Talk:Hagan Scotten

Deletion of what RS refs say

An editor has ventured the opinion that it is undue editorializing to reflect what a bevy of RS refs all say .. including the one supplied at the end of the relevant text. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hagan_Scotten&diff=prev&oldid=1275769799

That's opposite day. It's editorializing for an individual editor to subjectively delete what a good number of RS refs all say. It's by following the RS refs that we avoid subjectivity of editors. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C032:8598:6C1E:51E4 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

See WP:RSP that the Washington Examiner, which licensed this article to the Denver Gazette website linked as the source, has no consensus on its reliability due to repeated debates over partisan bias. Given that other outlets like Law & Liberty continue to refer to Roberts as a moderate, I stand by the claim that it is unnecessary to brand Kavanaugh and Roberts as conservatives in a bio on their clerk. However, despite creating the article, I definitely do not own/control it, so others can chime in. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. See, e.g., The Wall Street Journal ("Sassoon and Scotten, both registered Republicans, came to the U.S. attorney's office after serving as law clerks for prominent conservative ..."), The New York Times ("Ms. Sassoon and Mr. Scotten ... Both clerked for conservative justices of the Supreme Court... Mr. Scotten for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr...."), and NBC ("Scotten ... clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ... also served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh when Roberts' fellow conservative was sitting on a lower court."),

It's also interesting to note that the wp article on John Roberts has so much about the fact that he is viewed as a conservative judge, that it has the infobox that says: "This article is part of a series on Conservatism in the United States." Kavanaugh is also included in that infobox. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C032:8598:6C1E:51E4 (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You have convinced me, thanks for the extensive research on this point! 😊 I have added that qualifier back into the article in a hopefully satisfactory way. Thanks for all your work here and at Danielle Sassoon! I hope you will "fully" join the Wikipedia community as a registered editor, though you are of course free to remain an IP editor. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 08:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)