Talk:Zina Bash

Kavanaugh confirmation controversy

I see the detail on the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was deleted by Anarcho-authoritarian and added in another form by Openlydialectic, which I expect will be deleted. Without that controversy, she's likely not notable and the page will be taken down.Bjhillis (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC) The edit was already deleted by an anonymous editor, so here we go. I suggest the page is not notable based on remaining sources.Bjhillis (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. She is either notable because of that scandal, and information about her usage of far-right signals should be noted, or she is not notable at all and her page should be deleted. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Your views welcome Pmaccabe. The news is reported in Time magazine, CBS News, and WaPo.Bjhillis (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll just also note that Anarcho-authoritarian in his edit summary justified the removal by claiming that ": WP:BLP WP:UNDUE conspiracy theories from online nobodies" which is clearly a lie as noted by Pmaccabe above, whereas Pmaccabe justified his removal by WP:BLP WP:UNDUE which is surprising since this person clearly doesn't pass the Wikipedia:POLITICIAN notability guideline unless we take her scandal into account (although, even then it's questionable because she may very well fir the WP:ONEVENT rule). Cheers Openlydialectic (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I originally included mention of it, as it clearly has gotten coverage. I feel it is fair to note but should be covered fairly/neutrally to the article subject somehow. Not sure if there is a way to do that or not. There seems no reason to believe the allegations about meaning behind the gesture but it was definitely notably covered. I think she is borderline notable otherwise based on her cumulative other positions but I'm pretty inclusionist. I suspect more information, sources can be developed than I found to start the article but it is a little more challenging under the flood of the recent coverage. I'd personally keep the article even without it, but wouldn't contest consensus otherwise. Having given my thoughts, I'll step back from this and see what happens. Phil (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

How dare you call me a liar. Yes, Time, CBS and WaPo mention this but they don't endorse the theory. Name one notable person who does? This is just mirroring what anonymous people are saying on the Internet. It's making Wikipedia look cheap, tacky and tabloidy to include Twitter gossip on biographies of living people. And that's just the general practice of including Twitter gossip. It's even worse when reliable sources debunk the gossip. The ADL have said the OK sign/white supremacist gesture is a troll. Vox, a very thorough and reliable source and one that is in no way pro-Trump, [1] go into this and say "There’s simply no reason, other than an epistemological commitment to assuming the absolute worst of absolutely everyone ever associated with the Trump administration, to believe she did a small hand movement to prove her commitment to white supremacy". I actually don't mind this being included as long as it's within context and WP:FRINGE opinions are treated as such, like "Zina Bash placed her hand in a particular way. Some people on the Internet thought it was a white supremacy sign, but reliable published sources said that it wasn't" - which just shows how trivial this whole episode is. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It makes no difference that this gossip was mentioned by reliable sources. There are many reliable publications that mention the Hillary Clinton health conspiracy theory, but within the context that it was coined by Paul Joseph Watson, an InfoWars correspondent. [2] Wikipedia mentions on the article about Watson that he coined the theory, but obviously doesn't put it anywhere near Clinton's biography. The only place this Bash theory should go, if anywhere, is on the page about Eugene Gu, with appropriate weight on how accurate reliable sources consider it to be. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• >Yes, Time, CBS and WaPo mention this but they don't endorse the theory."

Neither do they call it a conspiracy plot as you do.

>There are many reliable publications that mention the Hillary Clinton health conspiracy theory

Hillary was not known for these publications only

I am not really invested enough to spend my time on arguing with you, I didn't read most of the sentences in that wall of text either. I propose we just have a vote as to whether add the info about the scandal or remove the article altogether. Openlydialectic (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• I think the Kavanaugh confirmation hand sign thing is totally relevant and encyclopedic and needs to be included here. Just make sure you get a good mix of viewpoints from Left-wing sites ("OMG she's a White Supremacist!") and right-wing sites ("wow, expert troll job, Zina!"). Also the more centrist views that take an agnostic view of what her intentions were. All these views are relevant. - - Hraefen ^Talk 16:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Then maybe we should reinstate the previous edits removed by Anarcho-authoritarian? I'd Support that. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)];

• For reference, her husband's page currently reads:

In September 2018, he denied that his wife's hand position at the confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh signaled political beliefs.Bjhillis (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

References

January 2019

I've edited the article to once again mention the stupid attacks that made Ms Bash nationally famous. My version is:

