Jump to content

Talk:Samuel B. Kent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 16 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject United States courts and judges}}, {{WikiProject Law}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

netural?

[edit]

The article reads like it was written by a distgrunteled lawyer who suffered the wrath of Judge Kent. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It blows what is standard procedure for such investigations entirely out of the water. 209.149.58.156 (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There has been a (very rare) finding of misconduct. Article is straight forward and does not go into unnecessary detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.4.197 (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of today's charges, I'd say this man is more trouble than he's worth. Maybe not so biased?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.135.198 (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the "Notoriety" section to make it more fact-based, and removing some earlier characterization ("which suggested that..."); and provided quotes to illustrate its points. I've also renamed it from "Notoriety" to "Writing style" (which is more NPOV, and more accurate).
I've also reorganized all the discipline issues into its own section (which needs a better name than "Discipline," but it's all that occurs to me at the moment; anyone with something better, go for it), moving a paragraph out of what was "Notoriety". Finally, the heading "Impeachment proceedings" was not justified by the text it contained, which did not mention impeachment. It's now clear that the DoJ investigation referenced in that section was the prelude to the current criminal proceedings, so I've moved it into that subsection.
Based on these edits, I believe that the neutrality flag is no longer appropriate, and am removing it. TJRC (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sex scandal figures

[edit]

Doesn't this guy belong in Category:Sex scandal figures?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.11 (talk • contribs)

I don't know, does everyone famous involved in some sort of sexual situation get included in the category? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-created subpage

[edit]

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Samuel B. Kent 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) 02:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment proceedings

[edit]

The hearings did indeed take place, and the fact that Kent sent in a resignation effective June 1, 2010 made it worse for him. Ericl (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kent's impeachment by the House is taking place right now. This is the first time an impeachment has gotten this far in a decade, and to a judge in 20. Ericl (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles I and II passed so far:
3:10 P.M. -
On agreeing to Article III of the resolution Roll Call 417 - Recorded vote pending.
On agreeing to Article II of the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: (Roll No. 416).
3:03 P.M. -
On agreeing to Article I of the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (Roll No. 415).
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html. The dude's been impeached. TJRC (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Maybe not officially impeached yet. All 4 articles passed, but the next House action was to introduce H. Res. 525 "appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment of Samuel B. Kent, a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas". So there may be another step to formally impeach. TJRC (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the first article was passed, he'd been impeached. So he's been impeached. Ericl (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's H. Res. 525 for? To appoint the equivalent of prosecutors? I wasn't paying much attention to procedure during the last one. TJRC (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recent edit: Wikisource, lede, copyvio, etc.

[edit]

Hello all,

I've made some changes to the article, so here they are:

1) The Articles of Impeachment are on Wikisource. This is the version introduced by Rep. Conyers on June 9th.

2) I fixed the lead because it was misleading. The House Judiciary Committee did not impeach him; they only referred the Articles to the full House to vote on.

3) I removed the section 'Impeachment and Senate Trial' due to the fact it breaks WP:CBALL. While the House took four separate votes on Clinton's impeachment in '98, (see: [1], [2], [3], [4]) I think its a good to wait and see what happens.

4) I removed most of the description of the testimony of his accusers. It seems to be NPOV and a copyvio from this CNN article; see: [5].

5) I also made Impeachment its own section for readability purposes.

I hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pics of the accusers

[edit]

Do pictures of accusers belong in the bio of an accused, especially when there's no pic of the accused? It seems a little wp:pov/wp:blp problematic. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I always welcome the addition of photos, I have to agree that a photo of Kent should come before including any additional photos -- especially that of his accusers. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brewcrewer and Nsaum75! I'm trying to find a Free photo of Judge Kent. He and his lawyer didn't take part in the hearing, so no Free photos for that reason. I understand your concerns, though. I only to added the photos to illustrate the article. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is what appears to be an official portrait on the internet, however I have yet been able to find if its accredited to the Federal Government. Will keep everyone apprised. --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshie, thanks for your hard work in finding a photo of Judge Kent. However, Images with an unknown or unverifiable origin are not allowed under non-free content. That said, most of the time low-resolution images, which are irreplaceable and that could not be used to deprive the rightful owner of income, are allowed. Rules regarding WP:BLP articles are much stricter than those applied to standard articles, so the low-resolution/irreplaceable argument may be moot. Even if the current photo is allowed to remain, I think we should continue to search for a undisputed free-use photo. --Nsaum75 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Nsaum75! I agree w/ this. I've also removed the photo of the accusers until we get some consensus on their use. - Thanks, Hoshie 11:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I write this, the article includes a picture of Kent. Per WP:UNDUE, I would still be hesitant in putting up pictures of his accusers (Is there a pic of Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas article?). The article as a whole is WP:UNDUE-problematic due to its coverage of the sex case. At this, time there's a disproportionate amount of coverage on the sex case. He was renown judge prior to the sex case, so his tenure as judge, his judicial decisions and his famous writing style should be given more coverage then the tabloid-esque sex case.

As Kent has pled guilty, they are victims, not accusers. Does Wikipedia normally publish photos of victims of sexual assault? Don't Be Evil (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate to give details?

[edit]

This article, and most news sources, only say that he was convicted of "sexually abusing two female employees". The vague description left me wondering whether this meant consensual sex with a subordinate (a la Clinton), grossly offensive but non-serious joking (a la Thomas), or what? So I investigated, and it turns out the offense was much closer to attempted rape.

One of our source, a Houston Chronicle article, notes that the assault "involved not only Kent forcibly putting his mouth on her breast but also forcing her head down toward his crotch." The victims' actual statement to Congress is a disturbing read. "[H]e grabbed me and forced his tongue into my mouth while trying to remove my clothing. He had one arm around my waist and was using the other hand to pull up my blouse and my bra, exposing my entire breast. He also tried to force his hand down my skirt. All the while, I tried to push him away, begging him to stop." Later, "There were many occasions when I actually had to hide from the Judge because he was intoxicated and looking for me. Everyone knew the Judge had a drinking problem, and some of them also knew of his predatory nature. Some of the guards would warn me if they knew he had been drinking and was looking for me." And it gets much more lurid from there. Very NSFW.

So my question is, should anything beyond "sexually abusing two female employees" be in the article? – Quadell (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Those charges were dropped as part of the plea deal. His guilty plea was for obstruction of justice, for lying to investigators on charges related to one of his accusers. I know that an obstruction plea can be somewhat a fig leaf, and almost certainly was here; but BLP considerations suggest to me that we err on the side of conservative reporting here.TJRC (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

[edit]

Kent was well known before his impeachment hearings, and his opinions are a favorite of case books still. This should be fixed.--Tznkai (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. I tried at one point to trim the overdetails around the sexcase, but it still has a way to go. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bluster about jail time for graduating high school seniors who mentioned Jesus

[edit]

Does anyone have any mainstream verification for the widely distributed story? If so, should it be included in the article?

"In May, 1995, U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent, a judge for the Southern District of Texas decreed that any student uttering the word "Jesus" would be arrested and incarcerated for six months." [1]
  1. ^ www.associatedcontent.com/article/41959/the_war_on_christians_in_american_public.html?cat=9

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Samuel B. Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Samuel B. Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Samuel B. Kent. 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) 12:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samuel_B._Kent&oldid=1207951092"