This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amy Coney Barrett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, when it received 10,943,787 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report5 times. The weeks in which this happened:
The heading '7th Circuit Court of Appeals' and it's associated subheading of 'Nomination and Confirmation' states that "Barrett is the first and only woman to occupy an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit". While this was true upon her confirmation, Judge Doris Pryor now also occupies an Indiana seat on the Circuit. Could this section be updated to reflect that change? 24.155.0.146 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have corrected this out-of-date information.
Hey @Deegs11! Let's talk about 4 edits. The edit removes a cited claim proportional to press coverage that Barett demonstrates "a growing pattern of independence and moderation", justified in the edit summary with 'Regardless of one's ideological views, in no way has ACB shown any sign of "moderation" or "independence."' Per what I cited, that is not what we do here. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view demands that we cover all significant views proportionally (though note "significant" and "proportionally" means this isn't WP:FalseBalance).
Additionally, you reordered the sentence to make the conservative bloc the focus instead of the swinging, which is contrary to the sources' presentation and thus WP:Synthesis. (I realize that I have erred in my edit summary saying this is a new conclusion, but Synth still applies.) The Newsweek (RSP entry) source you added does swap the focus in its first paragraph, but that's all of its analysis, and even combined with the two other sentences supporting this viewpoint in the article this pales in coverage proportion compared to the other sources, especially since half of this article is devoted to her swing votes, including ~2 sentences of people attacking her for deviating, which would add to the view of independence. It also does not provide anything for removing the "independence and moderation" part. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
Done I have corrected this out-of-date information.
Newsweek (RSP entry) source you added does swap the focus in its first paragraph, but that's all of its analysis, and even combined with the two other sentences supporting this viewpoint in the article this pales in coverage proportion compared to the other sources, especially since half of this article is devoted to her swing votes, including ~2 sentences of people attacking her for deviating, which would add to the view of independence. It also does not provide anything for removing the "independence and moderation" part. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)