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. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
See [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Snickers2686: This Dallas Observer article is currently used as a source but I don't see anything about Kacsmaryk at the target link. Is it supposed to be a different link? Marquardtika ( talk) 01:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Where was the judge born? Who were his parents? What did his father/mother do? Siblings? Early education? 2601:84:8900:130:4004:35D1:98AF:99FA ( talk) 15:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Reasoning: Biographical information is not inappropriate. Under Wikipedia Terms of Service, Section 4 Heading "Violating the Privacy of Others", bullet point #3, a user would be in violation of terms of service if there was an applicable law being broken in addition to the collective agreement of Wikipedia editors. There is no additional information provided about persons including but not limited to properly sourced information regarding individuals' state of health in past or present, place of residence or education, age, extracurricular activities and so forth. Furthermore, citation provided is from a .GOV-hosted press release intended for public release. No applicable laws or etiquette are being violated by using this citation. Using quotes from a personal blog, social media account, gossip tabloid, church website, school website and so forth would potentially be in violation of applicable law and, of course, Wikipedia general etiquette and terms of service.
Source (Bottom paragraph showing biographical information): https://web.archive.org/web/20190715160301/https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/news/press-release-judge-matthew-joseph-kacsmaryk JosephMifsudL0L ( talk) 16:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced misrepresentation of the Texas Review of Law and Politics, an official publication of the UT Law School. "which is not the main law review at Texas but rather a conservative ideological publication" https://law.utexas.edu/publications/journals/texas-review-of-law-politics/
Please eliminate the quoted material 50.0.36.48 ( talk) 19:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Is it worth creating a separate section for disclosure issues? (e.g., the law review article, as well as new reporting on undisclosed interviews and stock holdings) Die Kunst Der Fuge ( talk) 21:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Iowalaw2 you have removed substantial commentary without justification, then on my revert requesting Talk consensus you again reverted it without explanation. To prevent WP:warring I will not revert again, but I request you please explain why you think this is justified. The commentary deleted is well sourced from notable commentators and relevant. If you have concerns of WP:Undue we can discuss updating the commentary, but wholesale removal seems drastic. Thank you. StereoFolic ( talk) 14:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I have similarly just reverted your deletion of analysis on the language of a case. I accidentally published an incomplete edit summary - to explain further, all 3 sources cited there are news articles describing and providing analysis of the case. All 3 sources are known reliable sources which can be reasonably trusted to fact check statements in commentary they publish within. Besides, the analysis largely hinges on direct quotes from the opinion. If there is anything specific within that is factually erroneous, that should be specifically removed. StereoFolic ( talk) 16:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
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. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
See [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Snickers2686: This Dallas Observer article is currently used as a source but I don't see anything about Kacsmaryk at the target link. Is it supposed to be a different link? Marquardtika ( talk) 01:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Where was the judge born? Who were his parents? What did his father/mother do? Siblings? Early education? 2601:84:8900:130:4004:35D1:98AF:99FA ( talk) 15:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Reasoning: Biographical information is not inappropriate. Under Wikipedia Terms of Service, Section 4 Heading "Violating the Privacy of Others", bullet point #3, a user would be in violation of terms of service if there was an applicable law being broken in addition to the collective agreement of Wikipedia editors. There is no additional information provided about persons including but not limited to properly sourced information regarding individuals' state of health in past or present, place of residence or education, age, extracurricular activities and so forth. Furthermore, citation provided is from a .GOV-hosted press release intended for public release. No applicable laws or etiquette are being violated by using this citation. Using quotes from a personal blog, social media account, gossip tabloid, church website, school website and so forth would potentially be in violation of applicable law and, of course, Wikipedia general etiquette and terms of service.
Source (Bottom paragraph showing biographical information): https://web.archive.org/web/20190715160301/https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/news/press-release-judge-matthew-joseph-kacsmaryk JosephMifsudL0L ( talk) 16:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced misrepresentation of the Texas Review of Law and Politics, an official publication of the UT Law School. "which is not the main law review at Texas but rather a conservative ideological publication" https://law.utexas.edu/publications/journals/texas-review-of-law-politics/
Please eliminate the quoted material 50.0.36.48 ( talk) 19:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Is it worth creating a separate section for disclosure issues? (e.g., the law review article, as well as new reporting on undisclosed interviews and stock holdings) Die Kunst Der Fuge ( talk) 21:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Iowalaw2 you have removed substantial commentary without justification, then on my revert requesting Talk consensus you again reverted it without explanation. To prevent WP:warring I will not revert again, but I request you please explain why you think this is justified. The commentary deleted is well sourced from notable commentators and relevant. If you have concerns of WP:Undue we can discuss updating the commentary, but wholesale removal seems drastic. Thank you. StereoFolic ( talk) 14:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I have similarly just reverted your deletion of analysis on the language of a case. I accidentally published an incomplete edit summary - to explain further, all 3 sources cited there are news articles describing and providing analysis of the case. All 3 sources are known reliable sources which can be reasonably trusted to fact check statements in commentary they publish within. Besides, the analysis largely hinges on direct quotes from the opinion. If there is anything specific within that is factually erroneous, that should be specifically removed. StereoFolic ( talk) 16:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)