Talk:John Eastman/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about John Eastman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John C. Eastman. 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:

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) 07:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of board affiliations

The section on board affiliations was removed by user:Drmies on the basis that it was 'just resume padding' and required secondary sourcing. I disagree.

First, board affiliations have broader political significance; the Federalist Society has been highly influential in judicial selection during the Trump administration, and Prof. Eastman's chairship of a practice group therein is not merely a status marker or honorary title but suggests influence on policy direction for that society's membership. Readers can make significant inferences about Prof Eastman's political affiliations and activity from this and other board memberships; I did so when I consulted his bio the other day, and I was startled to discover the information had been removed when I returned to check this morning.

Second, board memberships are binary matters of fact rather than assertions or opinions, and fall within the guidelines for Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources. The institutional and diverse nature of the source data (as opposed to, say, a single resume page on a personal website) strengthen the case for its inclusion.

Because many readers will be reviewing Prof Eastman's biography pursuant to his controversial article about the citizenship of Kamala Harris, and because Prof Eastman's extracurricular activity involves participation in multiple political advocacy organizations of national scope and notability, the deleted information provides important context and these edits should be reverted.

--Anigbrowl (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Anigbrowl, thank you for placing the note here. It is a bit of a wordy note, but in it I see a meaningful word: "suggest". Yes, it "suggests" influence, but putting suggestive words in Wikipedia articles is not what we should do. The answer is really very, very simple: find reliable secondary sources that verify the basic facts (and prove them noteworthy: "prove", not "suggest"), and better yet, sources that prove said suggested influence. Now, you say "board memberships are binary matters of fact", etc., and I am pleasantly surprised at the impressive knowledge of Wikipedia policy you have as a new editor, but what those guidelines indicate is that sometimes primary sources will suffice for verification: they do not state that they are sufficient arguments for inclusion. That remains a matter of editorial judgement. If it were otherwise, every single board membership, club membership, high school badminton record, swimming diploma would be worth mentioning as long as we can get a primary source to verify it. It would trivialize biographies and turn them into resumes. We cannot have that.
So, I suggest you search around for reliable, secondary sources that not only verify the information, but also prove it noteworthy--lest we write suggestive innuendo in BLP territory. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Using primary sources for Eastman's board affiliations is fine, although not ideal. That doesn't mean we should include an exhaustive list, but noteworthy ones like NOM should definitely be included. It's verifiable to a secondary source anyway.[1] - MrX 🖋 17:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, how to determine what is "noteworthy" is always a delicate matter, and leaving it to secondary sources is always preferable. You know what businessmanfluffvanispam looks like. Anyway, thanks for the ref. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, I am not calling for the placement of suggestive words in the article, but for the retention of factual information whose relevance is easy to demonstrate. The Federalist Society, National Organization for Marriage and Public Interest Legal Foundation are all national organizations of long standing, all engage in political advocacy, and Prof. Eastman holds formal positions of responsibility (per chairperson and non-executive director) within all three organizations. Thus, Prof. Eastmen's relationship to those organizations is functional rather than honorary. All three are sufficiently notable to have their own comprehensive entries, two of which independently mention Prof. Eastman. In the case of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, that organization's allegations of civic ineligibility for voters have a direct substantive nexus to the recently added 'conspiracy theory' section in Prof. Eastman's entry. Another institutional affiliation, the Claremont Institute, likewise provides relevant context for readers interested in learning more about Prof. Eastman and likewise mentions him in its own entry.
I understand your worries about the inclusion of badminton scores and swimming diplomas and think the omission of his affiliation with a local school and a county legal society to be no great loss. Still, current board memberships are categorically different from scholastic sporting endeavors, and I am surprised you would conflate them. The institutional examples cited above each have a direct and substantive connection to the subject's professional field, are each well established and notable in their own right for political influence or advocacy at a national level, and exhibit robust and consistent ideological positions. Three bases of relevance should be sufficient grounds for inclusion of a fact. As noted, Wikipedia entries for 3 of the 4 institutions refer back to Prof. Eastman's entry, and it seems reasonable to think that readers interested enough to visit his article from one of those entries would prefer not find themselves at a dead end with no signpost to his other affiliations. It is of course up to the reader to weigh the significance of such factual details. Thanks for taking time to consider my admittedly wordy arguments. --Anigbrowl (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Anigbrowl, I think your time is better spent in the way MrX spent it--finding reliable sources to prove these things that you say are important. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies, assembling those seems of secondary urgency, since the article was locked to editing after your large elision. In the meantime I would like to pre-empt a future argument on notability or relevance by addressing your original concerns now, rather than adding e.g. the following information (which includes both primary and secondary sources) and possibly seeing it removed again.
  Eastman is 'a top officer of the Federalist Society' and chairman of the National Organization for Marriage [2][3]; a director of the Public Interest Legal Foundation [4] and member of its Voting By Mail Task Force [5], and a director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence [6].
  Arguably, the original primary sources were sufficient and in some respects better for verification purposes. Since an argument of sufficiency for inclusion has already been made on three bases I look forward to reviewing objections thereto. You will recall that your original concern over 'suggestive innuendo in BLP territory' was shown to be moot since chair/directorships are offices with delineated powers and responsibilities, rather than mere honoraria or ordinary membership. It seems strange to exclude the bare facts official roles in national organizations that easily meet the threshold of notability in their own right.--Anigbrowl (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  - No, they were not "arguably" sufficient. And I want to note that "suggestive innuendo in BLP territory" is only a slight editorial expansion from your original "suggests influence on policy direction". But I am a little tired of you repeating the same points and I am going to bow out of talking about these matters with you. MrX, do you mind sticking in the one membership (but perhaps not in the lead, unless your source warrants that)? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The board memberships should be included in the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that a membership on the Federalist Society board is of paramount importance for the Wikipedia reader to understand the consequences of such an affiliation. It only takes a moment of searching to grasp the hold the society has on judicial nominations and confirmations. Two and a half years ago while changing the channel to see what was on C-Span's Book TV, I happened onto Republican Louisiana U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's John Neely Kennedy's questions he put to nominees to the bench. The general public would have been unaware that organizational membership has become the prime consideration effecting federal appointments. Nominees had zero trial experience and had almost no deposition practice. They had no clue as to what the Daubert standard is, nor did they understand the basics of a motion in limine. I'm not an attorney, but I knew the answers he sought. I was flabbergasted that such incompetents were being considered for lifetime appointments to the federal bench. [[7]] All three candidates subsequently withdrew. We're not talking inconsequential badminton scores here, but rather the future of the governance of the U.S. This recent piece is also worth a read: [[8]] A quote: Trump has appointed 193 federal judges, including two Supreme Court justices and 51 judges to federal appeals courts. “We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society,” he told Breitbart as a presidential candidate in 2016. According to a New York Times analysis, all but eight of these 51 judges had ties to the Federalist Society." Activist (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

