Talk:James Ware (judge)

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

POV[edit]

This needs attention, for POV and updates. Charles Matthews 08:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with it? Equinox137 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit Against Judge Ware for Failing to Make Payments on his Yacht[edit]

I don't see how this fact is trivia (http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/courts-decisions-appeals/35084-bank-sues-san-jose-federal-judge-james-ware-over-boat-payments.html). A federal judge getting sued for not making his payments on his yacht, as reported in major newspaper? This is exactly the kind of information wikipedia exists to provide, especially since ware has made "solitude on his boat" a part of his public image (http://articles.sfgate.com/1996-04-14/news/17772712_1_federal-judge-judge-ware-virgil-ware/6) It should also be stressed that public officials living beyond their means makes them a prime target for bribery and corruption, which makes this a "public" issue that Wikipedia should disclose in Judge Ware's bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.34.14 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per my edit summary reverting: "WP:UNDUE, trivia; anyone can sue, was he found liable?; in any event, not part of "professional career".
This is POV of the undue weight variety. The judge's alleged financial disputes are a very minor aspect of a biography. Particularly in BLP articles, we try to avoid that. See WP:BLP
In addition, BFD, someone sued. That means someone is making a claim of something, anyone can make a claim. If you find something saying he was found liable for the alledged breach, then maybe (just maybe) it might be worth adding. But a mere assertion? No.
This was also added as part of his "professional career," and it has nothing to do with that topic.
Finally, while we try to assume good faith, it's difficult to do that when one of the editors pushing to restore this, [1], does so only after blatantly vandalizing the article, [2]. TJRC (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize anything, so there must be two or more people who care about this. 1. "this is POV of the undue weight variety..." That is YOUR POV! As is that this is a "very minor aspect of a biography". What gives you the right to decide that instead of the person who goes to wikipedia looking for information on James Ware?

2. "in addition, BFD, someone sued..." You make it sound like claims are never newsworthy. Check out Mike Vick and Ben Roethlesberger's wiki pages. Those both have info about their civil suits (the former for herpes, the latter for his behavior in Tahoe). Neither of those suits have resulted in a finding of liability, are only a "mere assertion", yet are described on wikipedia! Would it help if i found more examples of such pages?

3. You have said nothing of the fact that this allegation involves a FEDERAL JUDGE. Not a football player. This is someone who is constitutionally mandated to act with "good behavior." It is someone who has had other credibility crises in the past (his 9th circuit nom., which the article mentions). If professional atheletes unsubstantiated transgressions that have nothing to do with their professional lives are worthy of mention on wikipedia, than how is this not?

Rather than argue, what can we do to move this forward? Do you suggest a compromise? I will create a new heading for "personal life" and add it there. Is there another forum for resolving these sorts of disputes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.228.231 (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudulent Law Degree[edit]

It should be fair commentary to note facts in the articles already referenced concerning the REASON Judge Ware told the fabricated story to hundreds of audiences over a twenty-year period after law school. The reason cited in all of these articles is that this fabricated story is what motivated him to pursue a law career. Therefore, it is also fair commentary to question whether this same fabrication that he told for 20 years after law school was part of Judge Ware's personal statement in his application to Stanford Law School, as anyone who has ever applied to law school knows that what motivates you to pursue a law career is the CENTRAL QUESTION in one's personal statement. The lack of a more thorough investigation into whether Judge Ware told the same fabrication in his personal statement to law school is a CRITICAL ITEM that should be part of the commentary, as it is more likely than not that he did tell the same fabricated story, which would make his law degree fraudulent subjecting him to immediate disbarment. Obviously, those who would know that this fabrication was on his personal statement would have complete power over this judge's career, making him incapable of delivering justice in particular cases if those with power over him want a different result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.212 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At best, that qualifies as original research, which runs afoul of wikipedia's rules. Find a reliable source, or you have no case. Billyboy01 (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, it's simply speculation that this makes his degree "fraudulent". Possibly libelous too, but I'm no expert. Hairhorn (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth Circuit Rules that Judge Ware Usurps Power[edit]

A published opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rebuking Judge James Ware for usurping power should be fair commentary, and a link to the opinion should be allowed. A Writ of Mandamus is an "extraordinary" writ, only reserved for extreme cases where a judge essentially thumbs his nose at the law. To keep this out of Judge Ware's bio gives the distorted impression that this judge is a rather normal judge, when the reality is he is probably the worst judge on the bench who thinks he is above the law. The Ninth Circuit opinion says as much in much gentler terms, and therefore the published opinion should be part of the Judge Ware's bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.212 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a third party source as well as the first party one given. I've removed the invented, POV-pushing title of the reference. Hairhorn (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Third Party source[1]

