Talk:Federalist Society

spreadsheet

Should mention the infamous spreadsheet which emerged from the coverage of the U.S. Attorneys firing scandal -- this was actually some of the widest general media publicity that the Federalist Society has ever achieved... AnonMoos (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

POV Dispute

This article quite strongly reads like an advertisement. It is written in a tone that feels as though it suggests that the organization is just and righteous, which is rather non-POV. It needs to be rewritten in a far more neutral tone. Antman -- chat 02:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Federalist Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.fed-soc.org/abaw8969.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions joking about Russians, Nov 16 2017

Might need to be in article.--Wikipietime (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Federalist Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221015400/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221015400/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718170139/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.levine.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.levine.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Judicial activism

An IP number keeps removing mention that the FS has been accused of judicial activism from the lede. This text is reliably sourced, and absolutely crucial to include in the lede, given that the lede would otherwise uncritically regurgitate the group's own self-serving self-description. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. Nothing about alleged judicial activism is fleshed out in the body, so per WP:LEAD we shouldn't be including it so prominently. Current placement is giving too prominent of WP:WEIGHT to unnamed critics. And it's normal per WP:ABOUTSELF to include how a group describes itself as long as it is clearly attributed. Marquardtika (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A client of CRC

That the Federalist Society is a client of a PR firm involved in smearing a victim coming forward about sexual assault from FS's hand-picked Supreme Court justice nominee is obvious pertinent information and mentioned by the cited RS. After Marquardtika's edit, the Wikipedia page only mentions that it's client of a PR firm without elaborating any further on what kind of PR firm and what kind of activities it has been involved in. It's doing our readers a disservice, and it's not adhering to the RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Does the source say that the Federalist Society has something to do with these smears? No, it says Federalist Society is also a client of this firm. PR firms have lots of clients. So? Seems like you're trying to make a guilt by association argument here. Not neutral, and not in the sourcing you've provided. Marquardtika (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, somehow a high-quality RS finds it important to note that the Federalist Society uses this firm of smear merchants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Federalist Society. It does not belong here at all. Tchouppy (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

FS is a long-standing client of a firm that is most prominent for running the Swift Boat smears against Kerry. This same firm coordinated the conspiracy theories on behalf of FS against Dr. Ford during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Which of these facts do not belong in the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This content belongs in the article about Creative Response Concepts, the PR firm in question. There is absolutely no reason the Federalist Society article should have more ink devoted to these issues than the CRC page does (which is currently the case). It's WP:COATRACK. What does one PR firm's client have to do with another (was Federalist Society involved in Swift Boats/Blasey Ford...?) I would suggest proposing some content and launching an RFC to get WP:CONSENSUS. Marquardtika (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That FS associates so deeply with this firm of smear merchants and the fact that this firm runs smear campaigns on behalf of FS is entirely due. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Somehow, every single RS that covers FS and CRC together deems it important to note what CRC is famous for, yet here we have editors declaring that it's entirely unimportant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the Federalist Source associates "deeply" with CRC, or just that they are one of their clients? The fact that you refer to CRC as "smear merchants" makes it seem like perhaps you can't approach this topic in a neutral manner, as I've noted that none of the sources you've provided uses the word "smear." Marquardtika (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think its reasonable to include CRC’s relationship with FS but there doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to include extraneous information about CRC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Federalist Society's use of the PR firm CRC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was opposed to the inclusion of the text as presented, on the grounds that CPC's activities pertaining to other clients are irrelevant to the Federalist Society and do not belong in an article on it, especially because they imply but do not substantiate a guilty association (that the Federalist Society was involved in these controversies). There were also concerns that the descriptions of CPC's activities did not match the presentation of information is the cited sources. A proposal which establishes a connection between the Federalist Society and CPC's media practices, as that connection is discussed in reliable sources, may garner more support. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Can we include text about the Federalist Society's use of the PR firm CRC, which is renowned for the 2004 swiftboat smears against John Kerry, and for pushing the conspiracy theory that the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh (someone that the Federalist Society pushed hard for to become a Supreme Court justice) had confused Kavanaugh with a "doppelganger"?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Federalist Society is a long-standing client of the conservative public relations firm Creative Response Concepts, which is most prominent for coordinating the Swift Boat Veterans smear campaign against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. During the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, CRC orchestrated conspiracy theories that one of the women accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, had mistook his identity and that another person committed the alleged sexual assault.

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning.

