Talk:Jack Smith (lawyer)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack Smith (lawyer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from Jack Smith (lawyer) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 December 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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 C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
"Illegal" in infobox is place of "incumbent"
[edit]An editor changed the infobox parameter from "incumbent" to "illegal" in the infobox as part of a series of other edits (see above), causing me to revert them all and to ask for an explanation of why they imagined that this was appropriate. They are invited to make a case in Wikipedia policy for their edits. I have not reviewed all of the other edits to see if they also breach NPOV or SYNTH, editors are welcome to reinstate appropriate edits as they see fit, within policy. Acroterion (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- See below, please. I'm open to having my edits reviewed, but please provide a reason you suspect me of trying to breach NPOV or SYNTH. That's like me saying "Acroterion has never denied setting fire to an orphanage." Again, let's have a civil discussion about content without innuendo about my character. Bremps... 19:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Acroterion I ask that you strike out the text containing the wink-nod implications about me. Again, I want this to be civil, and I'm assuming you're editing in good faith. Bremps... 19:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- You made a good-faith edit, based on what I'm hearing, but introduced something well beyond what you might have meant to convey. I'm criticizing your edit, not your character. Acroterion (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Bremps changed "Incumbent" to "Unlawful" with a link to Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)#Dismissal and appeal. They were reverted by Acroterion and again reverted by Muboshgu. I agree that the status should still read "Incumbent". The case may have been dismissed, but Jack Smith has not been dismissed from his post, and will be appealing Judge Cannon's ruling. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I probably won't have the energy to dispute this further (we'll see), but I want to be clear that I only changed the parameter upon Cannon's ruling that Smith's appointment was unlawful. I imitated the page on Chad Wolf, which I saw as precedent. Again, I am not adding the unlawful parameter based on personal feelings, only based on what reliable sources described as Cannon's ruling. Cannon, as a judge, is the arbiter of law until a higher court intervenes. "Unlawful" does not imply agreement or disagreement with Cannon's decision, it only reflects the legal reality at the time. Bremps... 18:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Smith remains incumbent special counsel. Why do you think what amounts to a BLP violation is appropriate? As for Wolf, think that's really inappropriate in an infobox too, and will remove it. Stuffing infoboxes with things that require context is one of the banes of infoboxes. Acroterion (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there we go, a content argument. I concede you have a point, but I still think it should be reflected that his appointment was ruled unlawful (which is a fact) somewhere within the infobox. I'm agnostic as to whether it remains underneath his office parameter. Bremps... 19:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't the news, infoboxes aren't vehicles for conveying something that is properly described in a paragraph, he's still special counsel, and please don't put things in infoboxes that look exactly like the kind of routine partisan soapboxing (or worse) that we get all the time. I understand that you meant it in good faith, but I think your judgment and excessive reliance on a single example to claim a precedent is flawed in this case. Your stretch of Cannon's opinion into something that overrides "incumbent" is indeed an inappropriate synthesis. As for the other edits, you are welcome to gain consensus to put them back, but I would appreciate it if other editors reviewed them first. Acroterion (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there we go, a content argument. I concede you have a point, but I still think it should be reflected that his appointment was ruled unlawful (which is a fact) somewhere within the infobox. I'm agnostic as to whether it remains underneath his office parameter. Bremps... 19:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Smith remains incumbent special counsel. Why do you think what amounts to a BLP violation is appropriate? As for Wolf, think that's really inappropriate in an infobox too, and will remove it. Stuffing infoboxes with things that require context is one of the banes of infoboxes. Acroterion (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Jack smith actually has 2 kids
[edit]He actually has 2 kids being Josephine smith and Adam smith 2601:147:C500:6A10:1C84:1331:DC94:28C (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Disregard previous message re birthdate
[edit]The June date appears correct according to Britannica.com. Many "Jack Smiths" around!! Very common name . 2603:8000:8901:FC1B:D185:5763:CC60:F528 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Add A Fact: "Trump's private actions in election case"
[edit]I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below
Smith argues that the actions Trump took to overturn the election were in his private capacity – as a candidate – rather than in his official capacity, as a president. That argument flows from the Supreme Court’s decision in July, which granted the former president sweeping immunity for official actions but left the door open for prosecutors to pursue Trump for unofficial steps he took.
The fact comes from the following source:
Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference: {{Cite web |title=Special counsel Jack Smith provides fullest picture yet of his 2020 election case against Trump in new filing {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/jack-smith-donald-trump-filing |website=CNN |date=2024-10-02 |access-date=2024-10-03 |language=en |first=Katelyn Polantz, Tierney Sneed, John Fritze, Hannah Rabinowitz, Devan Cole, Holmes Lybrand, Marshall |last=Cohen |quote=Smith argues that the actions Trump took to overturn the election were in his private capacity – as a candidate – rather than in his official capacity, as a president. That argument flows from the Supreme Court’s decision in July, which granted the former president sweeping immunity for official actions but left the door open for prosecutors to pursue Trump for unofficial steps he took.}} Additional comments from user: Thank you add a fact extension
This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.
TheCubingCow (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is off-topic and not about the subject of the article. You might try at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Zefr (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
add his signature
[edit]The signature of Jack smith is public on court documents and should be added Bested124 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class United States Presidents articles
- Low-importance United States Presidents articles
- WikiProject United States Presidents articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Law enforcement articles
- Low-importance Law enforcement articles
- WikiProject Law Enforcement articles