Jump to content

Talk:Elena Kagan

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.2.51.144 (talk) at 17:05, 13 May 2010 (→‎Jewish). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sources

If you want to add material about the student experience at Harvard, please provide sources (eg school newspaper articles, etc). Otherwise we have to remove it. Thanks. The Land 15:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the paragraph

She also kicked off a $400 million capital campaign in 2003; it is scheduled to end in 2008. Reports are that the Law School has raised about $260 million to date, putting it slightly ahead of schedule.

"to date" is vague, given that this is an encylopedia and not a newspaper! If anyone has more precise details, please correct. Traumerei 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TO whomever keeps adding the line about her becoming president of Harvard - STOP. While we all wish it to be true, this has not been announced yet and is not necessarily going to happen. 140.247.10.147 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I had always assumed that her last name was pronounced /kəˈgɑːn/. However, in all the commentary over her potential as a Supreme Court nominee, I hear it pronounced /ˈkeɪgən/. I may add this to the main page Grover cleveland (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems rather unnecessary. Why would anyone pronounce it /kəˈgɑːn/ in the first place? It's a Judo/German name, not a sound effect (ka-GAN!!!). -LlywelynII (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Elena gay?

Is she (openly) gay? If so, I think this should be included in the article. - 69.76.47.66 (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reliable sources to verify it. Several gay news sources claim her, but that is not enough. -Rrius (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She is not openly gay. Thus, speculation about the issue is not appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Decafdyke (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The question is sort of like asking if her favorite color is openly blue - it could only be said that it was if she herself was reported, in a reliable source, to have stated as much. bd2412 T 15:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I'd say that the overall situation is close to crossing the threshold of being worthy of inclusion. There has been official comment from the White House and reporting in the Washington Post[1], the Atlantic, and Slate, among other places.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An unnamed "administration official" criticizing an unsourced blog post does not come close to the threshold for inclusion in a BLP. Jonathunder (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is not the case here. What we have is a Washington Post story saying that a named blogger for CBSNews.com said she is openly gay. A named White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, says on the record that he complained to CBS because the post "made false charges." Another named person, working on the Stevens vacancy team at the White House, suggested that it was "lies". The blogger at one point said she is in the closet and her partner is well known at Harvard, then apologized for repeating Harvard rumours. Sylvain is exactly right that this is close, if not there. If you think that Sylvain was saying we should call her gay in the article, I think you are wrong. Questions about her sexuality have percolated up from the rumour mill and the gay press to the blogosphere to the mainstream news. The fact that the White House has shot down the assertion that she is gay is probably notable, and will almost certainly be if she is in fact nominated. -Rrius (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all over CBS news and Huffington post. People will be coming to this page specifically to find out what a neutral/reliable source has to say about this. 137.53.23.60 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expect more of this if she is nominated. Unregistered users should be made aware of wiki standards before injecting statements *(even if those statements are correct, that need citations).--Extrabatteries (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010(UTC)
The Washington Post article seems like a pretty good source for saying she's not gay — though I'm concerned it doesn't name the administration source who says she's not gay, because he isn't authorized to speak on personal matters. So we don't know how reliable the report really is. I think that some people have vastly exaggerated WP:BLP when they start censoring out well-known media reports, but those based on unnamed sources should be so labeled. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe she is gay, maybe she isn't - don't spread a rumor because you know that's all it is. If she verifies it, then go ahead and post it, otherwise, one should be smart and responsible enough to know not to post what essentially equates to libel.