In September 2018, during Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination hearing, she was falsely accused of making a white power hand sign. Her husband condemned the accusations, calling them "repulsive" and a "vicious conspiracy theory".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-hearing-today-zina-bash-appears-to-make-white-power-sign-confirmation-hearing-husband-defends-her/%7Ctitle=U.S. attorney defends wife after accusations she made "white power" sign at Kavanaugh hearing|last1=Brito|first1=Christopher|date=September 5, 2018|work=CBS News|accessdate=September 6, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Choi |first1=David |title='Everyone tweeting this vicious conspiracy theory should be ashamed of themselves': US attorney slams accusations that his wife made a controversial hand gesture during Kavanaugh hearing |url=https://www.chron.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Everyone-tweeting-this-vicious-conspiracy-theory-13205101.php |accessdate=September 6, 2018 |work=Houston Chronicle |date=September 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gajanan |first1=Mahita |title=A Kavanaugh Supporter Was Accused of Making a White Power Symbol. She's a Descendant of Holocaust Survivors |url=http://time.com/5386860/zina-gelman-bash-white-power-symbol/ |accessdate=September 6, 2018 |work=Time |date=September 5, 2018}}</ref>

The important word here is "falsely". Any halfway-honest article about her has to mention the vile allegations and make it clear they were false. CWC 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Later note: here's another source. CWC 15:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

I disagree that the allegations could be defined as "false". There's no question as to whether she made the gesture - the question is whether or not she made it deliberately. Her husband's vehement denial is appropriately noted in the article, but a denial of an accusation does not make that allegation "false". Johnzdennis (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Johnzdennis:. If you've had a chance to read the links I left on your talk page, you'll see that Wikipedia articles are meant to report what WP:Reliable Sources (warning: jargon term with a wiki-specific meaning) say, not what we the editors know. In this case, the CBS News article reports that the idea that the gesture for "OK" is a "White Power Symbol" is a hoax by 4channers; see OK gesture#White power symbol. (Aside: a wikipedia article is never a "wiki-reliable-source" for another article. As usual, the sources listed in the article are what we should rely on.)

Another policy here that you may not yet have time to read up on is that we must be especially careful about what we say about living people. Cheers, CWC 11:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Possibly-useful WaPo article by Megan McArdle: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/has-jk-rowling-figured-out-a-way-to-break-our-cancel-culture/2019/12/31/10798748-2bf3-11ea-bcb3-ac6482c4a92f_story.html CWC 05:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Why Ms Bush's gesture is newly controversial

May 2019

I wondered why people were editing this paragraph, so I did some googling. Here's what I learned:

The alt-right mainly work online, so it is natural that they are aware of the 4chan hoax, and use it to ‘troll the normies’. The alleged Christchurch mass murderer, who calls himself a shitposter, is also aware of this; that's why he made the "OK" gesture in court. In his ‘manifesto’, he says he is trying to spark conflict between races and political movements in the USA; while his manifesto contains lots of shitposting, he appears to be serious about this. It is a shame that some on the left responded to his OK-sign trolling in just the way he must have wanted. CWC 11:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The invaluable Stephen Fry puts it much better than I can in this tweet. CWC 09:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

The current rush of edits is presumably due to video of some cadets playing the "circle game" leading to accusations of white supremacy. Sigh. CWC 03:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

With this edit, [3], I've restored the "okay" content related to this discussion. I think this content is the main reason Zina Bash is known to most people, so it should not be removed. I also do not think that we should judge the accusation, for example, by describing it as a "false accusation". Note that the cited sources do not debunk or disprove anything, despite assertion to the contrary, such as made in this edit summary: [4]. The cited sources only report denials of the accusation. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Why do think most of the sources say so much about the 4-chan hoax? Do you think they needed to meet a word limit and randomly happened to all hit upon the same factoid? No, the sources are saying that the accusers were falling for (or promoting, or both) the hoax ... IOW, that the accusation was false.

