistics, which persuades me I was wrong in my preceding comment. Accordingly, I have changed the Infobox discipline parameter to Psychology. KalHolmann (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2018

Please fix "in a local Women's March protesting Trump[10]" This implies a dangerous and divisive idea that the Women's March and protesting Trump were the same. The protest against Trump specifically was held on the day of inauguration. The Women's March was about women's rights. The merging of the two causes makes it easy for people to scorn the Women's March if they are in support of Trump. This is irresponsible and gravely inaccurate wording. 2601:181:C381:1A56:59D6:39A9:5BE5:5AD0 (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PackMecEng (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2018

Add pronunciation guide for her surname: /ˈblɔːzi/ Megajakeroo (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done: Confirmed via C-SPAN telecast in which she spoke her full name. KalHolmann (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Professor Christine Blasey Ford Opening Statement.webm

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

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

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

• Professor Christine Blasey Ford Opening Statement.webm

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

• Sagecandor, is there a way to get video of the direct back and forth with Ford? The image in the lead is awful, but there's nothing else to grab from the video really. There's no "still listening moment". There's just motion blur quick looks up while reading. GMG^talk 10:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean, could you be more specific? Are you referring to video, or pictures, or both? Sagecandor (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

1. File:Dr Blasey Ford tells Durbin, with 100 percent certainty, that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.webm
2. File:Senator Hirono Christine Blasey Ford Reminds Us That Character Matters.webm
3. File:Senator Chris Coons questions Dr Christine Blasey Ford.webm

@GreenMeansGo:I've uploaded these 3 public domain videos. What do you think? Sagecandor (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I think after the response to SoWhy's email, there's probably going to need compelling evidence, rather than argument, for them to be kept. I just wonder how many other videos are on Commons that would need to be deleted if committee hearings from CSPAN are truly off the table. It wouldn't be the first time an employee didn't understand the copyright of their own company/agency, but we'd need to produce something substantial to prove them wrong. GMG^talk 15:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:Please look again. These are other videos. These are all videos NOT from "CSPAN". These are from official Youtube channels of US Senators. They are clearly a different camera. They are US Senate cameras. They are all public domain videos. Sagecandor (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I see. Well, in this video there is an exceptionally brief smile round about 3:49. I can't seem to get a good pause without motion blur though. I don't guess there is a way to just pull the raw video apart frame-by-frame is there? GMG^talk 15:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Feel free to add something to Wikimedia Commons and let us know here. Sagecandor (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I need to download VLC. I'll take a look later tonight and getting more into it and playing around. GMG^talk 15:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Questionable Professional Title

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has represented herself as a "psychologist" on many occasions. In fact, in the state of California, "psychologist" is a legally protected term reserved only for those with a specific professional license. Though Dr. Ford no doubt has a doctorate academic degree, she does not currently, nor has she ever, held the appropriate license to claim the title "psychologist". A term such of professor of psychology would be far more correct. California has a simple to use license look up system on line that will allow anybody to check her professional licenses (or lack there of). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C202:AFFB:51CB:5EAC:3D97:2141 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the Infobox occupation parameter from Psychologist to Professor of Psychology, and removed category templates identifying Dr. Ford as a psychologist. However, I let stand our two identifications of her as a research psychologist, since that presumably does not require a state license. KalHolmann (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand your "presumption" (your words) however it is incorrect. California’s Business and Professional Code Section 2902, 2903 "No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter" and "A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words “psychology,” “psychological,” “psychologist,” “psychology consultation,” “psychology consultant,” “psychometry,” “psychometrics” or “psychometrist,” “psychotherapy,” “psychotherapist,” “psychoanalysis,” or “psychoanalyst,” which is fairly strict and clear cut. The mentions of "research psychologist" in the article as of right now are cited to primary sources only (her speech + her LinkedIn). I don't mind us using the descriptor if it is made clear it is self-applied ("Ford describes herself as a research psychologist" or such) but as a declaration of direct fact it is unsupported. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

However I see the term seems to have been picked up from the primary source and is being used by other media article as well so... yeah, I know Wikipedia goes by "verifiability, not truth" and thus we report on what is said not what "we know to be correct" (WP:OR). So I guess we'll see if the media articles get corrected somewhere down the line. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Christine Blasey Ford story refuted by her own witnesses ?

