Talk:G. Harrold Carswell

message: This ambiguous 'graph:
: Carswell was convicted of battery, in 1976, after he was arrested for making advances to an undercover police officer in a Florida men's room, which has led to some to claim him as the first homosexual or bisexual nominated to the Supreme Court.
could be misinterpreted as describing his resisting arrest.
More likely, like a Johnson aide who subsequently resigned, he touched the ankle of the cop by reaching under the partition. This would be an unlawful trespass on the cop's person, but lacking assaultive intent. (At battery (crime), we have 
: Simple battery may include any form of non-consensual, harmful or insulting contact, regardless of the injury caused.) 
I am eliminating the ambiguity, treating the interpretations involving more aggression as implausible in the absence of verification.
--Jerzy•t 19:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous wording

message: Isn't the name of this entry misspelled?  Shouldn't it be redirected to "G. Harrold Carswell" - which is how he is known and referred to throughout the historical record? 64.81.147.58 18:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, it's a shame the previous decision or non-decision was not documented; IMO the change is not so urgent that it should be done w/ some carefully thot-thru Google tests, whose results should appear on this talk.  If the error is widely enuf repeated, it doesn't matter what he (or rather his parents) thot his hame was.  --Jerzy•t 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: This article should be at G. Harrold Carswell as the most commonly known name:
* "Harold Carswell", 827 google hits
* "Harold Carswell" -wikipedia, 707 ghits
* "G. Harold Carswell" -wikipedia, 398 ghits
* "G. Harrold Carswell" -wikipedia, 11300 ghits
This page was moved with a cut-and-paste, but it should be moved through Requested Moves to preserve edit history. Gimmetrow 18:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I came across this article while participating in the Miltary History Assessment Drive and reverted a large block of text. It caught my eye 1) because it was a large block of text 2) because it begins with "To those deleting our information we say this". The text appears to be implicating the subject of the article in a murder; if you have reliable sources, fine, but this has none. I have no horse in this race (ie. I don't really care), but although this is not a biography of living persons issue, it seems a bad idea to introduce this material if it is unverifiable. Additionally, the way this text is currently written does not appear to be in-line with policies on neutral point-of-view or original research. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to present your opinion on something. If anyone would like to re-add this information (with sources), please feel free. --Kateshortforbob 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse Kateshortforbob's deletion. It seems to me that the section claims to have sources, in the form of "official Court transcripts, trial records and sworn statements". However, there's no mention of specific documents, there's only the general assertion that sources exist. In addition, trial records are all primary sources. I agree with Kateshortforbob that this section seems to be original research. — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding reversion 02 December 2007 

message: Is the text added by an editor in this diff appropriate? For more information:
*My original explanation when removing the content is above (Regarding reversion 02 December 2007)
*The editor's slightly different re-addition
*The editor's first message on my talk, after his re-addition
*My reply
*Author's 2nd message
*My reply to that message
*Editor's most recent message.
(These links aren't essential to the request above, but they clarify what's happened so far. On a personal note, I've found the editor's accusations on my talk page fairly unpleasant.) Thanks --Kateshortforbob 11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it there are no sources for this lengthy and somewhat bizarre claim. I would ask Hazanian to find some reliable, preferably secondary, source for what he wants to add. I understand that there is a reference in John Dean's book about the nomination of William Rehnquist which explains how Carswell was homosexual but that the background checks made by the Nixon administration had not picked up on it. The rest of the claim would presumably have merited newspaper coverage if it had occurred as claimed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Information about crime 

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/George Harrold Carswell 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) 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged the auto page material into here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage