Talk:Brent Benjamin

Wikification and Where Do We Go from Here?

I tried to Wikify the article a little bit. Created an intro and divided the rest of the article into sections. Fixed the syntax of some wikilinks. The article still needs significant work: 1. Can we flesh it out some? Surely he's done something in his judicial life besides refusing to recuse himself from Blankenship's case?, 2. Can we find a free image of him? I googled up several pics that would be useful, but none is clearly free. 3. I agree with whoever tagged the article that it needs inline citations badly. Have at it, and have fun! Cmichael (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight?

I see that someone has placed an "undue weight" tag on the section dealing with the Massey/US Supreme Court case. I wonder if you could be a bit specific? In which direction do you feel the article is slanted? Are their inaccuracies? What needs to be done to fix it? Why don't you go ahead and fix it in accordance with WP:BOLD, and let's see what happens? I still think the whole article needs better citations. Cmichael (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact is that the Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company case takes over over 2/3 of the article, even though the case is a minor part of Benjamin. It some ways, it a bit of a WP:COATRACK that needs to be severely trimmed to just one paragraph. --Farix (Talk) 02:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance of the subject, but what else is Mr. Benjamin famous for? It would seem to me to be the primary thing that establishes his notability. Cmichael (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin is most well know for defeating McGraw in the 2004 Supreme Court Case. The Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company is just a minor side show and with the amount of coverage given to the case, the article serves more as a political attack page. --Farix (Talk) 03:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean we are talking about approximately 780 words devoted to one court case vs. approximately 250 words discussing the rest of his education, family, career, and one of the most brutal Judicial elections in history. Even if the rest of the article is expanded, the coverage of the court case is far to excessive. --Farix (Talk) 03:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

He arguably wouldn't have defeated McGraw without the huge campaign contributions from Massey. The money was way beyond the scope of any other WV Supreme Court election, before or since. The campaign and case are inextricably intertwined. Read some of the statements from the US Justices about how egregious they felt that Benjamin's refusal to recuse himself was. Sorry, but Massey put Benjamin in office to prepare for Caperton vs Massey, and his actions in that case were the payoff. He was bought and paid for by A.T. Massey. Regrettably, that IS the story of Brent Benjamin and, for better or worse, it will always dominate his career, even if he does many good things in other circumstances. Cmichael (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The section, as written, is a WP:COATRACK. The case is over-covered by this article and needs to be severely paired down. Otherwise the article does not maintain a neutral point of view. --Farix (Talk) 04:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. WP:COATRACK refers to the hanging of a number of diverse grumbles and complaints on one article. This article focuses quite specifically on Benjamin's malfeasance, which largely defines him as a jurist. The fact that he is roundly and almost universally criticized for his behavior is not a violation of WP:NPOV. It is just a description of his behavior, and its consequences. Cmichael (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

By your tone, you don't sound like someone particularly interested in maintaining a neutral point of view towards Benjamin. In fact, it seems that you think that the article should put forward a particular point of view. However, articles must remain neutral and present both sides of any controversy. The section on the court case does not do that as it is excessive and one sided. --Farix (Talk) 11:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There, I've rewrote the section. It's not far more balanced while highlighting all the important aspects of the case. It also lets the reader determine if Benjamin was influence by Blankenship's involvement in the 2004 campaign, which is how it should be. --Farix (Talk) 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your conservative politics has clouded your judgement. Just go an edit manga. That is your mental level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.90.158 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you've put a lot of effort into developing your summary of the Massey case, but in doing so you've inadvertently introduced your own bias. You've also washed out much of the essential detail and nuance that is necessary for the reader to understand what the Supremes did in deciding the case. I was under the impression that you were planning to add additional information about Benjamin's accomplishments, not remove information about the supreme court decision. WP:NPOV does not require that we sweep essential details of significant supreme court cases under the rug in order to maintain balance. A fair and balanced approach to Benjamin's professional life, so far, must focus on Massey, because it is by far the most significant thing he has been involved in to date.

The story of Massey is notable and important for a number of reasons: First, it illustrates the fine line that the Supremes have been walking in attempting to define the limits of judicial propriety. Second, it shines a light on political corruption at the highest levels of West Virginia state government, for which the state is, unfortunately, well known. And which we continue to tolerate. Third, it illustrates one of the ways in which big corporations exert undue control over government in the United States, at all levels. And forth, it illustrates how a popular novelist goes about creating a best-selling novel.

It is Massey, and Massey alone, that creates Benjamin's notability.

I don't want to start an edit war with you, but I'm going to revert your changes, and hope that we can start in on improving the text in a more incremental fashion, improving the sourcing as we go along. Fair enough? Cheers. Cmichael (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Far from the truth. Benjamin's notability comes form him being a justice on the WV Supreme Court and not because of "Massey alone". The article is, fundamentally, about Brent Benjamin and not about the Massey case or Don Blankenship. While the case is important to mention, the SCotUS's ruling should be summed up in a sentence. If you want nuance about the court case, then that should be left for the article on the court case. But the simple fact is that this article shouldn't contain "more nuance" when what is already in the article about the case. --Farix (Talk) 15:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

To incorporate the "nuance", I've added the sentence from the article on the court case that states both the majority and dissenting opinions. --Farix (Talk) 15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I had overlooked the existence of the Caperton v Massey article. So, I set up a "main" template, cleaned up the wording of the paragraph a bit, and fixed some wikilinks. I also tried to make it plain that Caperton v Massey was already on its way to the supreme court when Blankenship put Benjamin in office. It wasn't a coincidence. I'll move some of the detail to the Caperton v Massey main article. Cheers! Cmichael (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Stating that the Caperton v Massey and the 2004 are related is a POV. One that Wikipedia should not endorse. And frankly, I do question whether Blankenship's money really helped Benjamin. McGraw's little speech at Racine did far more to help Benjamin then all of Blankenship's money. Even McGraw himself says the Racine speech was the turning point in the campaign. --Farix (Talk) 17:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that Caperton v Massey had been decided by the Circuit Court prior to Benjamin's election, and it was clear at that time that the case would end up before the state supreme court. Neutral POV requires that those facts be presented to the reader.

If you feel that some speech that Benjamin's opponent gave was notable, then please do add that information. I agree that the article could benefit from more detail about the campaign and the election anyway.

I am at a loss to understand why you deleted the "main" template, since you have argued that most of this information does not belong in the article anyway. Directing the reader to the article which contains the detail is entirely appropriate.

Finally, in doing a wholesale revert of my contribution, you also trashed the spelling and grammar corrections I had made, as well as the wikilink cleanups. I would appreciate if you would give this some thoughtful reconsideration. Cmichael (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the SCOTUS already established the relationship between the case and the election: "We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias -- based on objective and reasonable perceptions -- when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent." Cmichael (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Massey case is the only reason someone would come here: certainly it's my reason. And Massey, of course, has gained more notoriety (POV) as a result of the death of 25 miners at the Upper Big Branch Mine (5 April 2010). To deny this is rather like saying the most important thing about John Wilkes Booth was his acting career.Cross Reference (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Date of Birth?

I was tryng to provide some citations and realized the article does not list his date of borth. I have not found it listed anywgere with a reliable source. Please add if you find it. Thanks--BuzyBody (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brent Benjamin. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/business/2009/07/24/D99KT4SO0_us_massey_supco_lawsuit/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928132634/http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=9955 to http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=9955

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) 05:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)