This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States courts and judges Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

This article should mention Fahy's involvement in arguing Korematsu v. U.S., one of the Japanese-American internment decisions. 65.91.71.162 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Need to re-add removed discussion of Korematsu v. U.S.

This article should also mention that his representation of the government in Korematsu v. U.S. was overturned. There were sections in older copies of this article that mentioned this, but were removed.

The story was described here: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/freedom/2004/06/29/korematsu

A couple important points - this is a Supreme Court case that upheld internment during World War II. - this case was later overturned, because this person did not tell the truth in this case.

Also, why was material like this removed w/ attempting to verify, but someone else can add that he's a Roman Catholic, but there's no substantiation of that claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.206 (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Charles Fahy's great-niece and can confirm that he was indeed Roman Catholic. Efahy (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "Mmcca", Special:Contributions/Mmcca

and why do they persist in removing any reference to Korematsu and the related legal controversy after his death. If it weren't for other contributors, there would be *no* mention of this case, even though it is clearly the most important issue of his career. As I understand it, this is the only Supreme Court ruling that has ever been overturned with a writ of Coram nobis, so it is notable for more than one reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.225 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Fahy's involvement in the Korematsu case should be restored. This was certainly an aberration in an otherwise distinguished career, but was noteworthy all the same. There was so much pressure to convict him and to legitimize the internment of 110,000 ethnic Japanese that even Bill Douglas voted against Fred. I think that Murphy and Jackson wrote stirring dissents. I did add the year of his graduation from Notre Dame which was missing and led readers to assume he didn't graduate. He got a LLB from Georgetown two years later. Activist (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so douglas voted badly is justification? Fahey hid evidence, destroyed justice. he is marked in history as evil can be. 174.24.17.87 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Charles Fahy 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) 20:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help to rename this article? Charles Fahy was my great-uncle, and there is no evidence that he had a middle name. The middle initial of H should be removed. I have previously made edits to the main article to remove use of the H, but am not certain how to rename the article itself. The heading over the photo also displays this middle initial but appears to be autogenerated from the image name. Can the image be renamed to prevent this? Thanks to anyone who can help with this. Efahy (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Efahy, Wikipedia requires sourced information. For every valid person claiming to be related or know someone/something in real-life there is a vandal or troll claiming the same for add incorrect information.

However saying that I checked for you and found three government sources, all have no middle name:

• The Library of Congress
• US Department of Justice
• Federal Judicial Center

So I'll move the article - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks so very much, KylieTastic! Efahy (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why there is such a push recently to keep this information out. It has been well-documented by reliable sources. I can't find the American Journal of Legal History article online, which the most recent editor to gut this section cited, so I don't know what it says to dispute the previous research — but one source versus pretty much every single other piece of scholarship on the issue is not enough to justify completely removing this information.

Seriously, can we just not? MartinaDee (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering all of the attempts to blank this section seem to have been made by Mmcca, Mmccaaleb — both of whose entire contribution histories are dedicated solely to Charles Fahy — or by two mysterious unregistered users, it seems like the editor(s?) who disapprove of this article mentioning Fahy's misconduct is/are in the minority. Myself and multiple previous editors have repeatedly added cited sources backing up this history. If, as these other editors suggest, this information is "incorrect," they need to provide reliable sources that refute the existing research, not to mention Katyal's formal statement. MartinaDee (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Without reliable counter sources, should attempts to remove information on Fahy's misconduct in the internment cases be considered vandalism, and should further action (like a ban or editing restrictions) be taken to prevent ongoing vandalism? MartinaDee (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an uncontentious proposal, particularly given there are 10 citations in the section. Surely attempts to blank this section (repeated or otherwise) are vandalism, pure and simple? —OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, but if you look at the edit history on this page, this has been going on for years. Just reverting them as vandalism doesn't seem to be enough to fix what is clearly an ongoing problem with this article, so I suppose what I was hoping for comments on is a better solution... MartinaDee (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This history is NOT backed up by the facts, and is why it is has been repeatedly removed. This article completely refutes the allegations made by Peter Irons: See "Solicitor General Charles Fahy and Honorable Defense of the Japanese-American Exclusion Cases," at American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 54, Issue 4 (October 2014). The number of citations in the section are irrelevant, if they all point back to one source, Irons, who is just wrong. I would suggest that the vandalism is in the attempts to leave such incorrect history on this page. Once there is an online version of American Journal of Legal History article, I'll remove the incorrect history, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.219.223 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still only have one source, compared to every single other researcher (not just Irons) — in addition to the fact that the DOJ and the Solicitor General's office have never changed their official stance on Fahy's conduct in these cases. The previous research is based on the written records of Fahy's aides and the actual court transcripts; I don't see how your article could possibly refute that documentation, but providing an actual summary of your facts would be more useful than just repeating, "I'm right, you're wrong." It's pretty hard to assume good faith when you keep blanking the section (and other editor's citations with it) over and over again, or as you've now done, adding an extremely POV note that basically says, "Everything in this section is wrong, you can go read this one dude who says different over here." I suppose you could make an argument to include Sheehan's article as an opposing theory, but as long as he is the only person making this claim that's all it is: one person's theory against 99% of the other research. MartinaDee (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's possible — although I have no way of confirming this — that the Charles J. Sheehan who wrote this article is Fahy's grandson, which would give the author a pretty big bias.[1][2][3] MartinaDee (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the bot sent me. What is the question you want editors to support/oppose? Also, arguing that a source is wrong is not relevant on WP. Is the source reliable per WP policy? That's the only question. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being unclear. I guess my question is should Mmcca et al's edits be considered vandalism, and if so, are there any actions that can be taken to prevent it in the future (as opposed to just reverting ad hoc, which seems like a pretty tedious option)?

I don't think I was arguing that the other source is wrong — only that it's not clear whether it is in fact reliable and therefore shouldn't replace the 10 sources that are in line with WP policy.

I'm realizing now that an RfC may not have been the appropriate forum for this, especially since it's sort of devolved into an argument between me and this unregistered user. This isn't exactly a high profile article, but I thought since other editors have commented on this issue in the past (and since it appears, at least on the surface, to be more than one editor in favor of removing the JA cases) it would make more sense to open it up for discussion rather than asking for a third opinion or something along those lines. If someone more in the WP know has a better suggestion, this still-relatively-new editor will humbly take it. MartinaDee (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone who reads the article "Solicitor General Charles Fahy and Honorable Defense of the Japanese-American Exclusion Cases," American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 54, Issue 4 (October 2014) will agree that it is completely reliable and extremely well-sourced. I do not have an online link to it yet, but I do have a pdf version that I can attach, if that's appropriate. I'll provide a brief summary of the article in the intro to this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmcca (talk • contribs) 02:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, we have Efahy (talk · contribs) saying that Fahy was his great-uncle and there was no evidence of a middle name. On the other hand, I've found a 1994 book and a 2003 book that both call him 'Charles H. Fahy' (there are other sources as well, but these two are older than the creation of this article, so we can be sure they weren't influenced by us). So, what should we do? DS (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Efahy replied on Commons, and that's convincing enough for me. DS (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Fahy. 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/20130219025113/http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1346 to http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1346

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) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]