LEDE

Of its current two sentences, one says he's a law professor, and the other says he's a professor of law. This is redundant information. The lede should very briefly summarize article. Further down in the article, you flesh out (with citations) whatever is relevant.

This should be in some form, fixed by active editors. It's really weak.

One suggestion:

John C. Eastman is a Chapman University law professor, Republican politician and commentator. His two petitions the U.S. Supreme Court were turned away. Eastman is also notable as a Republican politician and commentator, having sought unsuccessfully sought a U.S. congressional seat representing California, as well as separately, the office of California Attorney General.

Better than:

"John C. Eastman (born April 21, 1960)[citation needed] is an American law professor. He is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former dean at the Chapman University School of Law.[1]"

Also, I do think his affiliations may be relevant (but NOT in lede).

2600:1702:39A0:3720:E0BA:3366:CDC0:E188 (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I worked in part of your suggestion, but not the petitions; I do not know if that is a regular thing to do for such articles. It's possible. Newyorkbrad will know. His affiliations are very likely of importance--the moment that they are properly verified. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
John C. Eastman is an American right-wing academic, legal scholar, and politician. He is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at the Chapman University School of Law, where he previously served as dean. Eastman was an unsuccessful candidate for Congress and the office of California Attorney General. KidAd (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The reference to petitions to the Supreme Court is vague. I would need to know more about what is being referred to to evaluate it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It's better now, but there are two errors and in my view, could benefit from further change.

Presently the "new" Wikipedia lede:

John C. Eastman (born April 21, 1960)[citation needed] is an American academic, lawyer, and politician. He is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former dean at the Chapman University School of Law.[1] Eastman twice sought office for the Republican party, and ran for the U.S. congressional seat representing California and the office of California Attorney General.

It's an error/typo to say "THE U.S. congressional seat representing California." Also, presently, the lede says he "ran for office AND" did X, And Y. The first "and" denotes something additional to the preceding claus, which is unintended. ..... Perhaps slight improvement:

"Eastman twice unsuccessfully sought elective office as a Republican, running for a U.S. congressional seat representing California and for the office of California Attorney General."