I agree with you, calling someone gay isn't libel. But the notability here trumps all. Her sexuality, sure, it could be a supreme court issue. But right now, the article cites a CBS blog that picked up a crosspost from salon.com and had no broadcast coverage, just 'blogosphere' coverage, before being retracted. The notability of the whole event is questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extrabatteries (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of person needs to know what her sex life etails? How does that affect her position? If she wanted you to know, you would know.--DCX (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the talk page of an article is not a place to vent your personal opinions on a subject. All that matters here is that this is a matter that has been widely reported in reliable sources. Lampman (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And undoubtedly this story will "have legs," as many conservatives would be unhappy with any Jewish woman on the high court. That a conservative blogger has chosen to play the "dyke card" on Kagan is without doubt a notable well-documented fact. 67.232.140.2 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...many conservatives would be unhappy with any Jewish woman on the high court..." Isn't that a rather bigoted statement? Do you think they would mind Dr. Laura? 76.93.148.179 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Marc Arbinder: "People who know Kagan very well say she is not gay...." (See here.)71.187.173.34 (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lampman is correct, it's verifiable, reliable sourcing that's actually the primary policy at issue here. As far as I've seen, we don't have it. Notability is a policy that applies to the inclusion or exclusion of article topics, not material within articles, and is not the policy issue here as I understand it. This is a contentous issue, I recommend everyone who hasn't recently review WP:BLP. --Joe Decker (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has added that she was the "first lesbian solicitor general." Based on the discussion here this is most likely vandalism and should be removed quickly before too many people read it. 163.1.157.46 (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's been removed. --N419BH (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone's sexual orientation is not relevant to their wikipedia article, unless the person themself chooses to make it relevant by talking about it in interviews, or by writing about it in books or opinion columns, etc. If she chooses to keep it private, then wikipedia has no reason to mention it. Physalia physalis (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, WP:BLP does not give individuals the right to dictate the content of their own articles. Neither is sexual orientation, or anything else for that matter, by definition off limits. What matters is whether the question becomes a central issue in the confirmation process, and widely written about in the press. I believe it has already; it has recently been covered by important commentators such as Slate's William Saletan[2], Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan[3], Politico's Ben Smith[4], etc.
It's not her sexual orientation so much that is getting media coverage, as it is people's curiosity over her sexual orientation. So if this is to be mentioned in the article, it should mention people's curiosity about her sexual orientation, more prominently than it mentions her sexual orientation per se. Physalia physalis (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the issue has to be treated with care, but to simply ignore it while every reliable source in the country covers it - and even the White House has commented on it - seems like sticking our heads in the sand, and constitutes a misreading of basic Wikipedia principles. Lampman (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is questionable for the entry even to include the euphemistic sentence: "Ms. Kagan has never married." - particularly at the head of the article in the Early Life and education. Anyone agree? 86.162.3.192 (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. We commonly include a brief mention of the subject's family and domestic life in any biography where we have verifiable information. In this case, the verifiable information is simply that she has never married, so it's reasonable to state that. It wouldn't be reasonable to include unverifiable information, and it also wouldn't be reasonable to emphasize that she is unmarried in attempt to make the reader draw conclusions about the unverified rumors, but mentioning it is fine. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with the information as to her married state being in a Personal Life section, well away from the head of the article, but it just doesn't seem that relevant here. It also seems to me to be a deliberately euphemistic turn of phrase.86.162.3.192 (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the model for how we should handle such things in the article would be David Souter, also never married (mentioned in the article), and also the subject of shadowy rumors as to his sexual orientation (not mentioned in the article). bd2412 T 01:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Souter and Condoleezza Rice articles have the lack of marital experience mentioned in a later section on Personal life, near the end. Putting it up in Early Life indeed seems like a dogwhistle attempt to bias readers.173.56.129.135 (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kagan's life journey and experiences are definitely on trial here, especially since we don't have a record of her doing what a judge does (rulings) or what a lawyer does (arguing cases before a jury). So we either have to believe our President when he says she's smart, has an outstanding character, good judgment, and supports good values, or have a tough hearing where she gets grilled by senators who might sound more like Jerry Falwell than Daniel Webster. Someone might say the word "G-A-Y" at the hearing, and then we'll see if lightning strikes. Jessemckay (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the elephant in the room, and there is no way it won't be alluded to in the upcoming hearing. Count on it. Until then, however, it's idle speculation. --Xaliqen (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to quote the relevant section of WP:BLP, relating to Public figures:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Note the use of the word allegation – it is not her sexuality we're talking about here; that remains a non-issue at the moment. We're talking about the allegations about her sexuality, and their role in the confirmation process. These allegations are "well-documented", I don't think there is any doubt about that. Are they "notable" and "relevant"? Again, that's not for each of us to subjectively decide (I personally would like to live in a world where these things didn't matter, but what I think is irrelevant.) The notability and relevance of these allegations are decided by the fact that they have been covered in multiple reliable sources, and even addressed by the White House. I therefore think it would be natural to insert a short, objective summary of this part of the process leading up to her confirmation hearings. Lampman (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar allegations do not appear in the Souter article, so why should this one be treated differently? bd2412 T 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, politico has an article out today where they interviewed Kagan's friends and they say she is straight - [5]. Remember (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That politico piece seems pretty definitive. The article's existence almost compels us to include a reference to the speculation and response in her biography, because its clearly of great interest to people.--Milowent (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish

Don't know about gay, but with a surname like Kagan it's pretty hard not to be Jewish. Anyway, we have sources like {{Cite web |url=http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/06/1002012/obama-names-jewish-woman-as-solicitor-general |title=Obama names Jewish woman as solicitor general |publisher=JTA |date=January 6, 2009}} ("Obama names Jewish woman as solicitor general". JTA. January 6, 2009.) and an interesting article {{Cite web |url=http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Kagan.html |title=Elena Kagan: Jewish Ethnic Networking Eases the Path of a Liberal/Leftist to the Supreme Court |author=Kevin MacDonald |publisher=theoccidentalobserve.net|date=May 20, 2009}} (Kevin MacDonald (May 20, 2009). "Elena Kagan: Jewish Ethnic Networking Eases the Path of a Liberal/Leftist to the Supreme Court". theoccidentalobserve.net.). Could somebody work that into the article? Debresser (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could. Be WP:BOLD in editing. Reliefappearance (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do belive that the matter of sexual orientation or personal bias is a very important and singnificant position to consider. The Supreme court positions should be honor with those who undertand and enforce the Law standard of moral value, without consider to push any personal or emotional agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.40.31.81 (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to guess what side of the fence you sit on.. 72.100.140.84 (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's really telling how oblivious the right is that they only question the effect of personal bias when the nominee is anything aside from a straight, white, Christian conservative male.128.2.51.144 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really anti-semitic to mention that she was born in a Jewish family? Truthsort (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not anti-semitic at all. It makes sense where you put it (in with her early life). I would welcome to put it back in there. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The "Occidental Observer" appears to be an editorial,(i.e. the author is the editor) if not a self-published source. The assertions it makes of various discrimination by "ethnic networking" are not altogether implausible, but I wouldn't call them proven, and they're not up to the level of reliability we want for a BLP. Wnt (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is she related?

Anybody know if Ms. Kagan is related to (i.e. a cousin of) the well-known historian/foreign policy Kagans, Donald, Frederick and Robert?? Cgingold (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.40.134 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence supporting this assertion. until she, or they, make a statement of relatedness, or a journalist confirms/debunks it with research, we need to remain silent on this, per BLP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's not the first female solicitor general --- she's the second; Barbara D. Underwood acted as SG for six months after Seth Waxman and before Theodore Olsen.

However, she is the first Jewish woman, not sure if she is the first Jewish person - I would doubt it.

An acting SG is not the SG. There is a difference. -Rrius (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She won't be the first Jewish woman on the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Jewish.
John 02:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have an entire article covering the subject: Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. She would be the eighth Jewish Justice (out of 112) and the second Jewish woman. bd2412 T 14:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is not related to Donald, Frederick and Robert Kagen according to this: http://www.slate.com/id/2253530 --RenniePet (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Slate assertion is that it offers no explanation of how it learned the three were not related to Elena.--68.226.16.229 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

born to a jewis family

look now at the biograpy of the other supreme court justices.For the cristian judges it doesnt say " was born into a cristian protestant catholic family" Why now? why with her? Is this relevent?Her family is also vegetarian ! Why not say that too? I guess relevancy is wikipedias strength so why is being jewish here relevant..I know jews are proud of this, and shepping naches but it treally has no place in wikipedia..Im raquel samper jewish community murcia spain...ps we in murcia are very proud as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.12.24 (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good biography always explores various aspects of the subject's upbringing. Check out Sonia Sotomayor#Early life for an example; it talks about her being raised in a Catholic family, among many other particulars. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Wasted Time. It's relevant for a few issues, and it's a single sentence. There has been a lot of talk about how Stevens was the last Protestant judge (a quick Google search for "supreme court protestant" pulls up results from the WSJ, NYT, and CNN), so it's quite relevant. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: A properly sourced sentence on religious views is appropriate. --N419BH (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This report says she's Jewish. ~DC Talk To Me 07:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being Jewish is more than a religion it is an ethnicity (according to the Wikipedia article on Jewish People), so therefore it is worth mentioning, besides for the fact that Jews are a minority. 99.138.88.130 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether Ms. Kagan is gay and/or Jewish, and I have no issues in those areas. However, in reading the article, it did strike me as odd that there was nothing about the private life of a person being nominated to such a lofty position.
Sca (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to add in "Born into Jewish family"~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.41.57 (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia a faster source of news than many news organizations?