Included at the end of the story on Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Judge Brett Kavsn a's ugh should be the accounts now published via multiple media outlets, that every one of the four individuals that Ford identified as being present during the alleged attack by Kavanaugh have categorically denied her claims. Dogwoodacres (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Dogwoodacres: Would you mind sharing some of those reliable sources that support your claim ? - FlightTime (open channel) 18:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• That sounds like something Fox "News" just reported, and they are not a RS for political matters, at least in the USA. Yes, that's not official Wikipedia policy, yet it's a fact. They are extremely biased and misleading. Find real RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Most likely a bandwagoner from Twitter. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

CNN names three individuals identified as being at the party, who each have no recollection of the alleged assault, as Leland Ingham Keyser, Mark Judge, and Patrick J. Smyth. The fourth attendee to deny the assault is of course Brett Kavanaugh. KalHolmann (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Beat me to it, I had an edit conflict posting the same. PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It is a stretch, however, to call these people Christine Blasey Ford's "own witnesses," as the OP did. Only Keyser could be so described. KalHolmann (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, KalHolmann. "No recollection" isn't the same thing as "categorically denied her claims", but Fox and other fringe sources would spin it that way. There are only three people who can confirm or deny what happened in that room: Kavanaugh, Judge, and Ford. The first two may not remember because they were so drunk. Because of that, they are unreliable witnesses as to what happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah witness seems incorrect. My understanding it they are just people Ford identified to of been at the party. Though at least with Keyser, it looks like the committee did try and contact them. Also to not Fox was never mentioned here and has nothing to do with this. Finally Fox is a RS, at least their news side, so that is a non-starter as well. Past that just WP:OR. PackMecEng (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

When one can find real news reporting there, they are generally a RS. It's just hard to separate it all because it's usually so intertwined with spin. When they don't spin it, they are not following orders from the top. Their job is to push GOP talking points, and now with Trump, to push his version of things, or whatever will please his ear. Shep Smith is the exception; a real, honest, journalist. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:Perhaps the article Intoxication defense could use some improvement this week. Sagecandor (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

LOL! That certainly is used as a defense many times. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Are you alluding to this from our BLP: "Kavanaugh has categorically denied Ford's allegations." We do cite Fox News for that. KalHolmann (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Many sources can be used for that, as he really has denied it. Instead of being honest and saying he doesn't recall what happened that night, he's using the standard Trump defense: deny forcefully and push back violently. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Your bias is showing. KalHolmann (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Am I the only honest one here? Nah. Now if you find that my bias is causing me to twist facts when editing, then talk to me. I'll appreciate it. Otherwise, never trust an editor who claims to be unbiased and neutral. The best we can do is to seek to control our biases when editing. My view on POV and editing is embodied here:

Talk page negotiation table

"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."

-- BullRangifer. From WP:NEUTRALEDITOR

-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: You assert above that Fox "News" (your scare quotes) is "extremely biased and misleading" and is not a real RS. I believe you are equally biased and not a real authority on how the best content is developed on Wikipedia. KalHolmann (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an authority, but will keep your relative newbie opinion in mind. I have written quite a bit, with sources, about this.

Large sections of the Fox News article use myriad RS to document what I've said. Also see here: Fox News controversies; it has a very strong Pro-Republican and pro-Trump bias; it is also counter-factual on many issues.

There are many good reasons why it was good it stopped pretending and dropped its "Fair and Balanced" slogan. There are obviously many opinions on the matter, but when it comes to accuracy (IOW reliability for facts), it comes in dead last among major networks. PolitiFact also hits it hard. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but RSN disagrees and says it is a RS. You can bring it there for the umpteenth time if you wish to waste a bunch of peoples time. Otherwise their news side, like other RS is acceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, but no thanks. I know about that, and have never tried to initiate such a discussion there. I have seen what happens, but the last time it was brought up, Fox was knocked down quite a few notches.