Further, in my view, his precise and lengthy title (PLUS his former dean gig) as a law professor at Chapman University doesn't belong in lede: It's enough in this regard to say he's a LAW PROFESSOR at C. Uni. It also frees up a bit of room to BRIEFLY mention other stuff. Currently, the words of the title constitute about 40% of the material in the lede. This isn't necessary.

Redundancy is replicated in new version. He's identified as an "academic" and "lawyer" in first sentence. In second sentence he's identified as a law professor. It's a reasonable assumption (though not absolute) that a law professor is a lawyer and an academic -- thus redundancy.

The lede should make a brief reference to his role as a right-wing commentator. It's likely that this is a key claim to his "NOTABILITY" -- and therefore should be established in the lede.

Regarding US Supreme Crt: On second thought, maybe it's not lede material. Note however, that my initial proposal included only two petitions that were turned away; whereas body of article mentions (suggests?) four (I think).

Getting "turned away," having your petition refused: no feather. At least, as a "constitutional lawyer," Eastman does produce consistent results!!!

Separately, "I'm very gratified" that the relevant board affiliations are now included in the text.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:8CB4:E4F2:EF83:67F1 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is the link to the Newsweek op-ed?

Where, in this article, is the link to the Newsweek op-ed? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Redundant Redundancy

Redundant complaint regarding lede: He's identified as an "academic" and "lawyer" in first sentence. In second sentence, he's identified as a law professor. It's a reasonable assumption (though not absolute) that a law professor is both a lawyer and an academic -- thus redundancy exists in lede.

Beyond identification as a "law professor at Chaplain University," his current, formal title and whatever various other present (and former) titles and affiliations belong in the body of the article -- rather than lede. They're not at all irrelevant but a lede should succinctly summarize entire content of article using as few words as possible. It's a courtesy to reader, rather than a service to the subject.

Separate issue: his role as a right-wing commentator is a key claim to his "NOTABILITY" -- and therefore should be briefly established in the lede.

(Note: Fox News called his recent essay an "unfounded and widely refuted claim." His crackpot nature ought to be made clear in the lede -- but THAT's a matter of opinion. The other stuff is purely a question of writing and form.) 2600:1702:39A0:3720:D018:20B8:F909:37C7 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We would need a few sources to support "right-wing commentator". - MrX 🖋 00:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, "Republican" is perfectly descriptive. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:500A:C41F:E2F2:3EF6 (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"eminent"

Please remove this peacock word describing Laurence Tribe. 216.8.162.124 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

What goes in a "lede?"

One possible answer is in the Wikipedia guideline on ledes:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." (italics added.)

The WP:LEDE type-lede is, in effect a table of contents, such that it "stands on its own." If a reader sees nothing but the lede he or she can nonetheless know what is in the article.

The Wikipedia lead concept is similar to the often overlooked "nut graf" concept of journalism 101: So that the reader can quickly grasp entirely what the article will be about, the "nut graf" ideally offers a succinct and complete summary "near the top" of a story. (A newswriting "lede" contains the news, generally followed by the nut.)

The idea is to serve and respect the reader -- there's no other reason behind the concept.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:B892:FC1E:D420:FFD6 (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

1990, 2010

Facts about Eastman’s two attempts at elective office should be grouped together and presented as an element of his notability. Currently they are split and listed under separate headings.

It should be made clear that in each case his candidacy failed in California Republican primary.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:F154:B8E0:DB4F:9577 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It is simply not true that "in each case his candidacy failed in the California Republican primary." He was the nominee in 1990, losing in the general election. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

My aim is to point out a structural weaknesses in the organization of the facts. (I don't really want to carefully read case details). Obviously, those actually editing must be sure it's correct.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:6CA7:8A30:F18B:39AA (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Supplied results of the California primary and restored deletion about Cooley's general election. This article is not about Cooley. Activist (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the article is not about Cooley... but since tons of the recent Eastman op-ed about Harris cover the fact, that the seat went on to Harris is clearly relevant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I've read the Times of S.D. article and reader feedback from the first dozen or so as well. Thanks for supplying the cites and I'll read the rest. I'll send you feedback from one of those readers who seems well informed. My opinion was influenced by many instances where other editors referred to this sort of inclusion as WP:COATRACK. Activist (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I also disagree that the two elections should be clumped together, except in the lede. As leaving for the second election had an impact on his academic career, things are best kept in order. The section is not so long that it causes a problem --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't actually read the article with any care -- not least because I don't find it very readable. So, whatever.

