Talk:Edward M. Chen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opposition research

Wikipedia is not a repository for opposition research, especially that which is so poorly written and insufficiently sourced.

I am having difficulty rectifying a few problems in this article:

1) "The American Justice Group organized strong opposition to Chen's confirmation at the U.S. Senate. A former litigant, a Chinese lady, filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Chen at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal."

This passage is not sourced. When I added a source (http://www.american-justice.org/index.cgi/Page/137/American-Justice-Group-Applaud-Senate-Leaders-Vote-of-No-Confidence-on-Edward-M-Chen/site_id=6/curloc=Page:53) it was removed. This press release reveals that the suit mentioned was brought by the same organization opposing the nomination. There is also no reason to use the words "Chinese lady" other than to inappropriately inject race into the conversation (maybe to argue that the complaint is justified because it was filed by a fellow Asian American).

2) Under the title "Controversy" is written, "Quoting Chen's various statements, such as his reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attack, Bill O'Reilly at the Fox News labeled Chen as a radical liberal." The source is a Youtube video of the O'Reilly Factor TV show. I find both the content of the statement and the sourcing technique to be both unfair and inappropriate. It is in essence a circular loop of opinion without appropriate foundation. My attempt to remove this content has failed.

To summarize, the editor presents a slanted, inflammatory view of Edward Chen and obstructs information about the source of a lawsuit brought against the judge. It is clear that opponents of Mr. Chen seek to utilize Wikipedia in their propaganda campaign to besmirch his character and defeat his nomination. These transgressions clearly violate operational guidelines set by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.26.182 (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

There's no substance to the section. In its entirety, the section reads At Chen's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, ranking member Senator Sessions questioned Chen's judicial philosophy. In Chen's response to Senate inquiry, he admitted that that he made a joke of "poor taste" against a Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee (presumably Palin) at a 2008 political event, but Chen denied that such comments violated the code of judicial conduct against political activities. A former litigant before Chen, a Chinese lady, filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Chen at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.