BTW, what is the only way to know when Fox News is accurate? By comparing it with real RS. That's why I always use real RS as refs in such cases, because if Fox reports it, and it's true, then other sources will also report it, and I'll use them; no need to send people to the dung heap for that one pearl. Otherwise, just like with Trump, it is unwise to ever assume they are telling the truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I find it astonishing that you choose to attack Fox News after all other media so blatantly and obviously showed that they were fringe partisan Democrat propagandist hacks, complicit in following the narrative of the most radical people. You said Fox News was bad, fringe and unreliable. I can't imagine what you'd call all the other "news" media, who promote this kind of propaganda instead of any form of knowledge at all, which is what we are supposed to base articles on, right? And when anyone objects to this, they're called partisan conspiratorial Republicans. What happened to WP:NEWSORG? Are we forgetting our policies and guidelines, or are we ignoring them? wumbolo ^^^ 20:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Education

@KalHolmann: With this edit you removed the education paragraph as redundant from the infobox. Shouldn't we do this the other way around — use the infobox as a summary of what's in the article? I would suggest leaving the paragraph (with its source) and trimming the infobox. Bradv 03:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I see it's been restored. Any ideas on how to trim the infobox? Bradv 03:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I reformatted education in the Infobox as a list. KalHolmann (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Bradv 04:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The education section currently (9/20) says that she received her B.A. degree in 1988 and began teaching at Stanford U. in 1988. That seems more than highly improbable. 2606:6000:CFC0:2:6D52:92BD:2B15:45B6 (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

As a layman, I too am surprised that someone with no postgraduate education would teach at such a prestigious university. As it stands, we rely on a single source for this factoid, and that makes me nervous. Per Fox News, "Ford has also taught and worked at Stanford University since 1988, according to a Holton-Arms' alumni magazine, the Bethesda, Maryland, school from where she graduated, The Wall Street Journal reported." Regrettably, the WSJ story to which Fox News links is behind a paywall. So we cannot confirm that Fox News is accurate in what it attributes secondhand to WSJ, much less can we independently evaluate the primary source. All I can suggest is that we keep an eye out for a WP:RS that verifies or refutes Ford teaching at Stanford in 1988. KalHolmann (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: "teaching" at Stanford need not refer to being faculty: it could simply refer to working as a teaching assistant, if for example, Ford had enrolled as a graduate student at Stanford in 1988 then left for whatever reason before earning degrees at Pepperdine and USC. Or, it's possible the alumni magazine cited by the WSJ was simply mistaken. I will not speculate on any more hypotheticals, just pointing out that it's not unthinkable for a person with only a Bachelor's degree to 'teach' at a University. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Milestone

Christine Blasey Ford is now ten days old. Since User:Casprings created it, 90 editors have contributed and it has attracted 1,439,453 pageviews. Yesterday alone accounted for 633,641 pageviews! This remarkably collegial effort was helped immeasurably by User:SarekOfVulcan's Sept. 18 page protection requiring extended confirmed access until Oct. 18. It's been a privilege to collaborate without (for the most part) having to fend off the vandals, edit warriors, POV pushers, and assorted nutcases who would normally have made this page a battlefield littered with carnage. I heartily thank everyone involved. KalHolmann (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to all who have worked to improve the quality of this article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You have been a major part of that, as well, I hope you know. I was considering a new section myself, but I might as well ask here for everyone to consider: Beyond copy-editing and code cleanup, what specifically is missing in order for this article to satisfy B-class criteria? The only criterion I can tell that may still not be met is the second. Do we have any "obvious omissions" for which there is coverage? Sure, coverage of Ford's early life and career may benefit from expansion, but that is difficult to do if we have already summarized all the reliable sources covering that. If we cannot define any specific improvements that can be made to this article's coverage of the subject for which reliable sourcing is available, then that suggests B-class status. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems premature. The BLP is only 10 days old and changes dramatically every day. KalHolmann (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with waiting; however, considering the question may nonetheless help us better understand how to improve the article. If all we are doing is waiting for new coverage, then that may indicate that we have already achieved coverage sufficient for B-class or higher. Ultimately, article quality and coverage are not determined by future coverage, no matter how likely or how expansive it may be. As for sufficient coverage being retained, I suspect the diligence of those already here will ensure that.

If nothing else, the fact that we have arguably reached B-class quality within only 10 days strongly suggests how well everyone has been doing and is a testament to both the good work you noted above and the wiki way more generally. Whether it is officially rated as such is secondary to that. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC); edited at 22:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2018

This is a proposal for a minor edit to correct a grammatical error.

The final sentence of the second paragraph on this page currently reads: "She later Ford testified about her allegations during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings regarding Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination.[3]"

I propose changing the sentence to, "Ford later testified about her allegations..." for clarity. SummerDragon (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done: Thank you for pointing this out. KalHolmann (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing deletion review about this article

Ongoing deletion review about this article.

