Jump to content

Talk:Aileen Cannon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iowalaw2 (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 12 July 2023 (→"Removing political commentary (again)"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Needs work

The level of detail included on the recent controversy is grossly in excess of the norm on judicial biography pages, to the point that it is unreadable--and to make matters worse, a good deal of it is thinly-disguised editorializing . I did my best on a cleanup earlier but I see that Starship.paint restored all of their earlier text. I suggest moving back to a more pared-down approach and including a "main article" link to Trump v. United States for readers primarily interested in the case's blow-by-blow (though that article also appears to have major problems). Iowalaw2 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Not all the text was restored, in fact some was left deleted as a compromise. (2) Not all cases are equal; how many district judges have ruled over a case between a former president and the current government? The Trump case is easily the most important thing Cannon has done, and will likely be so for the foreseeable future; this is her legacy. (3) The Trump case has received vast amount of WP:RS attention and is thus afforded appropriate weight. (4) It is obviously significant that Cannon was thoroughly overruled by the Eleventh Circuit, and should be documented thus. (5) What thinly-disguised editorializing, is there anything beyond what the reliable sources have highlighted? starship.paint (exalt) 14:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example: describing Colloton as a "conservative" judge, implying that Cannon was unusually inexperienced by citing the ABA guidelines, describing the alleged partisanship of the Eleventh Circuit panel, including an extraordinary amount of information about the Eleventh Circuit decision. Plus there's just a lot of bulky writing. If you want to write more about this case, I suggest working on Trump v. United States, or perhaps an op-ed to your local newspaper. Iowalaw2 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2023 (U
I did not go beyond the reliable sources. (a) describing Colloton as a "conservative" judge [1] NYT: She worked as a federal prosecutor, clerked for a conservative federal judge … As a clerk, she worked for Judge Steven M. Colloton. (b) allegedly implying that Cannon was unusually inexperienced by citing the ABA guidelines, same NYT source At the time of her nomination, Ms. Cannon had been a lawyer for 12 years, the minimum threshold to meet the American Bar Association’s qualification standard. (c) describing the alleged partisanship of the Eleventh Circuit panel, see [2] Politico: Two of the three judges on the panel, Andrew Brasher and Britt Grant, were appointed to the court by Trump. The third, Robin Rosenbaum, was appointed by President Barack Obama … The appeals court’s opinion was unsparing toward Cannon and replete with indications that the appeals judges took a vastly different approach to the document fight than she did. and also see [3] Politco again The three-judge panel’s unsparing ruling … The panel of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that U.S. district Court Judge Aileen Cannon erred … The ruling was issued by 11th Circuit Chief Judge William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, and two of Trump’s own appeals court picks, Andrew Brasher and Britt Grant. starship.paint (exalt) 01:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise on length, I will trim the other judges out. starship.paint (exalt) 12:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a very large portion of the content (10,534 characters) has now been removed by Iowalaw2, including from the lede which no longer summaries the content of the article. I'm concerned that the article no longer makes clear the overwhelmingly negative response the subject received for her actions in Trump v. United States which is a big issue for the subject. Is the subject being whitewashed? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Introductions to biography articles, without exception to my knowledge, do not contain information on individual cases. Virtually all federal judges preside over many cases that receive news coverage, so a different rule would be untenable. For example, the intro to William H. Pryor Jr., one of the most prominent and controversial judges in the country and the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, does not describe any of his many highly controversial cases.
If you want to add a sentence adding that some media commentators criticized Cannon's decisions, go ahead, I have no objection. I am not trying to "whitewash" the article, just align it with the general best practices for judicial biography articles. Iowalaw2 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHATABOUT William Pryor? No, what we should we doing is following Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. If we fail to do that, we fail WP:NPOV. starship.paint (exalt) 01:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add a sentence adding that some media commentators criticized Cannon's decisions, go ahead, I have no objection. - but who removed the content of many legal experts (law professors Ryan Goodman, Peter M. Shane, Orin Kerr, David Alan Sklansky, Samuel W. Buell, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.; former White House ethics chief Norm Eisen, former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, and Trump's former Attorney General William Barr) criticising the decision? [4] You apparently did, Iowalaw2, and I didn’t restore. starship.paint (exalt) 01:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous state of the article frankly looked vandalized--I'm pretty shocked that it was written by an apparently experienced editor. General biography articles should not have lists of takes by law professors on judicial decisions. Otherwise almost every judicial biography article would have them. Again, this is a perfect case for the use of Template:Main. And your "compromise" leaves in much of the most inappropriate editorializing content (for example, describing Colloton as "conservative," the snarky aside about the ABA, etc.). Along with some stuff that's just bizarre (for example, Cannon's bar admission date and sister). This is a BLP that must conform to WP:BLPSTYLE.