BLP applies here, even to people whose politics you loathe. CWC 05:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This Vox article explains how this is a 4chan conspiracy theory. It's irresponsible to repeat a conspiracy theory in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:FRINGE. We probably shouldn't be including this content at all since reliable sources tell us it's a debunked conspiracy theory, but if we include it, we definitely need to include the important point that it is false, as the sources tell us. Marquardtika (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Marquardtika, *you* knock it off. I have quoted text from BLP rules to you many times, and you continue to assert without any justification - *IF* this is a BLP violation, it is because Zina Bash is not a notable person BUT FOR the controversy, and the entire entry should be deleted. Your attempts to either blank mention of the controversy and/or definitively assert she was "falsely" accused is not supported by either your cited sources or the NPOV editorial guidelines- indeed, it is the definition of whitewashing/sanitizing. "The NPOV policy does not allow use of revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Neither the NPOV nor BLP policies protect article subjects from documented criticism, which by nature is never neutral. Editors must not exercise censorship; they must present all significant sides of the controversy and document the opposing points of view, and they must not shield readers from such views." Moreover, as has been pointed out several times, your cited sources do not support your sweeping claims. If you want to expand the argument defending Ms. Bash using in-line attribution of the opinions you are citing, I have no objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.170.37 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, 66.190.170.37, thanks for joining the discussion.

Secondly, note that Vox (of all places!) states that

Bash was not making a “white power hand signal.”

and then explains how they know that. So we have a source saying that the accusation was false. So we should say the same thing (unless someone produces a so-called ‘reliable source’ to the contrary, and even then we would have to report the debate).

So I've reverted to Marquardtika’s more detailed version. Best wishes, CWC 04:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on "okay" symbol.

Should a short paragraph in the article about Zina Bash read:

1. In September 2018, Bash was accused of making a white power hand sign during Kavanaugh's nomination hearing.[21][22] Her husband condemned the accusations, calling them "repulsive" and a "vicious conspiracy theory".[23][24][25][26][27]

or should it read:

2. In September 2018, a conspiracy theory emerged which falsely accused Bash of making a white power hand sign during Kavanaugh's nomination hearing.[21][22] Her husband condemned the accusations, which were debunked by a number of media outlets, calling them "repulsive" and a "vicious conspiracy theory".[23][24][25][26][27]

Thank you, RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC). Attic Salt (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Response:

2. Include "falsely". We have a RS (vice.com) saying the accusation is false. We do not have any RSes saying otherwise. Leaving out the uncontroverted fact that the accusation is false would violate multiple Wikipedia policies. CWC 01:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Belated correction: that should be vox.com, not vice.com. Sorry! CWC 03:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

2. Second version: the idea that the OK gesture is a white power symbol is in itself a hoax. See OK gesture#White power symbol. The Vox article noted above thoroughly debunks the Bash conspiracy theory. It is a WP:BLP violation to say she was accused of something (by whom?) that isn't even a thing--it's a hoax. The sources make that clear. Marquardtika (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not true. OK gesture#White power symbol says According to the ADL, by 2019 some white supremacists had begun using the OK symbol "as a sincere expression of White Supremacy". Indeed the origins as a hoax are obvious, but nonetheless the symbol has since been used genuinely as a white power symbol. — Bilorv (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Neither - per WP:RECENTISM and WP:PROPORTION - discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? This was a news spike, as evidenced by the sources used, all within the time frame of September 4-7 (2018). This is not a historically significant life event for this BLP, and should be excluded. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

1. - Version 2 is clearly POV. The job of wikipedia is not to make final judgement on the truth of Ms. Bash's intent/psychological motivations (was she serious? was it accidental? was she trolling), but to lay out the factual elements of the controversy (the gesture was made, accusations were made, the accusations were denied, the gesture was made again, etc.) RE: the argument that this shouldn't appear at all- it is literally the only reason this page was created in the first place/the only reason the subject is considered notable. If the controversy isn't included, the article should be deleted entirely - wikipedia doesn't have/need entries for every low level bureaucrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.10.173.83 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

neither - First, vice.com is not on the list of reliable sources. Regardless, the fact that the sign itself is a hoax makes it irrelevant and I would think should simply not be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I wrote vice.com above when I should have written vox.com. Sorry! (That doesn't affect your second point, of course.) CWC 03:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Striking comment after the user was blocked as a sockmaster. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Second version: per point raised by Marquardtika Idealigic (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Neither: Option 1 has the issue of saying "accused of" without listing the source. (When you read a newspaper and it says "concerns have been raised", read it as "this newspaper is raising concerns"; Wikipedia should not use such phrases because of WP:NPOV.) Option 2 has the issue of being unsupported by sources; the Vox source spends most of its time discussing the origin of the white power symbol, and there is not consensus amongst the other sources that the concern is either a "conspiracy theory" or "false". I'd like to make a suggestion of an option 3:

  In September 2018, Bash was accused on Twitter of making a white power hand sign during Kavanaugh's nomination hearing. Her husband condemned the accusations, calling them "repulsive" and a "vicious conspiracy theory". (emphasis just for clarity)

This attributes the accusations to their source and allows the reader to determine their opinion on the story in the same way that the majority of the seven presented sources do. — Bilorv (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Not just Twitter. Also Paste magazine[5], The Mary Sue[6], NewsOne[7], Hollywood Life[8], left-wing forums such as Democratic Underground and lots of other websites which don't have Wikipedia articles.