Topic: Whether or not the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Blasey Ford was closed properly?

Discussion at :

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 28.

Sagecandor (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Lots of details on life

Good article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/christine-blasey-ford-wanted-to-flee-the-us-to-avoid-brett-kavanaugh-now-she-may-testify-against-him/2018/09/22/db942340-bdb1-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html Casprings (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Contrera, Jessica; Shapira, Ian; Brown, Emma; Hendrix, Steve (September 22, 2018), "Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford moved 3,000 miles to reinvent her life. It wasn't far enough.", The Washington Post, retrieved September 23, 2018

Sagecandor (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This link is premium article that cannot be sourced by the general, free public. I have not been keen to Wikipedia's policies towards sourced articles lately, but sourcing something that requires money to read seems a little off to me. 2601:183:8300:5BCE:6D0D:BA25:1905:8C4A (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we talk about notability?

I'm having trouble understanding why this article exists. According to WP:BIO an individual must be noteworthy for something separate from a single incident. However, this article is almost entire focused on Ms. Ford's involvement in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. The personal life and career sections do not outline anything notable, and every source except for one from the career section are articles that give background about her life before the accusation. She has not had any mention outside of her accusations and therefore does not conform to WP:Notability standards. It seems as though her article should just be moved to the nomination page. Is there something I am missing?Canijustedit (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)User:CanIjustedit

This was already discussed multiple times before you came upon, and consensus disagreed with you. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Blasey Ford. Consensus is that there is enough reliable source text to support a stand-alone article. WP:BIO1E states, and I quote "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." (bold mine). Consensus is that her role is large enough that a stand-alone article has been justified. --Jayron32 02:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There is also an interesting phenomenon that sometimes is relevant. A relatively unknown person, at least in the media, has been a rather notable person in local and professional circles, far more than enough to qualify for an article here, but no one has noticed that fact. Suddenly they are brought to the attention of the world because of some other event and are known for that. Then a stub article is started based on that event. Then some digging about them reveals all that other stuff that shows they are deserving of an article. Life is strange sometimes, and likewise the journey to "notability". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It more comes off as WP:RAPID for deletion. Give it a few months and check again. Their notability is of course mostly based on this single event, with other notability being borderline at best. But with the breaking news and rush to get todays news in it will not be deleted yet. PackMecEng (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

WP came into existence years after the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, and yet we have Anita Hill. Believe me, this article is a keeper. --В²C ☎ 17:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: the Mark Judge article was kept because Judge was arguably notable before the event. Ford is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E (I don't even want to cite it because the whole of BLP1E policy applies; only ref 19 currently in article was published before). We currently only have pure sensationalism, WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and otherwise WP:Recentism. Sandstein very inappropriately closed the AfD, and I'm extremely concerned by this shitty sentence: because this is an article that is being read a lot right now (very, very inappropriate for an admin). wumbolo ^^^ 06:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear there's little point discussing this at this time as IMO for better or worse, is often the case when an event is in progress. While the absence of source dated before the event is a concern, it is also true that in cases like this, new sources can easily overwhelm those few earlier ones making it difficult to find them especially when the numbers are so extreme like they would be here. While some tools like Google News do allow searching by date, many tools don't, and of course many don't know how to use those that do and they aren't always perfect. Mark Judge isn't really a great comparable example since regardless of him being more notable previously, his role in this is also clearly more minor. Ultimately when things have settled down in time, we can better evaluate the sourcing that has been found and consider where to go. Nil Einne (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah let's just add the following to BLP1E: If the subject of the BLP is or appears to be actively being harassed, refrain from deleting the article based on BLP1E because maybe sources are a bit hard to find. wumbolo ^^^ 08:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I know that the distinction is neutralised in American English, but her name is obviously /ˈblɑːzi/ not /ˈblɔːzi/. Correctrix (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