One must decide what's notable about the guy. Then, group these things into several categories in order to give some structure to the piece. A chronology of his life, in itself, is unlikely to be notable.

Generally what's not notable ought not be in the article.

Treatment of each of these categories would be relatively brief and thus easier to read and to keep organized for the writer(s).

For example, one could create a subhed "Legal Scholarship" and list his theories and publications there, along with evidence of the impact they've had -- or whatever is strictly pertinent. Once the reader reads that section, they've gained some idea about that single category of notable relevant material. TO the extent his theories are complex or wide-ranging, "sub" subheads can be added.

Then, they can go on to the next category of information -- or stop reading. Not everything about a subject is notable, and obviously, not all details belong.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:5099:625A:9510:2B5E (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

And, And

Lede again: Having two ands in one sentence is rarely optimal use of language. It should be avoided, if possible, in good-enough writing.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:54CA:4819:90FE:D08F (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence is fine, but if you want to propose one that you believe is better, feel free to do so. - MrX 🖋 12:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

John C. Eastman is an American politician, and a professor of law and the former dean at the Chapman University School of Law.

Google results for "Two ands in a sentence" are endless and seem, though not very authoritative, at least in general agreement:

"No! Usage of 'and' more than once in a sentence is poor English. Correct usage is to use commas between the examples (if more than two), with the last example joined with the use of 'and'." -- from Stackexchange.com

"...should not use conjunctions like “and,” “but,” or “or” too many times in one sentence." --- from wyzant ask an expert

"It's grammatically valid, though the two "ands" in one sentence make it sound slightly awkward." -- quora

A minimal solution is...hmmmm.... remove one of the "ands???" But which one........?!?!?!

2600:1702:39A0:3720:F039:E0D6:E8FC:C1D7 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it needs a solution, with all due respect to the denizens of Stack Exchange and Quora. The current construct informs that he is (1) a politician and (2) associated with Chapman University School of Law. At Chapman University School of Law he is (a) a professor and (b) the former dean. There are several equally valid ways to write this, for example by splitting it into two sentences, but the current version benefits from concision as well as clarity. - MrX 🖋 13:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it could use changes for other reason. For one, it starts of with his position as a politician, which is of little import (ran two campaigns, the last a decade ago, never winning the position and only once even taking the primary.) May I suggest we regroup the two opening sentences thus:

John C. Eastman is an American professor of law and former dean at the Chapman University School of Law who twice sought political office. He ran unsuccessfully as a Republican for California's 34th congressional district and the office of California Attorney General.

I agree, and that looks good to me. - MrX 🖋 16:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

that version looks ok. but lede should indicate notability. Note NYT ID

"John C. Eastman, a conservative lawyer who has long argued that the United States Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship."

As one would expect, this is what he is "notable" for.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:C8C6:68F0:DAB1:70D (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That was just giving context to the most recent moment, but he's been notable enough to have had a Wikipedia page since 2007, and the birthright citizenship question was, in the version that was up a week ago, just listed as one of several things he had testified before Congress on, five years back. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he's "notable" for having "long argued" the point (see NYT) and Eastman said much the same about himself, quite recently and I'd informally paraphrase his recent quote along the lines of "and I've been saying this for a long time." 76.250.61.86 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 76.250.61.86 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because you found one sentence in one source does not mean that that is the only thing that has been said about him. He has been described many ways in many articles, and noted for many things. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Attny Gnl Harris

1) Eastman participated as a candidate in an election process that Harris won. 2) Then, Eastman attacks Harris' eligibility for elective office. Is there a controversy about whether both facts 1 and 2 are relevant? If nothing else, it's a "notable" coincidence. (It's been so widely noted elsewhere that to ignore this information here (for any reason) is harmful to the article's basic credibility.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:5C43:5AF1:F3F6:2232 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be speculation on our part. We need an RS to connect those dots. Lord Law Law (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

But since tons of sources including the Eastman op-ed itself cover the fact, that's not a problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a link to his 2007 article on the subject. Your first source says that Eastman had expressed this opinion as long as 20 years ago, before Harris had run for any office. A lot of right-wingers hold this position, so it is unlikely that he developed it in reaction to Harris. In fact Trump said that "anchor babies" had no right to citizenship long before Harris became a possible presidential candidate. TFD (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

citizenship conspiracy theory or just citizenship theory

Aside from the section title, the only mention of "conspiracy" in the body is the second paragraph's opening sentence:

The op-ed was quickly and thoroughly discredited by prominent legal scholars and was compared to the widely condemned birther-ism conspiracy theory against President Barack Obama.