Probably the most significant one was at Above the Law, a website read by many US lawyers.

(BTW, do you disagree that (1) vice.com debunked the charge or that (2) vice.com is a WP:RS for this issue?)

Cheers, CWC 08:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The articles you've listed are all of lower quality than the better-quality of the seven sources in the article at present, which attribute the accusations to Twitter. Regardless of these sources, it still appears to me that the accusations originated on Twitter and so my proposed text is still both literally accurate and correct in its implication of the source of the allegations. You've mixed up Vice with Vox again, but I'll expand on my reasoning: the Vox source uncontroversially details the origin of the okay sign's association with white power, that of an attempted hoax, but as some of the sources you quote point out, it has also been used with genuine intent as a white power symbol. Despite its clickbait title, Vox doesn't provide any evidence that Bash specifically was not using it with genuine intent, only that it was originally a hoax. You seem to contradict yourself in originally saying that it was "uncontroverted" that the accusation is false and then providing several sources which controvert it. — Bilorv (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 proposed by User:Bilorv--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• My first choice is Version #2, but I'd also settle for Version #3. This was a bizarre accusation, but it should definitely be in the article in one fashion or another. Version 2 may look non-neutral, but it does accurately summarize the news sites. Version 3 is neutrally worded, but it's more neutrally worded than the way it was covered in the news. Protean Self (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing BLP violations from this page

Per reliable source Vox, "Bash was not making a 'white power hand signal.'" Source is here. This is a conspiracy theory started online. We shouldn't be repeating it here, and certainly not without labeling what it is--a conspiracy theory started by some social media users. Marquardtika (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, the article already quotes an assertion that it is "conspiracy theory". And, despite your pronouncement [9], nothing here is "demonstrated" it is only an "accusation" which is "denied". Please think about the meaning of the words. If you honestly think this is a BLP violation, then report it [10]. Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can make an accusation. It's weasel wording to say "was accused of..." by whom? Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. As covered by reliable sources, including Vox, this "accusation" (which was apparently by some random social media users) was not credible. Marquardtika (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add details regarding the original sources of the accusations, please feel free. Instead, you are drawing a POV synthesis conclusion not supported by the sources. There is no BLP violation, the accusations as well as Bash’s defense are both adequately covered and BLP doesn’t prevent documented criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.166.205 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

She was signaling a judiciary staffer to get a cup of water. See here, which says "Bash was signaling to a colleague that her request for water had been fulfilled." The Washington Post says "There is no credible evidence to suggest" she was using a white supremacist hand symbol, and that this theory is "devoid of any proof that it was actually true." Also from the article, "The idea that the hand sign is a secret symbol for white power owes its mainstream spread to a viral troll campaign aimed at making liberals and the media look gullible." Well, I guess it worked, huh? Marquardtika (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Look, it's clear at this point that you are tendentiously misreading the sources on this question to fit your own confirmation bias. It's hard to assume good faith when you take the quote "There is no credible evidence to suggest" so badly out of context. The WaPo article is referring to the *first* gesture- "There is no credible evidence to suggest, against her husband’s denial, that Bash was already aware of the hand sign’s associations with the alt-right, or the troll campaign that made it popular when the original controversy erupted." but then goes on to say (on literally the very next line) "On Thursday, however, after a news cycle about her hand’s resting position, Bash was very aware. A video clip from that day of the hearing appeared to show Bash, once again sitting behind Kavanaugh, making a much more deliberate-looking “okay” symbol with her hand." If you want to add the claims about signaling for water to further add detail to the defense, please do so, but you continually blanking the controversy because you can't achieve consensus on your POV synthesis language is the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.166.205 (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I am highly concerned with the tendentious editing from one of the editors here, specifically Marquardtika. It seems that this editor has a bias towards aggressively repairing Zina Bash's image and to even exact retribution against other BLP subjects who have accused Bash of using the white supremacy OK hand symbol, namely Eugene Gu. It was quite unsettling to see Bash's BLP accuse another subject of sexual assault out of nowhere. Then I see from the edit history that this editor has been trying to put the same sexual assault accusations at Gu's BLP despite a unanimous RFC that specifically forbade this action. What is going on here? Let's contain this drama and this TE please. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Marquardtika is continuing to revert my good faith edits and is clearly pushing a POV agenda to make Zina Bash's hand signal only sound like a conspiracy theory when multiple reliable sources say otherwise. This editor even removes sources that show US Coast Guard employees and others being fired for making the same hand signal. I have reverted this editor twice and refuse to violate the 3RR policy. I respectfully request other editors to step in and intervene here. NeneCaretaker (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Your edits violate multiple core policies here, chief among them WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for your additions, and you have not done that. This is not Brett Kavanaugh’s page, either, and an assessment of whether the sexual assault accusations against him were credible has no place in this article. Marquardtika (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