As a speaker of a dialect of American English where the distinction is maintained, for what it's worth, I second this. B.t.schmidt (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done: I changed the symbol per consensus. KalHolmann (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The ONLY reliable source for the pronunciation of a person's name is the person herself. Not TV news reporters, not members of Congress. Even if she pronounces it differently from every other Blasey in the country, including the rest of her immediate family, her pronunciation is still correct for her name. There is no reason to believe that those people thought to ask her about the correct pronunciation or even gave it much thought; people generally don't assign much importance to pronunciation of names. If we've heard "blozzy" most often on the TV, they are probably all copying each other and calling it good enough.
I'm an American and I think "blassy" (rhyming with "classy") or "blazy" (rhyming with "crazy") are more likely than "blozzy", although my guess is worth no more than anybody else's guess. Unless someone can produce audio of Ford speaking her maiden name, the IPA should be removed as failing WP:V. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Please see reference [3] immediately following the pronunciation symbols in the lead. That citation includes a hyperlink to C-SPAN's Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Professor Blasey Ford Testimony. As she begins reading her prepared statement, at 31:17 on the video counter, Dr. Ford clearly states her full name. KalHolmann (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: Thank you. If it can be avoided, and it can be, readers seeking verification shouldn't be expected to assume that she will state her name as part of her testimony, then be required to skip to 31:17 in the video or watch that much of it. I have substituted a shorter version of the video which is better for that purpose.[8] ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

1. This is not the location where you make claims about user conduct. 2. I am unsure as to what rule was broken here.Casprings (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I urge all editors to not repeat today's disruption by User:Sagecandor in which he momentarily removed the entire Sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh section to make his WP:POINT at a Deletion Review page. It is naïve to suppose, and disingenuous to claim, that because it was online only briefly, this really doesn't matter. It does matter. Those in social media (and there are many) who seek to discredit Wikipedia for its supposed "left-wing" bias are savvy in the ways of edit histories, and quick to pounce on any evidence that we are striving to whitewash Christine Blasey Ford. Here's an example posted at Twitter less than an hour ago—after Sagecandor left a permanent calling card depicting his vandalism. Alluding to "he" (Judge Kavanaugh) and "she" (Dr. Ford), R. Wolfe @WhoWolfe tweeted: "He's been investigated 6 times. She has nothing. No times, dates , location, nothing. Why doesn't she say, investigate me?? Because she's a fraud. Wipes all social media acts, Wikipedia, clean, work history, clean. Damn she sounds like ObamA." It's hard enough to contend with such criticism when it's unjustified, as it usually is. But in this case it is well founded. Please, please think through the implications for such editing behavior in this BLP, which has amassed 1,954,893 pageviews in its first eleven days. The world is indeed watching. KalHolmann (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC) I am just not seeing the big deal here. Is it dumb? Sure. But the edit has no POV, that can be used. They just removed the whole event for a second to demonstrate that the article is well sourced without her testimony. Not that big of a deal.Casprings (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Sanitizing violates WP:NPOV, and leaving behind a permanent record is more than dumb. It's arrogant. Sagecandor could easily have copied the vandalized page to his sandbox without saving changes here, then linked thereto. He chose not to. KalHolmann (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Okay. Still not seeing the big deal. This is also not the place to discuss editors behavior. I would suggest that you take this to WP:AN if you really think there is a problem here and stop this call out.Casprings (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC) @Casprings: I appreciate your advice, but having had one disastrous experience with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I hope never to return in any capacity. I'd rather just have you plunge stainless steel needles into my eyeballs without delay, thanks very much. KalHolmann (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Reply: My apologies. Apologized as well at [9]. Casprings is correct that it was for 1 second. It's also correct that it could have been done via a sandbox or something like that. Thank you for that idea for the future. Sagecandor (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC) We aren't here to please, displease, or otherwise entertain trolls, and our actions should be based on policies including BLP, not influenced by what any kind of a troll thinks. I'm not defending Sagecandor's action; I'm just responding to the idea that trolls have any respect for the BLP policy (as you implied by saying quick to pounce on any evidence that we are striving to whitewash Christine Blasey Ford). You also used the verb whitewash incorrectly; it's called not victimize, as in WP:AVOIDVICTIM. wumbolo ^^^ 19:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC) The cliché Do not feed the trolls applies here. It's folly to underestimate their ability to poison the well against Wikipedia on social media. Through carelessness, we play into their hands. KalHolmann (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Public domain source for photo of Ford

The reason I tagged the video and screenshot from C-SPAN is because the video is an original C-SPAN production rather than by the US Senate. I did find the US Senate Judiciary Cmte's original video of Thursday's hearing with Ford. Her opening statement is from 47:00 to 1:06:20. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Dr Christine Blasey Ford.png

This file occupies the image parameter in our Infobox. Wikimedia Commons lists its source as https://www.c-span.org/video/?451895-1/professor-blasey-ford-testifies-sexual-assault-allegations-part-1&playEvent. The file's uploader, User:K.e.coffman, cites licensing for a work that is in the public domain because it is "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties." Do we know whether C-SPAN relies on government officers or employees for video coverage of committee hearings? If the camera operators and other technicians are C-SPAN employees, our licensing claim is invalid and we must delete this file immediately from Christine Blasey Ford. KalHolmann (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: Here's what C-SPAN says:

Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution. Source.