Being compared to a conspiracy isn't necessarily saying it is one.

Two cited references here use that term:

BBC's "Trump stokes 'birther' conspiracy theory" which then goes on to use alternate phrase "fringe legal theory" then "false conspiracy theory".
NYT's "Trump Encourages Racist Conspiracy Theory"

If indeed the theory of Eastman (that birthright citizenship doesn't extent to children of non-permanent residents) is what the media is referring to, it is valuable to describe the regular description of it as a "conspiracy" in the media without necessarily adopting that term here too.

Something like "false theory" would be more neutral. Even if we agree that Eastman's theory is false, he doesn't appear anywhere in his article to allege there being a "conspiracy" of any sort. Others might do that if they think Eastman is right and others are covering that up, but Eastman has not alleged there is a conspiracy to discredit him AFAIK. WakandaQT (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Changed to "op-ed". This is how the first two paragraphs' opening sentences define it. Unlike "legal reasoning" (as it's called in the third beginning), the first has a Wikilink in case somebody thinks it's somehow distinct from an op-ed (which it isn't). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Cruz contrasting Harris

There have been repeated attempts to introduce material regarding Ted Cruz to provide a contrast with how Eastman discussed Harris, a different candidate in a different situation. Barring a reliable third party source making statement on this contrast, this is a WP:SYNTHesis constituting original research. I am removing that material again. If statements Eastman made about Cruz got separate coverage, then there may be a place for covering that... separately. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Jeastman

For the record, Jeastman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked from editing the article. Reading the article and this talk page, it might be a better idea if an editor were to work up a new article from scratch in their sandbox, and then replace the current article with the new one. That way, the COI issues can be dealt with and the templates on the article can be removed. Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Template removal?

The article has two template warnings ("may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" and "major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject"). I agree that earlier versions of this article appeared to have relied on sources close to Eastman (including perhaps Eastman himself). But this article has been extensively revised and expanded in the last six months. I think these templates have outlived their usefulness. --Weazie (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine with the removal of them at this time. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Done soibangla (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Conclusory POV is inappropriate

This page speaks of a couple of Eastman's legal opinions as being "erroneous" or "incorrect"--one his claim that Kamala Harris was not eligible to the Vice-Presidency, the other, his advice to Vice President Pence that the latter could simply refuse to count certain electoral college votes. As a lawyer, I think that Eastman's advice in each case was gravely mistaken. But in each case, he was offering his legal opinion, and in each case, there has never been a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue in question. I have tried to reflect this by noting that his advice was against the views of the substantial majority of legal scholars, or the views of his own former boss, Judge Luttig. User Soibangla continually reverts to the conclusory use of "erroneous" or "incorrect." This is a small point but detracts from the general accuracy of the article, and makes its less helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:f40:bf00:68ca:8801:26ed:5d3a (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

With Eastman's legal beliefs, we get into the range of Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which is something we deal with more frequently on science topics than on legal ones, but the concept still applies. Your removals include removing a part of a reliably sourced reference quote referring to his theory being "widely discredited", and in another place you removed any wording that suggested that his assertion may be incorrect beyond the fact that Pence did not adopt it. Given that in law, existing rulings can be overturned and standards reconsidered, we would have to phrase practically every statement in the law as a fuzzy "maybe" if we do not accept the statements of reliable sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

While opinions can be accepted or not accepted, only claims of facts can be right or wrong. The birther claim for example that Obama not born in the U.S. was false. Compare the wording with the article about George W. Romney: "Questions were occasionally asked about Romney's eligibility to run for President owing to his birth in Mexico, given the ambiguity in the United States Constitution over the phrase "natural-born citizen". Romney would depart the race before the matter could be more definitively resolved, although the preponderance of opinion then and since has been that he was eligible." Eastman claimed that Harris may not be citizen if her parents were neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents. (They were foreign students.) The relevant policy is Impartial tone: articles should not be written as "partisan commentaries." TFD (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In an earlier edit attempt I did note more than that Pence did not adopt Eastman's theory, but this was reverted to simple writing "incorrectly." If we can agree on proper nuance here, I'd be happy to revert to that earlier edit.