NeneCaretaker above writes that "I respectfully request other editors to step in and intervene here", so I will. By stating unequivocally that Marquardtika is correct, and that material referring to US Coast Guard employees being fired, and to claims that Bash mad a signal to 'distract' from the hearing, are violations of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Zina Bash is almost exclusively known for her controversial hand signal during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. If this is a BLP violation, then this whole page should be nominated for deletion. The way the passage is currently written looks like a propaganda piece in her favor rather than a neutrally written description of the events that have been widely publicized. It's particularly strange to me that other reliable sources talking about how the white power hand signal resulted in disciplinary actions and firings are excluded and only the articles talking about how it is a conspiracy theory are included. Either delete the article entirely or cover the incident neutrally and accurately according to our policies. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If you want to nominate the article for deletion, go ahead. But you need to stop adding WP:BLP violating content to the article. There was a discussion about this at WP:BLPN. Multiple experienced editors are telling you this content violates a core policy. Stop adding it. Marquardtika (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think this is actually a violation, then report it as such. Your note at the BLP board; [11] was pretty vague. Attic Salt (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's something a lot less vague: WP:BLP policy is clear and unambiguous regarding unsourced negative content in biographies of living persons - it should be reverted on sight. Carry on adding this crap, and expect consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Um, please be specific. What is the unsourced negative content to which you refer? Attic Salt (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are really incapable of understanding what the problems are, you probably shouldn't be editing biographies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The current wording is not written in a neutral way. It is more like a PR campaign for Bash to convince readers that the hand signal she made was completely innocuous and any mention of it otherwise is a conspiracy theory. The actual sources show both sides to the story. Since this is an encyclopedia and not a reputation management service, we must show all sides from all sources or not mention any of this at all and delete the page. TrueQuantum (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I have now reported the repeated violations of WP:BLP policy at WP:ANI. [12] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have not examined the merits of the issue beyond confirming that the claims of a BLP problem are very reasonable. Accordingly, I have protected the article to prevent edit warring. While attempting to reach consensus on that, you might also consider whether devoting 44% of the article to the matter is WP:DUE. If it's not there already, consider discussing at WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal life section

Needs refs. [13][14] should be ok. Please add. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing section on false allegations of white supremacist symbol

I have removed the section on the false allegations of Bash making a white power hand symbol at Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. See the discussion here and here. This material has been contentious in the article for some time and has recently resulted in two editors, Attic Salt and TrueQuantum, being banned from this page. This is a delicate WP:BLP issue and I believe that per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:WEIGHT it is best at this time to remove the section until and unless a talk page consensus can be reached on how to incorporate this material in a way that reflects appropriate weight and adheres to our BLP policy. Marquardtika (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

As I think I've already stated elsewhere, I am also of the opinion that this doesn't belong in the biography at all. It can be 'sourced' in a sense (claims have been made - that can be sourced), but it is apparent that the allegations made are essentially not just gossip, but inherently unverifiable. They amount to an assertion about what may possibly have been going on inside Bash's head on a couple of occasions. No evidence whatsoever has been presented that Bash has any links to white supremacists, or that she holds white supremacists views. No evidence has been presented that Bash intended to 'disrupt' the Kavanaugh hearing. Likewise, no evidence has been presented that the hearings were 'disrupted' by Bash. The whole thing is nothing but facile speculation. It doesn't even qualify as a 'conspiracy theory', given that nobody else has even been claimed to be involved.

Wikipedia BLP policies, backed up by the WMF's resolution on the same subject [15] are absolutely clear about the need to respect people's privacy, and dignity. This nonsense does neither. Wikipedia isn't QAnon, or its ideological opposite... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)