K.e.coffman (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

According to that, their logo must be on the video or image to be used correct? PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: As shown here C-SPAN has declared that while video coverage originating from the House or Senate chambers is in the public domain, "This does not apply to Committee Hearings…." Accordingly, your licensing claim is in dispute. KalHolmann (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's what they also say:

Under C-SPAN's copyright policy a license is generally not required to post a recording of C-SPAN's video coverage of federal government events online for non-commercial purposes so long as C-SPAN is attributed as the source of the video. (...). Keeping a C-SPAN logo on the screen during the non-commercial use constitutes sufficient attribution under this policy. Federal government events include:

Congressional committee hearings....

Same source. So I think if we add in-text attribution ("so long as C-SPAN is attributed as the source"), we should be fine (?). K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I am unsure how to interpret C-SPAN's Copyright & Licensing policy: "Keeping a C-SPAN logo on the screen during the non-commercial use constitutes sufficient attribution under this policy." This suggests that including their logo may be the only sufficient attribution. If so, your proposed in-text attribution would not suffice. KalHolmann (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of the file showing the C-SPAN logo. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann and K.e.coffman Keeping a C-SPAN logo on the screen during the non-commercial use; C-SPAN only allows non-commercial use of videos of committee hearing, which is insufficient for wikipedia which requires files to be usable commercially. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: With your new upload displaying C-SPAN's logo, you continue relying on an inappropriate license at Wikimedia Commons: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties…." KalHolmann (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: It does appear that non-commercial is not sufficiant.[10] PackMecEng (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks to User:Sagecandor, who replaced the disputed image with one that is not sourced to C-SPAN. KalHolmann (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @KalHolmann:You are most welcome. Sagecandor (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The video has no creative commons license on YouTube or state anywhere that it is United States Senate cameras. How did you find out that it was? PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: ? PackMecEng (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what the question is. Sagecandor (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Just above. I am asking about the licensing information you have on the stuff you uploaded since it does not seem to match. PackMecEng (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties are in the public domain. Sagecandor (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Correct, but there is no sign that is the case. It is not licensed for that on Youtube and there are no indications anywhere that it was made by an officer or employee of the US government or as you mention for the license on commons "United States Senate cameras". That is why I am curious. How did you determine that was the case? PackMecEng (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: Photo swapped to one that is undeniably public domain. From www.judiciary.senate.gov official government video. At edit [11]. Sagecandor (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool beans, I will take a look. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2018

Please change "She recounted escaping when Judge jumped on them both and they all fell." to "She recounted escaping when Judge jumped on the bed and Ford and Kavanaugh toppled and fell." 2001:420:C0E0:1001:0:0:0:9C (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Both the cited source and Ford's prepared statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee are unclear as to whether Mark Judge also fell off the bed after toppling the couple. I have therefore changed the sentence to read: "She recounted escaping when Judge jumped on the bed and toppled them." This is admittedly vague, but until an editor finds a WP:RS that precisely specifies exactly who fell, it's better for us to not mislead readers with guesswork. KalHolmann (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Published Works On Behalf Of Corcept Therapeutics

Christine Margaret Blasey Ford (aka Blasey, CM) published eight articles for her employer, Corcept Therapeutics, a $166 billion, San Francisco-based manufacturer of a single product: RU-486, the abortion pill mifepristone. Christine Blasey Ties To Abortion Pill Maker CM Blasey Publications Per Corcept Therapeutics Web Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.135.123 (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Rotterdam Pride

Support at Rotterdam Pride. --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Rotterdam, 29 september 2018