I have explained the reasons why the general consensus on Wikipedia is to not summarize cases in intros. (None of the Supreme Court justice articles do either.) If you want to note that Cannon was the judge in Trump v. US, that's fine, but a procedural-posture blow-by-blow is not appropriate; that gives too much weight as judges just preside over too many cases. I'd encourage you to look at the norms in high-quality judiciary articles worked on by specialist editors if you want to continue working in this area. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iowalaw2 wrote: I'd encourage you to look at the norms in high-quality judiciary articles worked on by specialist editors if you want to continue working in this area. Since you have around 339 edits and Starship.paint has over 51,000 since May 2011, perhaps you might reconsider your stance? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Esowteric, Iowala2 specializes in legal writing on Wikipedia. I think he understands Wikipedia just fine. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A. B., Iowalaw2: this was simply a reminder that we are not in a courtroom here. There's no harm, and a lot to gain by all parties, in being collegial. "It's not what you say, but the way that you say it," as that earworm of a song goes. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight: Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each ... and An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. ... imo, Trump v. United States is highly significant (at this point in the subject's judicial career). The coverage is as much about the subject's handling of the case, as the case itself. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any point in opening an RFC to help establish local consensus? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Esowteric: - not at this point because the scope of Iowalaw’s objections are too large and vague. RFCs can more clearly decide regarding the inclusion of one sentence or the inclusion of one paragraph. What Iowalaw2 is attempting to do is dramatically deleting large amounts of content which are cited by reliable sources. The resulting RFC may simply be too messy to decide between any individual piece of content. starship.paint (exalt) 03:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iowalaw2: - why are you continuing to insist that there is most inappropriate editorializing content when I have already proven to you, on this talk page, with quotes, that these details about the conservative judge and the ABA came directly from the New York Times? [5] clerked for a conservative federal judge … As a clerk, she worked for Judge Steven M. Colloton … Cannon had been a lawyer for 12 years, the minimum threshold to meet the American Bar Association’s qualification standard… Even more perplexing is that a simple mention of having a sister, or a lawyer having a date of passing the Bar, is considered bizarre to you. Miami Herald: [6] Cannon, who was born in Cali, Colombia, but grew up in Miami along with an older sister. Politifact: [7] She was admitted to the Florida Bar in 2012 and has no discipline history … Cannon was previously licensed to practice law in California. Records from the State Bar of California show that after being admitted to the organization in 2008… These are simple biographical details that reliable sources have covered. This seems more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT despite what reliable sources report. starship.paint (exalt) 03:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been adding sources to the article to justify WP:DUE inclusion of any actions or words in this case. When I couldn't find multiple sources to back up certain quotes within the rulings, I have deleted that content. Again, content has been cut down. If anyone has any doubts of the importance of Trump v. United States to Aileen Cannon, take note [8], there are 56 sources in the article at this version, of which 52/56 feature Trump v. United States. Of the 4/56 remaining sources, 2 are primary sources about her judicial commission, and 2 are secondary sources on United States v. Hoeffer. starship.paint (exalt) 13:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm getting anywhere with @Starship.paint. I have no objection to either a RFC or just inviting input informally from people who may have encountered similar issues, such as @Marquardtika or @Snickers2686, who have worked on tons of these, including earlier versions of this article. Issues like this come up occasionally--e.g. Linda R. Reade used to have a very long description of the Postville raid litigation. After the more recent edits I'll concede that the article is at least getting more readable versus the prior drafts. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cannon has been the subject of widespread and detailed criticism concerning her role in the matter of Trump. There have also been narratives about Cannon as a product of the Heritage Foundation and the very effective grooming of raw talent by the Federalist Society to take their places in the judiciary. Cannon is fairly nondescript and barely notable except for the events related to the matter of Trump. The recent cleanup has greatly improved the page, although there's lots more that could be sourced and detailed concerning her conduct and competence. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC) add Federalist Society.17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every federal judge is notable, and the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with judicial nominations (you're thinking of the Federalist Society). And the last thing the article needs is even more political commentary. Iowalaw2 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said barely notable. Added Federalist Society. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iowalaw2: - aren’t getting anywhere? The removal of around 500 words of old article text, ignoring references (from before you touched the article), a reduction of around 25%, begs to differ. Around 100 words were added, so a net change of -400 words, net reduction of 20%. That’s compromise. The remaining Trump v US stuff, it’s heavily sourced, it’s WP:DUE. I could add even more sources. Law professors are saying that the 11th Circuit opinion shows that Cannon was “very wrong” and also said this may be her most important case ever. Relevant? Important? Reliably sourced? All yes. starship.paint (exalt) 23:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump appointee will remain judge in documents case