That's just a summary posted online, not a third party source. If it's so non-notable an event that no publication has mentioned it, it doesn't merit being included in an encyclopedia; a quick look through Gnews turns up nothing. Hairhorn (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not following your own policy regarding the use of Primary Sources, which says I can use them without secondary sources as long as I merely describe (rather than interpret) what is in the primary source. Would like to request mediation if you don't allow a description of a published opinion of a US appellate court as sufficient sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.60 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are not debating the same matter, I have no issue with using primary sources. My only concern here is notabilty of this event, notability is never established by primary sources alone. This butts up against the no original research policy. Hairhorn (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you are saying it is not "notable" that a federal judge with a lifetime appointment, who has already been reprimanded by the Ninth Circuit for fabricating a story so he can better himself off someone else's misery, CONTINUES with his dishonest practices by ignoring the well-settled meaning of the law in statutes and case law? If that is YOUR POV, then I want formal mediation since I believe this IS notable, and think the public who pays for Ware's salary and yacht would think this is notable as well. If you actually read the opinion of the Ninth Circuit in the story you DID allow concerning the fabrication of his involvement in a racial incident in Alabama, you would know that the Ninth Circuit was considering bouncing this judge from the court altogether, but HOPED that he would get the message with the reprimand so that his dishonesty would NOT affect his judgment in cases before him. The Usurping Power piece that I have added makes it clear that he did NOT get the message from the Ninth Circuit, and has in fact engaged in continued dishonesty that resulted in the Writ of Mandamus being issued against him. No "honest" judge could read the appointment of counsel statute and cases and reach the same conclusion as Judge Ware, and that is why the writ is reserved for EXTREME cases. The fact that the Ninth Circuit published the decision of the writ tells us all we need to know, because if they felt this was not noteworthy and of public concern, they would not have published it like they do in 99.9999% of the cases.

I do not want to continue this discussion, here, I want formal mediation so the public can become aware that Judge Ware's continued dishonesty is adversely affecting his ability to perform effectively as a federal judge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.60 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that my only edit to this entry was to retitle a reference, I'm not clear on what the goal of mediation would be. If your issue is with my opinion here on the talk page, your best option is simply to ignore it. Mediation won't change my opinion and it won't help "the public" either. Sheesh. Hairhorn (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at cleaning up the anonymous Kansas-based poster(s) edits. They are free to start the mediation process if they so desire (I'd be curious to get a concise account of what they are trying to accomplish). Billyboy01 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are more interested through mediation in why "Billyboy01", who does not have a profile as an administrator or editor on Wikipedia, is interested in protecting an obviously corrupt federal judge to the point of "monitoring" all of the changes in his profile that EXPOSE Judge Ware's corruption and dishonesty? I am sure Jack Smith, Chief of the Public Integrity Section at the U.S. Department of Justice, would be interested in this as well. Jack Smith can be reached at (202) 514-1412 for anyone who has complaints about Judge Ware's integrity and fitness to be a federal judge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.13.66 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to be interested mediating your conspiracy theories. But you're free to start the mediation process with respect the content of your edits, which are disruptive and just plain sloppy. (Why reintroduce a broken link??) Billyboy01 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Billyboy01 care about protecting a corrupt judge, and how does noting 'facts' about Judge Ware's continued dishonesty and thumbing his nose at the law a 'conspiracy theory'? Facts cited in the Writ of Mandamus opinion from the 9th Circuit that note Judge Wares opinion on the law was 'clearly erroneous', and that usurping the power to appoint counsel in this specific case would have allowed Judge Ware to control how vigorously Nvidia could be prosecuted for securities fraud, are NOT original research. 'Original research' would be linking a bribery payment from Nvidia to Judge Ware's 'sudden' ability to make payments on his yacht which were unpaid for more than a year according to court documents from the yacht case cited above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.13.67 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Willamette Law Online".

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on W. James Ware. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate citation?[edit]

Footnote number seven leads to an article that appears to be much more an opinion piece than a factual reference. I’m not familiar with the editing rules and practices of Wikipedia, but this seems to me inappropriate at best, and possibly indicative of political bias on the part of the editor who made the citation. How does one go about removing it? 47.215.230.171 (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was my question. Didn’t intend to post anonymously. -Jon Thompson SedonaJon (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Ware_(judge)&oldid=1195377165"