The fact that the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee "questioned Chen's judicial philosophy" hardly indicates a controversy; it's a wasted sentence that does not convey any useful info. The VP nominee joke is mentioned in a questionnaire, and no mainstream source has bothered to mention it, let alone label it a controversy. And the final sentence is just plain sloppy; it mentions a complaint filed by a "Chinese lady" (that by itself is enough to get the sentence purged) without providing any context. If this section has any chance of surviving in a BLP, it's going to need major rework. Billyboy01 (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Google "Edward M. Chen", you will find a lot of news reports about Chen, from both the right side and left side. Some say he is a radical liberal, someone say he is unpatriotic, some say the GOP is going to filibuster him. The liberal media on the other hand, says the conservative media are doing witching hunting on Chen. Fox News dedicated quite some discussion on Chen, unusual for District Court nominee. In his response to the Senate, Chen admitted that he made "poor taste" jokes about Sarah Palin's involvement with the PTA, and "regret" for doing it. Chen also said he regret about making other statements. There is a pending judicial misconduct complaint against Chen. And there is a lot of accusations about Chen's character by the Chinese community. Is Chen's nomination a controversy? Let's look up the word the dictionary.com, which defines "controversy" as "contention, strife, or argument." There is a lot of contention about Chen right now. Whether he will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate is a big question mark out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.218.161 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many google hits you can find, and it certainly doesn't matter what "some say" about him. Whatever you include in this article has to adhere to wikipedia's BLP policy. Bill O'Reilly's opinion is neither reliable nor neutral; if you want to include fox news, find a news piece and stay away from the opinions. You also need to stay away from original research. That means you can't link to primary sources such as an 8 minute video of judiciary committee testimony or a 17 page questionnaire and selectively pick out the "controversial" items. The only sentences that currently pass muster are: The LA Times reported that Republicans had issues with Chen's "ACLU chromosome." The Washington Times reported that Chen's confirmation has become a new battle field over Obama's court nominations. That's a little scant for an entire "Controversy" section, but I'm assuming good faith and trust that you'll develop the section further in a way that's consistent with wikipedia's policies. Billyboy01 (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "controversy" means disputed facts or opinions. The fact that some people, such as influential media figures like Bill O'Reilly had a strong negative opinion on Chen, shows Chen is controversial. Nothing suggest that Billy O'Reilly speaks the truth. In fact the word "controversy" means there is a disagreement. As for why Chen is controversial, there is substantial evidence from his own statements. The referenced Fox News discussion quoted many of Chen's statements. Those statements are controversial -- the two guest on Fox had completely different views on Chen based on Chen's words, one thinks Chen has no love for America, another thinks he is harmless. The cause of the controversy was not Bill O'Reilly's opinion, but Chen's own statements. So deleting that reference made the picture of Chen incomplete. Also, how many sitting judges have made "poor taste" jokes at Sarah Palin in public speeches? Chen did, and he is quite unique and is controversial in that regard. Some may like Chen more for making those jokes. Some may dislike him for doing it. For that reason, Chen is a controversial figure. The fact that he invited judicial misconduct complaints from a Chinese litigant also shows that he is controversial. It was a discrimination case against U.C. Berkeley, with which Chen had some connection, yet he refused to recuse from the case. Another judge may act differently to avoid the perceived bias. So Chen is definitely a person who likes to act in controversial ways, and for exactly that reason, he is having trouble at the Senate. Thus, to give a complete picture of Chen, the controversy section is necessary. Otherwise, it is incomprehensible why a district court nominee attracted so much attention from the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.57.180 (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to quit perseverating on the word "controversy". Instead, focus on whether a given contribution meets wikipedia's standards, particularly the more rigorous standards required when discussing a living person. A link to a clip from O'Reilly's show cannot be used to establish anything, let alone that the subject of his ire is controversial. Beyond that, you're doing your own research to try to argue that Chen in controversial. Try to find some reliable secondary sources that share your opinion that the Palin joke makes him controversial, or that the Berkeley case makes him controversial. If you can't, that info doesn't belong. Billyboy01 (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that I requested input at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Edward M. Chen. Billyboy01 (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To Billyboy01: What was the ground that you removed the link to Chen's own responses to the questions of the Senate? Those responses included Chen's explanations to the statements he made and discussed on Fox News. It is interesting that the Senate was able to dig out Chen's various statements, such as what he said in a funeral of a former client. The persistent effort by some of the editors here seems to place focus on the partisan political divide. But the Senate has unanimously confirmed other candidates, including Chen's fellow Magistrate Judge Seeborg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.230.232 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Further response to the editors who keep removing the controversy about Chen: regarding why Chen's various statements were controversial, please review Senator Sessions' questions to Chen. One of the questions posed to Chen was whether Chen violated the code of judicial conduct by engaging in politically charged activities. The San Francisco Chronicle just reported that no Senate vote is being scheduled for Chen due to some of his past statements. The fact the Senate is unable to schedule a vote because of those statements show those statements to be controversial. In fact, a lot of Americans, considered Chen's statements unpatriotic and offensive. It is normal to have disputes on a judge's judicial philosophy, but for a judge to have questions about his loyalty to America and judicial conduct is highly controversial. There is no need to conceal Chen's controversial characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.230.232 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Every judicial nominee's judicial philosophy is "questioned" in their Senate hearing; that's why they have hearings, to raise those sorts of questions. They surely won't be asking about a judicial nominee's favorite dessert, or whether they are wearing boxers or briefs. bd2412 T 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable?

I didn't put a "notable" tag on the article, but I considered it. What are the standards for notability of judges? This article seems to mainly just recount the jobs he has held. If the notability is about the political bickering over his latest nomination then maybe it would be better to discuss his case in an article on that, it there is one. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Standards are discussed here. Billyboy01 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We have come to a fairly universal agreement at WikiProject United States courts and judges that Article III federal judges (appointed for a life term by the President of the United States, and approved by a majority vote the United States Senate) are inherently notable, and most Article I judges (including U.S. Magistrate Judges, as Chen is now) must provide some additional indicia of notability. I'd say that a sitting magistrate judge who is nominated to be an Article III judge is probably notable even before the confirmation vote occurs; if confirmed, he will be an inherently notable Article III judge; if rejected, he will be notable for being one of the handful of rejected nominees to the federal bench. bd2412 T 16:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