Survey

• Support, but we should as much as possible limit the information about CRC to that most directly concerning the Federalist Society, of which there appears to be plenty. No need for more than a line about Swift boat, Kavanaugh etc. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, prefer instead the shorter description that won't detract from the topic of the article: "The Federalist Society is a long-standing client of the conservative public relations firm Creative Response Concepts, which is has a history of controversial media practices.(+some references, maybe three of them)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose going into specifics. See the initial Jeremiah Wright paragraph of Barack Obama for the correct way to handle this sort of thing. Note that it does not mention any of Wright's infamous quotes. I think User:Epiphyllumlover has it about right.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that Barack Obama (as well as any statements about Jeremiah Wright) must comply with WP:BLP whereas this page (or any statements about CRC) does not, I’m not entirely sure that this is the best example or even a good example. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - RS always describe CRC (in all reporting about the ties between CRC and the Federalist Society) as the firm that is renowned for the Swiftboat campaign. It's valuable context for Wikipedia's readers. It's crucial context to note that CRC orchestrated the smear campaign against Blasey Ford, whose sexual assault accusations endangered Brett Kavanaugh's nomination (the Federalist Society pushed fiercely for Kavanaugh's confirmation), so the connection is direct and explicit. So, the content mirrors that of WP:RS and is WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support WP:LIBERTY member I agree with Horse Eye Jack. It also seems like Snooganssnoogans did their homework because there is plenty of WP:RS using similar phrasing as proposed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose None of the other activities of CRC are relevant to the activities of the Federalist Society. Organizations use third party vendors, like CRC, all the time- it is hardly appropriate the discuss a contractor's unrelated activity regarding other clients on an organization's page. Tchouppy (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Partial support. I'm always skeptical of this sort of guilt-by-association content, but the connection between the Federalist Society and Swift Boat is sufficiently sourced. The connection between the Federalist Society and the Blasey Ford pushback is not. R2 (bleep) 19:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with Emir of Wikipedia below that the "conspiracy theory" wording of the Blasey sentence fails verification. R2 (bleep) 20:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support in some form as we should not WP:CENSOR what has been reported in the WP:RSs. Oppose exact wordings as this seems like a non-neutral and perhaps political biased or deceptive presentation of the facts, for example the sources currently numbered 6, 1, and 7 are used to support the claim that this was a conspiracy theory despite not of these three sources saying that. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is supremely irrelevant to the activities of the Federalist Society. Independent 3rd party vendors are just that. Their unrelated activity regarding other entirely separate clients have no place on this organization's page. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Capitalismojo. See also WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Capitalismojo. Rjensen (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: We already have "The Federalist Society is a client of the public relations firm Creative Response Concepts" in the article (in the "Background" section). The proposed addition is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. It is also sloppily written--like others, I'm not seeing "conspiracy theory" in any of the sources, or "smear campaign." If we're going to include additional content here, we'd certainly need to make sure at a minimum that it was properly sourced and not polemically written. Marquardtika (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• In what world is swiftboating not a smear campaign? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COATRACK. Calidum 16:37, 13 July 2019 (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.

Mention of Conway's group

I recently removed mention of George T. Conway III's group Checks and Balances (organization). The notability of this group is shaky enough (the future will determine that). However, it's far too tangential to Federalist Society to deserve a mention here. The source states that a dozen FedSoc members joined it. Out of an organization that has 70,000+ members, this comes nowhere close to a "splintering" of the organization. This is redoubled by the fact that after only one line that lasted a blink of an eye in the media, the relationship between Checks and Balances and the Federalist Society has never been mentioned again. Ergo Sum 17:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor Ergo Sum is edit-warring out long-standing text from the article without consensus or by abiding BRD. The text in question is about divisions within the Federalist Society over its staunch support and close association with Trump. The content in question is reported by RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: If by edit warring (see block threat on my talk page), you mean a single revert of your edit and opening this discussion, then sure I'm edit warring. I'm requesting WP:RFC because clearly, you have no intention of being reasonable. Ergo Sum 17:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

This request is whether there should be mention of George's Conway's group on this article. Ergo Sum 17:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Why challenge Checks and Balances but not American Constitution Society? I think what we had before Ergo Sum deleted it was good, as is the line about the American Constitution Society. I support restoring what was removed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The content belongs. It shows that there is a diversity of opinion with the Federalist Society, and that a faction disagrees with the staunch support and association with the Trump administration. RS coverage from 2019 (I'm not counting 2018 coverage of which there is countless RS): The Atlantic, NY Mag, NPR, The Hill, Law.com, The Plain Dealer. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

These are articles mentioning or about Checks and Balances, not about Checks and Balances being a splinter group from the Federalist Society. The fact that other conservative lawyers exists is not newsworthy to the Federalist Society page. It's hardly newsworthy that conservative lawyers may have more than one opinion on a subject. Any large group has differing ideals within it.