@C.Suthorn: In your edit summary restoring this section, you write that the talk page "is used to discuss if something should be included in the article." However, it is unclear from your contribution if you are proposing inclusion of your image in the article. If so, please explain the context in which it would fit. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: Including your images in this article would simply be out of place. It's great that people at a Pride Parade in the Netherlands support Dr. Ford, but what relevance does that have to this article? I could photograph myself or my friend with a sign supporting Dr. Ford, which would similarly have no place here (self-promotion aside). Images should not be added as mere decorations, they should illustrate critical themes of an article. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Vielleicht ist es nicht jedem in den USA klar, wie sehr sich lokale Ereignisse auf die Welt als Ganzes auswirken. Das Bild ist eine Illustration der Ängste und Hoffnungen (hier insbesondere der LGBT...-Gemeinde) die sich mit dem Schicksal von Blasey Ford verbinden. Insbesondere da Wikipedia sich einerseits als weltweite (und mutlilinguale) Enzyklopädie begreift, in Wahrheit aber die allermeisten anderen Sprachprojekte marginal sind, hat die englische Wikipedia eine Bedeutung, die nicht nur weit über die USA, sondern (wegen ihrer lingua-franca Funktion) weit über die englischsprachige Welt hinaus besteht, was auch eine Bringschuld begründet, ein Thema nicht auf den lokalen Aspekt einzuengen. Das Bild selbst ist nur eine Illustration. Eine Illustration zu einem Abschnitt des Artikels, den es noch nicht gibt. (And next time I will remember to sign :-) --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM & since this is en.wiki please use english. PackMecEng (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR says, "Widely published in her field"

[12] removed from the lede.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.

This is a direct example of a secondary source commenting on notability of an academic, per Wikipedia:Notability (academics).

Should be kept in the intro.

Sagecandor (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Worthless fluff that does not summarize the body or the subject. Not needed for the body or lead. PackMecEng (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. Saying she is widely published is an important summation of her work and needed for the intro.Casprings (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Casprings. "widely published" is important characteristic for academic professionals. Sagecandor (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Most if not all academics with doctoral degrees are "widely published", it is basically a requirement, it adds nothing. PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point, it makes her more sympathetic thats why its in the lede. As the quality of contribution to Wikipedia declines, what I like to call 'politicized frontloading' or cherrypicking positive spin to put into the beginning of articles about leftwing figures and negative spin to put into the lede of 'conservative' articles like Breitbart News is an increasingly common tactic. When you take them to task on it they'll hide behind supposed 'consensus' in the literature. Despite the fact that Ford supposedly being eminent in her field is random factoid, hardly a primary characteristic she is known for in wider media and they never provide solid justification for any of the other random cruft they insert into ledes. Its really sad but its simply a reflection of who the people who now control the site are. They can't help themselves. Jarwulf (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually a lot just get the degree and fade or do something not in academics. To say it is common is simply not true.Casprings (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That is great, anyhow academics with doctoral degrees are "widely published", it is basically a requirement, it adds nothing. What you mention does not apply in this situation. Bradv is correct. PackMecEng (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, correction--not simply "academics with doctoral degrees", but really "academics who want to get tenure and promotion and still work in their field without being sidetracked into administration where they kill their souls and that of their former colleagues but get paid at least twice, and up to one hundred times as much". But your point has some validity. Still, "widely published"--for someone in her field, meh, sure, I don't want to downplay her academic achievements but it seems to me that for her field she is doing what she needs to be doing. Note that she has up to a half a dozen publications per year, but note also that most of them are co-authored. Again, that's par for the course for her profession. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough on just doctoral and all that. I was more trying to make the point that it is not an uncommon amount of publishing to make it noteworthy. PackMecEng (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

[13] was removed: The Washington Post wrote that, "Her work has been widely published in academic journals." Should be added back. Sagecandor (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it's unencyclopedic fluff. We can establish that by showing the impact of her academic journals using reliable sources, not by quoting someone else. Bradv 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

2 assessments. 2 secondary sources. 2 different reliable sources. NPR and The Washington Post. 2 facts that should be added back to article. Sagecandor (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Undue and not notable. Nor does it establish weight/impact or notability. PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Restore and Keep as it complements the paragraph to which it belongs:

"She is co-author of the book How Many Subjects? (2015), and a contributing author to books including Handbook of Mental Health Interventions in Children and Adolescents (2004) and Psychologists' Desk Reference (2013)."