：：：Now that the Senate has returned Chen's nomination, he is no longer a nominee for Article III judgeship, and he is now just an insignificant magistrate judge. So if he is notable, is only in the sense that his confirmation failed to go through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.221.246 (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate this article for deletion, if you feel that is the case. bd2412 T 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Chen is pretty much a goner. An informed person will not place bet on him. So this article should start focusing on why he failed to get confirmation. He may be considered notable in that sense. The editors like to emphasize the political aspects and discount the opposition efforts by his former litigants, like Mrs. Chang who accused Chen of lying and misconduct. Discounting Mrs. Chang was bias on the editors side. Once Chen is completely out of the game, who is going to write this piece of history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.221.246 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you have an agenda to push. My edit history will fairly clearly demonstrate that I do not (the amount of time I have spent countering bias against both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor should speak to that by itself). I suggest you recuse yourself from further efforts to use Wikipedia as a platform to put forward your preferred outcome. bd2412 T 03:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the Wikipedia is to state the facts. Some of the editors here tried very hard to conceal certain facts that they considered damaging to Chen. They kept trying to hide the fact that Chen is a controversial figure. They also tried to dismiss the fact that Chen met strong opposition. Such editing was not objective, and only made the editing process less cooperative. Wikipedia is not a platform for pushing political agenda. Those who think this entry had any influence on the Senate is naive. Whatever outcome was inevitable, Chen's past once revealed sealed his future. The statement that Chen is a goner was an objective assessment of the situation. I suggest you stop trying to keep out the information you viewed as negative to Chen. Let people have both sides of the story, so they have the complete picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.221.246 (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Material removed from the article

I have removed the following material from the article:

Ranking member of the Judiciary Committee Senator Sessions expressed particular concerns about Chen's judicial philosophy and political views due to various statements Chen made in public speeches, while others thought Chen's confirmation would be historical as he would be the first Chinese Article III Judge in the Northern District of California. The American Justice Group organized oppositions to Chen's confirmation at the U.S. Senate, questioning Chen's qualifications and asking the democrats to vote no on Chen.

A generic 'expression of concern' over 'various statements' is meaningless without context. Furthermore, I can find no public record, either in the United States Trademark Office, or in the California directory of organizations, indicating the existence of an "American Justice Group" - Wikipedia is not the place for promoting non-notable organizations, or their views. bd2412 T 18:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"American Justice Group"

There is no notable organization under the name "American Justice Group" - the phrase itself gets fewer than a hundred Google hits, all apparently self-generated. It receives no coverage in any reliable source, and for all we know this "group" is a single person sitting at a computer in their mother's basement, making things up on the Internet. bd2412 T 18:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor who reintroduced this material has now been warned that further addition of material relating to this non-notable, possibly fictitious entity in the biography of a living person will be considered vandalism. bd2412 T 18:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Note to the last editor to attempt to re-add a reference to this fictional group: the fact that the Senate failed to bring Chen's nomination to a vote can not seriously be traced to an opposition website for a non-existent organization which presents no evidence of even existing, other than someone posting a single-purpose website. Again, there is no coverage for any such group in any reliable source, and last time I checked there were no organizational filings for any such group in the usual state or federal repositories. bd2412 T 01:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

bd2412, do you have a proof that American Justice Group is fictional? There must be live people behind that group, do you agree? Apparently, certain members of that group seem to know quite a bit of Chen's dirty laundry, such as Chen's remarks at a funeral. And those people voiced their opposition to Chen, and did so quite successfully. A group does not have to have federal registration or incorporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.221.246 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

bd2412, the fact that American Justice Group played a hand in Chen's failure to get confirmation shows that the group is not to be discounted, and it's notable in that sense. How many groups successfully blocked the confirmation of an Article III judge? In a democratic society, people have the right of free association and voicing their views. Chen's monumental failure may be his underestimation of people's voice. Judicial appointment is not a democratic process, but still, people can express their views via their representatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.221.246 (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You want me to prove a negative? Actually, in this case I can. As I indicated, I searched the online records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and found no trademark registration, nor even an application, in the name of such an organization. I searched the database of the California Secretary of State, with whom a not-for-profit doing business in the state would need to be registered, and likewise found no record of such an organization. There is no reference to the organization that comes up with a Google search - a website and a YouTube channel - that could not be the work of a single person with an Internet connection and some time to kill. A group may not need to have federal or state records of existence to exist, but it needs to demonstrate more than could be accomplished by a single person acting alone. Actually, I'll correct myself here - there is one reference that escapes my single person theory. This one, which says:

"In November 2006 the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights placed a complaint in the German Federal Court against Donald Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military figures. The case is being brought by the American Justice Group on behalf of eleven Iraqi citizens who were held prisoner at Abu Ghraib and one Guantanamo detainee".