Generally, fringe theories apply to facts--Was Obama born in Kenya? Was the moon landing artificially staged? Is there a ring of sex perverts actually running the U.S. government? etc. It does not apply to legal or political theories over which there is substantial disagreement, even if one perspective in widely viewed as correct. For example, we would not write, "X incorrectly argued that monarchy is a better form of government than democracy." That's why my efforts aimed to note that Eastman's theories were a very distinct minority. We need to draw reasonable lines here--for example, if X argued that the Constitution does not provide that a person who receives a majority of Electoral College becomes president, that's not really a theory, it's just an error, discernable by the plain language of the Constitution. And we should note that Eastman, however much you and I disagree with him, does have support among other credible scholars, albeit a distinct minority.

Let's consider another example, along the lines you suggest. "Prof. X testified incorrectly that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms except as part of the militia." Is that a good statement? I think not. The Supreme Court has clearly held the opposite--it does protect the right outside of the militia--but this remains a source of reasonable debate. If someone had written that sentence, I'd delete the word "incorrectly" but note something like, "although the Supreme Court has held otherwise." On the other hand, it would be appropriate to use "incorrectly" as in "Prof X testified, incorrectly, that the Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms outside the context of the militia." Theories of constitutional interpretation are not like theories of physics, that can be proven or disproven. They stand on their own. We can only note where the weight of authority lies.

While I feel there may be some room for nuance in presentation, I think that it's an error to treat it all as "opinion" in its common sense, and nor is reasonable to treat it as something that is unfalsifiable. If I say "the speeding laws have an exception for red cars", well, no, they don't. (And for that matter, it would be an error even to think of a legal argument - as opposed to a ruling - as an "opinion". The main goal of someone making a legal argument is often not to get others to have an interior belief the same as theirs, but rather to believe what is being stated in order to create some legal change or result. The defense attorney claiming that the First Amendment covers ransom notes may not truly believe that this is true, but is making the argument because his job is to find an argument that will get his customer acquitted.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Several cited WP:RSPs said his theory was incorrect. Did any say it was correct or debatable? Llll5032 (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Disambiguation page moved to John Eastman (disambiguation) and subsequently deleted per WP:G14. Readily resurrected, should anyone miss it. Hatnote left to the discretion of interested editors. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

John C. Eastman → John Eastman – This is clearly a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "John Eastman".[9][10] John Eastman (Ohio politician) is a redirect to the 2002 US gubernatorial election page and Lee & John Eastman is a redirect to Lee Eastman. I do not believe that either of those redirects would be missed if they were deleted. A hatnote from this page to Lee Eastman would suffice. Or maybe hatnotes would be excessive in this case. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Neither of the other two John Eastmans seem remotely close to notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Support Clear primary topic, as well as the common name for the subject. The other two John Eastmans are both redirects, neither of whom appears to be notable -- one goes to the page of his father, and the other goes to an election he ran in as an independent candidate.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Support per nom and Yaksar Feoffer (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Support Concur with above. Weazie (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Support: Neither of the other two John Eastmans seem remotely close to notable soibangla (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree this is the primary topic. TFD (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Support Concur with all comments above. --Ooligan (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2022 (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.

"six conduits"

What does "six conduits" mean, exactly? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edits to correct errors, remove blatant bias

This page, of which I am the subject, has quite obviously been largely taken over by political opponents of mine. The bias is clear throughout, particularly in the authorities cited for even basic facts. I propose the following changes (and my apologies for having tried to do this myself--I was not aware of the conflicts policy, as I had been allowed to make changes to my own page previously).

In the opening: Why begin with negatives that hardly define my career. I propose deleting the campaign information and the Newsweek article -- those are better addressed in the specific sections that follow. So delete all beginning with "who twice sought" and replace with: "A former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, he is the founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute."

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

Information to be removed: "who twice sought political office. He ran unsuccessfully as a Republican for California's 34th congressional district and the office of California Attorney General.[2] Eastman drew controversy in 2020 for an op-ed which falsely suggested that then-presumed Democratic nominee for U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was not an American citizen and thus not legally eligible for the position.[3][4][5][6]
Information to be added: "A former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, he is the founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute."
Explanation of issue: The proposed change is more reflected of my overall career. Moreover, the references supporting the Newsweek story were extremely biased.
References supporting change: https://www.claremont.org/scholar-bio/john-c-eastman/

Jeastman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Information to be added or removed: Update photo in the sidebar to a more professional photo
Explanation of issue: This photo is from a news program.
References supporting change: https://www.claremont.org/img/scholar/download/1916JohnEastman.png

Jeastman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that you own the image and are ok with licencing it, you can head over to commons.wikimedia.org to upload it. Or, just upload a different frame from that, or anonther, interview (I agree, it's horrid). Just make sure that it has the correct licencing! DarthFlappy 01:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

Information to be added or removed: Delete "Kirkland & Ellis" from sidebar
Explanation of issue: Haven't worked at Kirkland since 1999
References supporting change: https://www.claremont.org/scholar-bio/john-c-eastman/

Jeastman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

Information to be added or removed:
Explanation of issue: Missing citation for claim that I served on the Univ of Chicago Law Review
References supporting change: https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/v62.pdf

Jeastman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Heart ^(talk) 06:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

Information to be added or removed: add reference for career info
Explanation of issue: The information for the first two lines in the second paragraph of the Career section has no reference.
References supporting change: https://www.chapman.edu/our-faculty/john-eastman

Jeastman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Heart ^(talk) 06:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.