Without that addition, we create the impression that she is known primarily as a book author, which is of course untrue. KalHolmann (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

*Restore and Keep, per rationale by KalHolmann, above. Sagecandor (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 15:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• No. She is no more widely published than most of her peers in the field, which makes it fluffy. That she is not known primarily as a book author seems to be correct: as far as I can tell she has only one book, and that is a co-authored volume. It's in the second edition, which is great but for an academic textbook not unusual. She has published no monographs, unless I'm missing something. But to say, then, that she is known for being widely published is simply illogical. Yes, she is widely published--but so is just about everyone else in that business. If you're not, you're not in that business for long. I think too many editors here don't understand that being widely published (in most cases with co-authored papers) is simply a requirement. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Related lead proposal

How about this? This combines the first two paragraphs together, mentions "widely published" but removes the names of nn books and the visiting professorship / where she received her PhD (it's a given for academics).

Christine Margaret Blasey Ford (known professionally as Christine Blasey) (born c. 1967) is an American psychologist and professor in clinical psychology at Palo Alto University. Widely published in her field, she specializes in designing statistical models for research projects. During her academic career, Ford has worked as a research psychologist for Stanford University’s Department of Psychiatry and a professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine Collaborative Clinical Psychology Program.

On September 16, 2018... Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Good article start.Casprings (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful compromise; concise yet fully informative for the lead. KalHolmann (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

*Support, but would add at least two secondary sources for the phrase, "widely published", as it has received such significant discussion, already, on the talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 15:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done: two secondary sources have been added for the phrase, "widely published" KalHolmann (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - As said above, there is great precedence for such commentary in bios. This is a bio page.Dogru144 (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is no particular reason to have the phrase 'widely published' other than to create bias toward subject. You might as well put 'controversial' or 'known for having a faulty memory' in her lede or 'influential and popular' in Daily Caller or Breitbart News rather than the hit piece ledes in there now. Lol why am I even bothering? Jarwulf (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. It's better than the current version, but it reads like fluff, even if verifiable fluff (an aside regarding the current version: qualifying the statement with "According to CBS News, The Washington Post and NPR,..." smacks of dweebish, pedantic amateurishness, trying to (needlessly) inflate the notability of one who is already notable). The phrase "widely published" would stick out like a sore thumb in almost any other biography of an academic of similar status. Let her research and accomplishments stand for themselves without padding, kid gloves, and puffery. There are more tactful ways to indicate impact than parroting vague statements (what does widely published mean anyway? Number of papers? Number of fields? Number of journals? Would anyone bother to compare her publication rate if she wasn't testifying to Congress?). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add back video

Confirmed sock. wumbolo ^^^ 15:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Disagree with this removal [14]. This video is NOT from "CSPAN". This video is a different video. It is directly from US Senate cameras. It is from official YouTube channel for US Senator Dick Durbin. Sagecandor (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC) The user added it back, with Revert my own mistake. Sorry. Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Motion for Subpoena of Mark Judge was removed from article

Motion for Subpoena of Mark Judge was removed from article.

Relevant info was removed. [15]

Cited to multiple sources.

Should be added back.

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

• Oppose inclusion. As User:Mr Ernie noted in his edit summary when undoing your addition, "This is more applicable on the nomination page and the Judge page, where you've added it Sagecandor." We ought to limit ourselves here to developments that pertain directly to Christine Blasey Ford. A committee vote on issuing a subpoena to Mark Judge is tangential. KalHolmann (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

*Support inclusion. Directly related to her testimony. Sagecandor (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. I believe my edit summary has it right. This is just news on all the other articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per KalHolmann - FlightTime (open channel) 16:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion: more relevant at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. This biography should hew as close as possible to Dr. Ford's life, career, statements, and impacts, and the urge to inflate the article with tangential facts or fleeting developments should be resisted. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ford's Friend Chris "Squi" Garrett

Ford testified that she "went out" with a friend who was her connection to Kavanaugh. This mutual friend was Chris "Squi" Garrett who appeared in Kavanaugh's 1982 calendar. Ford denied speculation that she could have confused Garrett with Kavanaugh even though they had similar appearances. Is July 1, 1982 Party Key to Ford's Allegation Against Kavanaugh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.135.123 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPNAME I would oppose naming Garrett. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2018

In this country, the United States of America, suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Whoever wrote this states " Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted" It should read blah blah blah alleges that etc. Jus' saying. 72.239.88.37 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done All statements about the alleged assault in this article identify it as an alleged assault. So I have no clue what you're talking about. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• 2018 09 26 Written Testimony of Dr Christine Blasey Ford.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)