That said, and while I think Conway's group is pretty inconsequential, there were RS articles about the formation of Checks and Balances in relation to the Federalist Society in the deleted content. That content has been there for a while without controversy (?) and there is no reason to remove it now. Tchouppy (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I agree wholeheartedly with Tchouppy: these sources do not at all support mentioning that club in this article. Sorry, but it's like you're answering a very different question. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see content being there for a while (a month?) as a reason to keep it if it doesn't belong there. I see it as totally different from ACS, because that is a large and certainly notable organization that was created explicitly as a counterbalance to FedSoc. Checks and Balances happened to have a few FedSoc members join it, and that's the end of its relationship to FedSoc. Very different. Ergo Sum 01:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You didnt answer my question, why challenge Checks and Balances but not American Constitution Society? Doesn't the exact same reasoning apply to both? The coverage linking them to the Federalist Society appears nearly identical. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ACS is an organization that is 20 years old, has millions of dollars, and thousands of members. It was created explicitly as an opposite of Federalist Society; coverage of ACS reflects this. C&B is several months old, has an unknown number of dollars, and has several dozen members. The substantial majority of coverage of it has been regarding its creation. The group's relationship with the Federalist Society is negligible for the reasons I state above. Ergo Sum 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I still find myself in agreement with Tchouppy that while "Conway's group is pretty inconsequential, there were RS articles about the formation of Checks and Balances in relation to the Federalist Society in the deleted content... there is no reason to remove it now” We shouldn’t play god if RS choose to explicitly link them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This seems WP:Undue and WP:Recent. I’d exclude and see if it is actually due inclusion in this article. By undue I mean; it is unclear that this is significant and in proportion to the prominence in reliable sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States proposal

I moved this discussion up to the "Methods and influence" section as most of the discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal is already discussed in the methods and influence section. I would like to trim it down some more since these are all arguments that have already been discussed in the methods and influence section. Furthermore, at this point, it is only a proposal and has not been adopted yet, so a full section of its own is hardly necessary. Tchouppy (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Calabresi Op Ed

It seems to me that the opinion (even published) of one of the Federalist Society's founders is not strongly enough connected to the organization itself to merit inclusion in a general article about the Federalist Society, unless there is evidence that it somehow represents the thinking of the group itself or a significant vein of thought within the group. I removed this paragraph once before, with a note explaining that it was "tendentious" (i.e., not WP:NPOV) and dealt with "a comment made by one of the group's founders which does not reflect the positions or policies of the organization." This was summarily reverted by another editor with just a single word explanation: "relevant." I fail to see how calling it relevant makes it so, although the editor followed up with the addition of a second citation to the paragraph, which however still failed to connect Calabresi's opinion to the Federalist Society itself (the article's only mentions of the Federalist Society were to note that Calabresi was a co-founder and to explain that the Society has been influential lately). Obviously, Calabresi's personal opinions are fair game in his own article (which indeed includes a more or less identical version of the same paragraph with the same sources), but they do not belong in this article, any more than the personal individual opinions of other members (or even founders) of the Federalist Society do. I actually think that the specific sections in this article discussing the Federalist Society under the Bush and Trump administrations are questionable as a whole, but at least the rest of the material presented in those sections is connected to the Federalist Society itself: its events, its publications, its influence, etc. (My objection probably has more to do with the presentation and arrangement of this information, rather than its inclusion.) This particular instance, however, is different, and does not belong in this article, so I am deleting it once more and asking for further discussion here on the talk page before any effort is made to reinsert it. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This statement ascribes opinions of some members to all members. "Members of the Federalist Society have forcefully argued against regulations on guns. Members hold that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to guns, as opposed to being a collective right to arms."

You might as wall say, "Wikipedia editors have forcefully argued against regulations on guns. People hold that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to guns, as opposed to being a collective right to arms."

Wikipedia should not contain unsupportable statements such as that. Anorlunda (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Bias

There needs to be a section dedicated to criticism. Such as their promotion of theocrats. 2601:346:C201:60C0:21F0:D0C0:F954:CDAB (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. The article does have discussion about things like this but it does a bit seem "hidden" under more value-neutral subject headings, not a criticism section, in contrast to common practice elsewhere in Wikipedia. 45.43.101.69 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Politico

The article has an unnecessary amount of direct quotes from Politico which are not WP:NPOV compliant 81.2.103.240 (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How Trump adviser manipulates free speech to advance his causes and ‘hurt his adversaries’

That's the title of this article. Might be of use. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)