Information to be added or removed: Under Career section, perhaps at end of paragraph addressing Supreme Court client representations, add: "He has also appeared as amicus curiae before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and other amicus curiae clients in more than 150 cases of constitutional significance involving the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Separation of Powers, and Federalism.
Explanation of issue: More complete description of Supreme Court advocacy.
References supporting change: "Search - Supreme Court of the United States". www.supremecourt.gov.

Jeastman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article.

Information to be added or removed: At end of Career section, add additional Congressional and State Legislature testimonies as follows:

“The Constitutional Authority of State Legislatures To Choose Electors,” Testimony before the George Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on State Election Processes, Hearing To Assess Elections Improprieties and to Evaluate the Election Process to Ensure the Integrity of Georgia’s Voting System (Dec. 3, 2020), available at https://livestream.com/accounts/26021522/events/8730585/videos/214364915 (begins at 4:54:00).

“The Only Constitutional Path Is Impeachment, Initiated By Members of Congress Who Are Politically Accountable,” Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee, Hearing on “Lessons from the Mueller Report, Part III: ‘Constitutional Processes for Addressing Presidential Misconduct’” (July 12, 2019), at https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/Eastman%20Testimony%20-%20Final%20%28002%29.pdf

Testimony before Colorado Advisory Committee to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Hearing to Examine Backlog in Citizenship and Naturalization Applications (Feb. 22, 2019), available at https://www.colorado.edu/law/2019/02/07/colorado-advisory-committee-us-commission-civil-rights-examine-backlog-citizenship-and

Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, hearing on “Bringing Justice Closer to the People: Examining Ideas for Restructuring the 9th Circuit” (March 16, 2017), at https://judiciary.house.gov/hearing/bringing-justice-closer-people-examining-ideas-restructuring-9th-circuit/

Testimony before U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts (“With Prejudice: Supreme Court Activism and Possible Solutions”) (July 22, 2015), at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/with-prejudice-supreme-court-activism-and-possible-solutions.

Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security (“Birthright Citizenship: Is it the Right Policy for America?”) (April 29, 2015), available at http://www.judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=E7872029-9B7E-4A62-A9E9-1C035179C7F4.

Testimony before U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary (Executive Order on Immigration) (December 10, 2014), reprinted at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/keeping-families-together-the-presidents-executive-action-on-immigration-and-the-need-to-pass-comprehensive-reform.

Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, Ways and Means Committee (IRS disclosure of tax returns) (June 4, 2013), reprinted at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Eastman_Testimony6413fc.pdf. AP News coverage at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/04/chairman-anti-gay-marriage-group-says-has-proof-irs-leaked-donor-details/; C-Span video at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/313146-1.

Testimony before California Senate Elections Committee on AB459 (National Popular Vote compact) (June 8, 2011)

Testimony before the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Hearing on Schoolyard Bullying, Washington, D.C. (May 13, 2011)

Testimony before California Senate Judiciary Committee on SB5 (Initiative Proponents authority to defend) (May 3, 2011)

Testimony before Arizona Senate Appropriations Committee, Birthright Citizenship State Compact bill (Feb. 22, 2011)

Testimony before Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee, Birthright Citizenship State Compact bill (Feb. 7, 2011)

Testimony before the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Hearing on Civil Rights Implications of Electronic Surveillance, Washington, D.C. (March 9, 2007)

Testimony before California Assembly Republican Task Force on Illegal Immigration (Oct. 11, 2006)

“How Large is Too Large for the Rule of Law?”, testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing Examining the Proposal to Restructure the Ninth Circuit. Details, include the list of other witnesses, available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/examining-the-proposal-to-restructure-the-ninth-circuit. (Sept. 20, 2006)

“Does the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press Clause Place the Institutional Media Above the Law of Classified Secrets?” Testimony before the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Hearing on the Media’s Role and Responsibility Regarding Classified Information (May 26, 2006)

“Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11,” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, Oversight Hearing on “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty” (Sept. 29, 2005)

Testimony before the California State Senate Judiciary Committee on the federal constitutionality of a proposed state constitutional amendment addressing marriage, Sacramento, CA (May 10, 2005)

Testimony before the California State Assembly Judiciary Committee on the federal constitutionality of a proposed state constitutional amendment addressing marriage, Sacramento, CA (May 10, 2005)

Testimony, Hearing before the Colorado House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, regarding Articles of Impeachment against Judge Coughlin filed by Representative Greg Brophy (April 22, 2004)

“The Filibuster and Majority Rule,” Testimony before the U.S. Senate Rules Committee, Hearing on “Proposals to Amend Senate Rule XXII,” (June 5, 2003)

“Hijacking the Confirmation Process: The Filibuster Returns to its Brigand Roots,” Testimony before the U.S. Senate judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Hearing on “Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, and the Constitution: When a Majority is Denied Its Right to Consent,” (May 6, 2003)

“The Limited Nature of the Senate’s ‘Advice and Consent’ Role,” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Hearing on “A Judiciary Diminished is Justice Denied: The Constitution, the Senate, and the Vacancy Crisis in the Federal Judiciary.” (October 10, 2002)

Testimony before the Florida legislature’s Select Joint Committee on the Manner of Appointment of Presidential Electors (November 29, 2000), available at https://www.c-span.org/video/?160847-1/manner-appointment-presidential-electors#

Explanation of issue: More comprehensive listing of testimony.
References supporting change: references included above

Jeastman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done: The detail is very unneccesary. Heart ^(talk) 06:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Information to be added or removed: Delete FN21
Explanation of issue: It is a reference from 10 years after the 2010 AG race, and not necessary or relevant.
References supporting change:

Jeastman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. [see below]

Information to be added or removed: You should either delete the one-sided treatment of the Newsweek article after the initial discussion, or add in balance. The text involved is:

However, Axios noted that most constitutional scholars do not accept Eastman's view, labeling it "baseless." Axios also criticized him for brushing off the eligibility concerns of 2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz, born in Calgary, Canada, in a 2016 National Review op-ed, claiming they were "silly".[32]

Many academics dismissed Eastman’s legal argument. For instance, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law School, told BBC: "Under section 1 of the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the United States is a United States citizen. The Supreme Court has held this since the 1890s. Kamala Harris was born in the United States."[33] Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe was similarly dismissive, telling The New York Times “I hadn’t wanted to comment on [Eastman’s idea] because it’s such an idiotic theory. There is nothing to it.”[34]

Explanation of issue: Chemerinsky's claim is clearly wrong. Wong Kim Ark involved children of those lawfully and permanently domiciled in the United States -- and the Supreme Court has NEVER held more than that. Tribe's statement is libelous, as there is much legal authority -- including the Supreme Court in 1873, the leading Treatise writer of that era, Thomas Cooley, etc.
References supporting change: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1442&context=chapman-law-review

Jeastman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That gets a bit circular - you are claiming that those disagreeing with your legal argument are clearly wrong because... your legal argument. Barring some significant third party sources disagreeing with them, we seem to have a preponderance of reliable sources showing a general dismissal of your claims. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Please see below.

Information to be added or removed: "wherein the state of Texas sought to annul the voting processes and, by extension, the electoral college selections of at least four other states" should be changed to "wherein the state of Texas sought to challenge the electoral votes in four states in which state and local election officials had ignored or altered state election law, in violation of Article II of the U.S. Constitution"
Explanation of issue: This is a more neutral and accurate description of what Texas alleged in the suit.
References supporting change: Texas Motion for Leave to File Original Action, http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/162953/20201207234611533_TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf

Jeastman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done What you're asking for is for Wikipedia in its voice to pass judgment on the constitutionality of states actions, absent any court case supporting that. That is not something we would reasonably do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. A secondary source was used to support the requested edit. See WP:SECONDARY.

Information to be added or removed: Replace "On December 12, 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed the case with minimal comment.[36]" with "On December 11, 2020, the Supreme Court denied Texas's request for Original Action, holding in a short order that Texas did not have standing. It did not address the merits of any of Texas's claims.
Explanation of issue: This is a more accurate description of the Court's action, and removes the biased headline in the reference.
References supporting change: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

Jeastman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

For something like this, we would want a WP:SECONDARY source rather than the WP:PRIMARY documents of the case that you point to. This is particularly true when making statements such as that they did not address the merits of Texas's claims, --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)