So, when did this group of yours go from suing Donald Rumsfeld in Germany on behalf of Iraqis to opposing a District Court nomination in California? bd2412 T 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Our Northern California friend has quite an inflated view of American Justice Group's influence. They're as divorced from reality as this ant. Billyboy01 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Concern about a misleading sentence in the article.

Currently, the article states that "On December 24, 2009, the U.S. Senate returned Chen's nomination to the president, as Chen's nomination 'failed of confirmation under the provisions of Rule XXXI...'" This creates the false impression that the Senate took some action regarding Chen, when it was the Senate's failure to act that caused the nomination to be returned. In the dozens of articles that I have seen regarding failed federal nominees, I have never seen this phrasing used with respect to a nominee for whom no vote was taken. Rather, it is simply noted that the Senate did not confirm the appointment (see William Creighton, Jr., Roy Winfield Harper, and Clinton Woodbury Howard for previous examples with United States district court judges). I see no reason to vary from our established wording here. bd2412 T 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I aldo support this position, I am from the UK and have been learning about this process and these statements are confusing, like its been returned, that is not a big issue at all, no vote was actually taken only this first pre-vote thing by the panel. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pro choice

Chen is easily citable as being liberal in favour of freedom to abort, isn't he? Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear I am not adding that to the article but I am using this citation to support a comment and it is being removed with the reason that in the citation it mentions Chens position on abortion but I am not using this content in the article. This is the content from the cite that I am supporting... Sending back Chen's name to the White House doesn't mean his nomination has been rejected but it gives Obama a chance to determine whether or not to renominate him or give him a recess appointment that would be effective for one year only. If Obama renominates Chen, he would be required to undergo another vote on the judicial panel. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd quibble with your assertion that it's "easily citable" that Chen is pro-abortion; the lifenews link certainly doesn't. In any case, in the U.S. the neutral terms for both sides of the abortion debate are pro-life and pro-choice. "Pro-abortion" is a loaded term (as is "anti-choice", btw), and unfortunately the lifenews link includes the term in its title. The sfgate link I introduced as a replacement also establishes that Chen has not been rejected: The Senate action...does not amount to a rejection of the nominees but signals that they face at least some opposition. Obama must now decide whether to renominate them. Each would need another committee vote before returning to the Senate floor. If you want a reference for how long a recess appointment might last, a simple wikilink would suffice. Billyboy01 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't actually know or have a citation that supports the presumption that Chen is pro-abortion; the cited article notes that "Chen is a former attorney for the pro-abortion legal group ACLU", but the ACLU is a general civil liberties group that focuses most of its efforts on free speech issues, and another source in our article states that Chen's involvement there was "specializing in language discrimination cases". There have been noted instances of abortion foes siding with the ACLU on issues of free speech or freedom of religion, so that by itself is not sufficient to support a claim that Chen is pro-abortion. If he said as much in his hearings or in an interview, or had ruled in favor of abortion rights in a case, that would be a different matter. I would think therefore that a better source could be found for the proposition that a failure of the Senate to bring the nomination to a vote is not the same as a rejection, and that Obama could make a recess appointment of Chen, or renominate him. bd2412 T 21:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, iwould be happy to use the Recess appointment internal or another external that supports the recess appointment situation, the abortion story is a side issue and I can see why people dispute the link as the majority of the content is on another topic, ill remove it and add the internal link and if anyone knows another link to support the comment about recess appointment feel free to one, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth spending the time to discuss. President Obama will likely decide within a week or two whether to renominate Chen, make a recess appointment, or submit a new name for the seat. At that point, all the discussion of what might be done becomes moot. bd2412 T 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Uncited

This comment is uncited and needs citing and putting back....

From June 1980 until May 1981, Chen served as a volunteer attorney for the Asian Law Caucus. Off2riorob (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)