Talk:Lisa Blatt

Lisa Blatt has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 11, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish Women Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

United States: Texas / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

A fact from Lisa Blatt appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 October 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Lisa Blatt, the first woman to argue 50 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, "elicits laughs and the occasional sharp response from the justices"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lisa Blatt.

Wikipedia

GA Review

Passed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lisa Blatt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SilverLocust (talk · contribs) 05:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take a look. Feel free to ignore me if and when I stray beyond what the criteria require.

She worked in the Office of the Solicitor General until 2009, when she joined Arnold & Porter. – the source ([1]) says there was a brief interregnum: "Blatt left the solicitor general's office in May 2009 and since then has served as an antitrust litigation consultant to the Federal Trade Commission. She argued on behalf of the commission in Federal Trade Commission v. Cephalon Inc., a still-pending case that aims to stop a brand-name drugmaker from paying generic competitors to stay out of the market."
Added FTC. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

winning in nearly 90% of them – probably best to find a better source than David Lat for this (even just [2]) since we're bordering on WP:BLPSPS territory.
I'll cite Politico's 40–6 and Bloomberg's 41–5 for that, since those divide to 87% or 89%. To be more conservative, it could just say "over 80%". (Since then there's 4 more cases won, which would bring it to 88% or 90%, but I haven't seen a source noting 44–6 or 45–5.) SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she didn't really win in Gonzales or Cantero (as Oyez agrees), so I guess that would get us to 84%/86%? This is going to be a pretty tricky statistic to maintain long-term without original research: it might make sense to either date it in-line ("according to x in April 2024") or just replace with a generic reference to her high win rate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further demonstrating that I was in a rush when responding. Sorry, busy past few days. SilverLocust 💬 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this all-female practice – unclear what "this" is referring to
Oops, lost the context about her female partners that when I removed the sentence before it. I'll add back in more about that from this profile from Law.com. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Periods go outside quotation marks per MOS:LQ
True. I'll fix the quotation mark placement. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the first argument since 2003 by one of only two black men in private practice to argue before the Supreme Court – there's really no good way to say this unambiguously. Maybe just "one of the few black lawyers in private practice to argue..." (per [3])
~~[Response to come.]~~ SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it with just quoting what she said. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the audio clip of her voice really public-domain? The recording may not be an issue, but I would think the words of her opening statement would be copyrightable in their own right. Probably safest to just pull it.
[~~Response to come.~~ It could be replaced with oral argument from when she was at DOJ.] SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough to say whether one can have a copyright on statements in an oral argument at SCOTUS. (Taking a class on copyright didn't exactly make me expert. And, to quote Blatt, "I didn't go to a fancy law school".)

There are several similar files uploaded by User:LosPajaros and used on other articles for oral advocates. You could raise the question on Commons:Village pump/Copyright or nominate the file for deletion and see if there would be a consensus on that.

I would like to include the audio here if it's public domain. Her argument style is markedly more Blattish (to use your word) than her pre-2010 oral arguments for DOJ. SilverLocust 💬 20:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The audio should be public domain. It's from the Supreme Court governmental website and oral argument audio traditionally ends up in the national archives. It's the reason why the Oyez Project is able to upload audio files without being sued by the U.S. government. LosPajaros (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LosPajaros/3. (We can just let this take its course independent of the GA review.) I think the copyright argument would be weaker if it was an extemporaneous remark/exchange (and hence not fixed "by or under the authority of the author"), so that would be another option if these are deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
has described the legal profession as "overrun with men" whom she has criticized as "obviously clueless that they have no talent." – the "overrun with men" part is from a different source and needs a separate cite. More generally, while it's certainly a very Blattish way of putting it, I'm not sure piecing together quips really gives readers a fair understanding of her position on this issue, which she talks about at length in a number of articles. Maybe you can find a better way to strike that balance.
I have no idea where that portion of the quote came from. I'll rephrase the sentence. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's from her Politico piece, for what it's worth. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(In my haste to write some responses, I accidentally searched for "overrun with men" "list blatt".) SilverLocust 💬 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded that portion a bit. Let me know if there was some other aspect of her views on inclusion that you had in mind for a fair understanding of her position. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's good. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe consider picking a few of her more prominent/well-covered cases (e.g., Adoptive Couple, the Redskins case, the "cursing cheerleader", the Section 230 case, the first virtual argument, whatever you like) and describing them briefly: I think that can be useful for readers.
I'll add some case coverage in the next few days. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems to be in good shape. More later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Initial responses until I'm available later. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, let's wrap this up:

In 1993, she moved... et seq.: the prose is a bit choppy here (lots of short sentences starting with "she")
distinctively blunt and informal style of speaking in court: it would be fundamentally wrong in several respects not to include an example here (whichever one you like)
The court of appeals held that public schools...: something like "the court of appeals had previously held" might make the chronology clearer.
Maybe include a page range for the Kavanaugh hearing transcript (ref. 25): a 1689-page PDF is a tad daunting.
I would just leave out her children's names; they don't really add anything, and "the presumption in favor of privacy is strong".

I think that's all, although I'll give it a final read-through once you're done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. SilverLocust 💬 19:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Lisa Blatt is the first woman to argue 50 cases in the US Supreme Court—over 80% of them wins—and that she "elicits laughs and the occasional sharp response from the justices"?

Source: AP News

Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by SilverLocust (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

SilverLocust 💬 00:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I'll review this. Thriley (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hook is interesting and sourced. QPQ is not needed as the nominator has fewer than 5 nominations. Looks ready to go. Thriley (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Hook may be too long at 185 characters DimensionalFusion (talk ▪ she/her)