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
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges 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.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
this article is blank esp about much of needed info for the recently (today) announced likelihood that 'sri' would be an Obama44 nominee for the US Supreme Court; that info needed being what is his religion, what are his court decisions views on subjects of importance to a a supreme court judge; this is esp because many online articles describe 'sri' as a 'blank' that no one knows what his views are ... can a blank be a surepeme court judge nominee... it is clear as O44 himself is still a 'blank' after 7 years in office that we do not yet understand at all his views on many many things; we do see that 'sri' played basketball in high school-an O44 canoodling joint view and that he is smart another O44 canoolding similar view - but we see the ongoing o44 national security counsel appointments of professors that many feel have been wanting ... 24.44.215.132 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)noblankspleasewillysr[reply]
It is important that we respect Wikipedia's polices and not speculate on rumors. Let's also at least bury Scalia before we start talking about his replacement, too? WTF? (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should not speculate or comment ourselves (as the IP above is doing), but that doesn't mean we can't report on others' published speculation. This article would not be the only one to do so. Also, individuals listed on Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates (as this person is) commonly link back to it as a "see also" item. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Under these rules, shouldn't include speculation about SCOTUS nomination. Furorimpius (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(The following was removed by another editor per WP:CRYSTAL. Discuss and resolve here before adding back. My own view is that the twitter part is unreliable but that the Toobin and Serwer pieces may be appropriate for inclusion. sourced discussion of presidential shortlists is different than mere speculation. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
On February 13, 2016, after the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, rumors began to circulate that Srinivasan tops the list of potential replacement nominees President Barack Obama will put forward to replace Scalia. On Twitter, Jeffrey Toobin reiterated his belief that Srinivasan is the most likely choice.[3]
Wikipedia does indeed allow projections and prediction as long as they are for the near future and come from a respected source. here's what the policy says: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." The New York Times is one of the most respected sources around. VanEman (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
have now removed the section. This matter in an early speculative stage. Prefer we wait until senate opens and there is an official announcement. Prodigyhk (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is general support here (see the section above too) for sourced reporting of speculation. We don't have to wait for government action involving the subject to report what third parties are saying about him. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jason A. Quest at this point it is in the realm of speculative political gossip. Not encyclopedic material. Also, do not see any consensus to keep the material in article. Request you to remove the section, until we reach consensus. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
