Talk:James Clark McReynolds

message: I have added more instances of McReynolds rude behavior to some of his Court brethren, as well as a comment by Taft on his general unpleasantness. I got this information from Henry J. Abraham's "Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton", New and Revised Edition, Rowman & LIttlefield, 1999. If people think this is somewhat excessive, feel free to trim. Magidin 01:25, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
:I may take a whack at it after I do some work on a similar William O. Douglas section, since the unpleasantness section currently reads more like an academic paper than an encylopedia entry and net net, really shouldn't be more prominent than an analysis of his opinions (which given his role as one of the Four Horsemen should be expanded). Old64mb 20:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is unbalanced as too much content is devoted to his abrasive personality and personal opinions. He was a productive Justice despite this. There is not a similar amount of content devoted to personalities of other Justices. Needs to be edited, and overlaps especially deleted.Parkwells (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add material on his jurisprudence. McReynolds has a lot of space devoted to the conflicts he caused within the Court because this was a notable facet of his service in the Court: Taft and others commented on it, both in private and in public. No similar accounts exist for other Justices (or, if they do, they need to be added). Balance does not require that he be treated the same as everyone else, or that the content here be equally balanced both in favor and against; it requires that the content here accurately reflect the emphasis and the content that exists "out there" (from, of course, verifiable and reliable sources). Magidin (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  McReynolds' unpleasantness 

message: According to this reference (PDF) from the official website of the Supreme Court, McReynolds started his term of office on October 12, 1914.  I will be changing the text to match shortly.
— DLJessup (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term of office 

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/James Clark McReynolds was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: A recent edit removed the entire Personality and conflicts section calling it hearsay and defamation. I've reinstated that section. I believe that the assertions are all properly sourced to reliable sources, primary, secondary, and tertiary; I do not see how it can be called "hearsay"; as for 'defamation', we are reporting what others have said and written about McReynolds in reliable sources, which as I understand the policies on biographies, is precisely what we are supposed to do. I would appreciate comments on whether the removal of the section was appropriate; of course, editing the section, making it more objective, or bringing more sources to bear is welcomed, but I think the removal was improper and the justification was not appropriate. Magidin (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be well sourced, but it's undue weight overshadows the article. McReynolds is notable for his decisions and they should be of greater length than scurrilious scuttlebutt regarding his personality conflicts. He may have been a disagreeable, ornery cuss, but he was first and foremost a supreme court justice. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is solved by providing further (well-sourced) information about decisions he may have been notable for. Magidin (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Magidin. Indeed, McReynolds interpersonal relationships on the court, his bigotry and his dyspeptic persona were an important part of him and his legacy. If you've got analysis of his decisions please feel free to beef that section up.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that both (all) aspects of what McReynolds is remembered for should be disucssed in detail in the article. It bears emphasis that McReynolds' disagreeable personality is not just an item of gossip, but itself had substantial impact on the history of the Court and thus of the country: among other things, some accounts say that Woodrow Wilson appointed McReynolds as a Justice in the first place in order to get him out of the Cabinet without antagonizing him and his supporters; and the early retirement of one of McReynolds' colleagues (Justice Clarke) was, at least in part, directly attributed to Clarke's not wanting to work with him any more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

text: This would be a good place to start concerning additions to the opinions section.   7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality and conflicts 

message: I've enhanced all aspects of the article. In a general sense, one of the most interesting (and largely untapped) sources is . I think that the study and rankings of his effectiveness as a judge are worth pursuing. Also, his decision in the 2nd amendment case could use expansion, particularly as it was such an odd Rube Goldberg case, and it had long lasting implications. Also, his meanderings on right of privacy are interesting, particularly since one can hardly imagine McReynolds coming to the conclusion reached in Griswold v. Connecticut. Of course, the language he used survived on, perhaps disembodied from its roots, and walking Zombie like through the US Reports. Of course, his narrow reading of the U.S. Constitution on the powers of the federal government will appeal to those who want to revivify the 10th and 11th Amendments, and should appeal to those looking to retrench government back to the 18th Century (or at least the early 20th).  His 2nd and 14th Amendment decisions are quite apart. In passing, I would say that in writing 500 decisions, McReynolds proved that 'even a stopped clock is right twice a day.'  7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: General overview

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on James Clark McReynolds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528051906/http://www.ucumberlands.edu/academics/history/upsilonian/files/vol17/vol17.pdf to http://www.ucumberlands.edu/academics/history/upsilonian/files/vol17/vol17.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on James Clark McReynolds. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514001735/http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1602 to http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1602
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527134033/http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/lib_hist/Courts/supreme/judges/mcreynolds/jcm-lop.html to http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/lib_hist/courts/supreme/judges/mcreynolds/jcm-lop.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527134044/http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/lib_hist/Courts/supreme/judges/mcreynolds/jcm-bib.html to http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/lib_hist/courts/supreme/judges/mcreynolds/jcm-bib.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @Magidin, @7&6=thirteen et al. — with the Biden SCOTUS nomination imminent, and the focus on U.S. and its justices, past and present that this brings, I would suggest the crew of regulars here does a review of this (and any other potentially important) article, in particular for the basics—lede summarising article, completeness and quality of sources, and the like. The observation that prompts this is the poor quality of sources that support charges of McReynolds bigotry in the lede, and the disconnection of that content from the solid development and sourcing of the article's main body. I am not raising any doubt about the statements; I would just suggest partially presented, author-less —and likely non-peer reviewed or fact-checked—web sources not appear in the lede, and that the sources in support of this and any other potentially divisive historical contention be sourced in an exemplary way (and then those sources presented in exemplary fashion as well).
I think it very likely that the sources and content needed are already here; if not, the regular contributors should have access to the existing and other quality sources that might fully substantiate any charge of bigotry (e.g., without resorting to web lists of best and worst justices). I leave this in your very capable hands. I will only, today, open some of the current sources, and complete their citations, it such is possible. Cheers, 98.253.16.20 (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I reiterate and amplify the concern: After combining and completing two pairs of redundant citations appearing in relation to this content, Fox and Peacock (do diff on last three edits), I ask that this source be immediately removed or replaced. The reason is that WP is his stated source of his information, and he quotes from this exact article for the McReynolds section of the cited blog. This creates/constitutes an untenable, disallowed WP:FORK–/WP:BACKWARDSCOPY–type of issue. Thanks for dealing with this first, before any other issue presented above. 98.253.16.20 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Request of dedicated editors here

message: Two anonymous editors - 98.253.16.20 and 2601:246:c700:558:9cf2:858f:cf8d:a97a - have been adding and tagging cites back and forth recently. I'm really primarily motivated in not having the page littered with preblematic sources and jarring tags.
This is over citations to a lede sentence
:He is best known today for his sustained opposition to the domestic programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his personality which was widely viewed negatively, and included documented elements of overt anti-semitism and racism.[2][better source needed][3][circular reporting?][disputed – discuss][4] 
Here is a list of the citations and their bickering over them.
* [2] Todd Peppers, Richmond U law paper. Argument against is that it doesn't support the sentence. However, it clearly does. The argument tries top make it appear that the source is ambiguous. In reality, it fully supports the sentence while also mentioning some possible mitigations indicating that while the presented facts may be true, they may not be as extremem or present a complete picture of the man. My read: excvellent source, silly argument against, removing the "better source needed" tag.
* [3] WIlliam Peacock, FindLaw blog. Argument against is that it is circular, using this WP article as a source. Then double-tagged as disputed. Argument is clearly valid, and this source has no place here, removing source and tags.
* [4] Everyone seems fine with this one, 'nuff said.
Dovid (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough edit warring