Trump appointee will remain judge in documents case, chief clerk says (NYT), unless she recuses herself. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Aileen Cannon is not presiding over Trump’s arraignment. 2600:4040:A198:6000:D81F:524:BA22:6CD0 (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Aileen Cannon is not presiding over Trump’s arraignment

Judge Aileen Cannon is not presiding over Trump’s arraignment 2600:4040:A198:6000:D81F:524:BA22:6CD0 (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for protecting the page

I propose that the page be protected. There already have been several edits by anonymous IP only editors, edits that have often warranted reversion. The page needs sound, fair stewardship.Dogru144 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Removing political commentary (again)"

I'm concerned that this edit by Iowalaw2 (an editor who is an expert in law) with the inadequete edit summary "Removing political commentary (again)" also removed valid and notable criticism of Cannon by other law experts. And deleting 6,678 characters is certainly not a minor, uncontroversial edit.

I also note that this edit had to be made "(again)" because a previous attempt to make similar changes was challenged and/or reinstated by other editors here. Such bold edits could perhaps be broken into smaller chunks and also discussed here on the article's talk page in the first instance (as also suggested by another reverting editor at Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, with a similar edit summary: "the commentary is notable and relevant. Such removals should be discussed in Talk first."). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 06:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about judges obviously should not include laundry lists of professors' reactions to the judges' decisions from Twitter. Or plenty of other bizarre stuff in this article (e.g. noting that Cannon has a sister, or the snarky aside on the ABA guidelines on judges' ages). These are not good-faith inclusions consistent with NPOV. I limited the removals to things there could be no real defense of, versus the earlier attempt at a more sweeping rewrite (I still think the coverage of the cases is vastly disproportionate, but it's less wrong than these parts). I'll even leave in the discussion of Cannon's reasons for joining Fed Soc, even though they essentially just say "I joined Fed Soc because I like Fed Soc." Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll leave it for others here to decide whether or not they agree with you. I reverted before too many more edits piled on top of your bold edit. I'm glad that you removed from your reply above ... and nobody has ever tried to defend them. If the judge was not someone you had a political axe to grind against, you would never include them." ..., because that, to me, suggests that your edits are based on your perception of these people's motivations, which is sort of unspoken WP:OR or POV in itself. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it because I realize that most of the people here lack experience in this area, which is also a likely explanation. But this does tend to happen to articles about judges who get lots of attention in the liberal press. I would have the same objection to anyone loading up Mark E. Walker, a bete noir of the legal right who has been reversed as much as anyone, with conservative criticism. Iowalaw2 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no special rules for articles about judges. You may have an opinion that these articles should follow a standardised format, but unless this is supported by WP:RFC conclusions or other open WP processes, an opinion does not dictate content. Your removals include WP:RS commentary on rulings cited to the NYTimes and the ABA Journal. Removals of relevant RS sources should be discussed on talk first, and such sources cannot reasonably be described as "reactions to the judges' decisions from Twitter.". Dialectric (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove the NYT article (I just cleaned up the discussion of it a bit). The ABA Journal article is literally a roundup of tweets. I like Orin Kerr as much as the next guy, but there's no need to include his tweets in a Wikipedia article. Iowalaw2 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Removing political commentary" says it all, really. Who is to say that it was politically motivated, rather than motivated by a desire to make facts known. For example that Cannon may have erred in her rulings, or that she's too inexperienced to handle a high-profile case like XYZ? It is our job to state facts and not interpret. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that Cannon is "too inexperienced to handle a high-profile case" is both plainly wrong (regardless of her flaws, her background is extremely typical for a federal district judge) and plainly a statement of opinion. That the you think that's "stating facts" rather than "interpreting" explains how the article got to its sorry state. Iowalaw2 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? What is "stating facts" quoting from? It sounds like you would like to add your WP:OR regarding her experience. I am focused on content cited to WP:RS, and question why you want to remove those sources. Some opinions are relevant whether they are right or wrong, if the source is a known expert in that area.Dialectric (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was a response to @Esowteric, not you. And no, I do not plan to add anything to the article, including regarding her experience. I left in extensive discussion of the errors in the case--too much, imo--but there's no need to also include hundreds of words of conclusory statements to the effect that "Professor John Doe also believes that she is a moron."Iowalaw2 (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said something along the lines of "we should be reflecting what reliable sources have to say about the subject", not interpreting or cherry-picking those sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also bear in mind the non-mandatory WP:BRD and also WP:3RR. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies User:Iowalaw2, in my recent edit summary I misunderstood the edit history as 3RR violation, when your most recent revert was the second (after a revert and then an initial bold deletion). I think it is very clear, however, that consensus has not been reached here and the status quo should remain in place until it is. StereoFolic (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though technically it might also fall under the BLP exception. Though I doubt consensus can be reached; the editors who loaded up the article with political commentary are not persuadable. They just assert that the tweets are reliable and not undue, and don't address the other quips littered throughout. We tried bringing in some other people the last time Cannon was in the news to no avail. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what a reliable source has to say about Cannon's lack of experience, that you pooh-pooh:
"A review of the Southern District of Florida dockets show Cannon’s criminal work has consisted almost entirely of a few categories of cases: distribution of a controlled substance, illegal reentry of people who had previously been deported, felons in possession of firearms and child pornography or trafficking. Nearly all have resulted in plea agreements, and the four that did not were handled in brief trials that lasted no more than three days apiece in court."[1] Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't actually claim she's inexperienced. And you (characteristically) leave out the inconvenient parts of the article--she's a former federal prosecutor, she obviously has a lot of experience with federal criminal law, more than most federal judges. But anyway, I have no interest in going back and forth on this with you--you're wrong, ask any lawyer you're friendly with, but I'm not going to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. You've made your interest in the article clear, and it isn't a neutral one. Iowalaw2 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLPs should let the subject speak for themselves at times, which is why I think the reasons for joining FedSoc should stay, even if Iowalaw2 thinks those reasons are self-explanatory. But I agree with a lot of what else Iowalaw2 removed, since the text that was here was largely a pile-on. In particular, the Eleventh Circuit's overruling of her can speak for itself; there's no need to include legal commentators saying the same thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise interim measure, I've attempted to remove only the aspects of the article that appear not to have defenders here. I left the op-ed and Twitter commentary, but I still think it's obviously undue weight. I also did a couple of bits of general cleanup. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/15/aileen-cannon-criminal-trial-record-00102135
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aileen_Cannon&oldid=1165022202"