CNN just posted that Elena Kagan is going to be a nominee for the supreme court,around 4:00 GMT, but Wikipedia posted this news at 02:19 GMT, [6] shortly after MSNBC reported it. 98.231.142.70 (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In this case, CNN probably waited for further confirmation before reporting. MSNBC probably reported at first indication. --N419BH (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or MSNBC scooped CNN, which may well have had trouble confirming the story. -Rrius (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a small note. Excuse the lack of signature. But how is a source that has been removed valid? Essentially someone published a story, which was quickly retracted. In the small instant while it was online, others linked to it, and wrote a quick note saying what they were referring to. So theres no point in referring to a non-event. While the non-event was handled with great care and even-handedness, there is no point in referring to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.47.137 (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The MSNBC story has not been retracted, and other outlets have joined them in reporting it. -Rrius (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem the news sources have, is that they aren't willing to write a little blurb saying, "Hey! A paper in Washington just scooped us ten minutes ago about the Supreme Court Nomination story! Why don't you go to their site and read all about it!" The non-profit volunteer status gives us an edge. Wnt (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, it was on Politico on Friday. [7] It may not have been suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia but so what. That's why we get our news elsewhere. Sandeylife (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Group

Anybody interested in putting in a group of Nominees who had no experience as a judge when nominated? A source can be found here. http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensiverson (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, though it would also make sense to make groups for "experience as federal circuit judge" versus "experience as state supreme court judge" versus other categories. It might be less controversial to make a big table of all nominees with sortable columns for religion, sex, race/ethnicity, age when nominated, place of birth, success or failure of nomination, length of time served, which president appointed them, and prior experience (maybe any other relevant or interesting factors as well). I could imagine that that would be really helpful for a lot of people. However, I'm far too lazy to actually do it myself. :D Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stance on Issues

The sooner we can get her stances on the issues up on this page, the better. Does anyone know where we can find her opinions on important issues? Faceless Enemy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

To keep the topic hot (of course it is already), I second this. I have not checked but am fairly certain the Sotomayor page had such a section (checked, it has "notable rulings"). HOWEVER Sotomayor had been a judge and previous decisions could be used as evidence of her positions on issues. In this case it will be harder to find, since her background is primarily academic. (A notable exception - it's pretty clear how she feels about gay rights.) --gobears87 (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should begin laying out what is known of the nominee's positions on issues before the Court. Here's an interesting twist. In a May 13, 1997 memo, Kagan urged President Clinton to ban late-term abortions, which would be an odd recommendation if she believed prohibition of abortion to be generally unconstitutional. bd2412 T 14:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Jeffery Toobin

In the section about the Supreme Court nomination, a quote from Toobin has been edited from "very much an Obama type person, a moderate Democrat, consensus builder" to "very much an Obama type person, a Democrat...". The current wording is slightly inaccurate and I don't feel it properly captures the point Toobin was making. If it deserves to be included in the section, I feel that it should be reverted to back to the full quote. BalancedGoat (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The removal of "moderate" is pretty fucking important.Faceless Enemy (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you include a quote, it should be correct. This seems a no-brainer, but of course, accuracy scares conservatives who think Wikipedia is a purveyor of liberal bias, just like everything else. 198.7.245.75 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the inclusion of the Toobin quote in the first place. Hundreds of people who are more important than Mr. Toobin have made statements about Ms. Kagan - why include Toobin's, especially since the sentence containing the quote makes it clear that he is not an objective observer?Musicmax (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to removing the quote entirely. I just feel that as long as it's included, it should be accurate. BalancedGoat (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism - Supreme court nom

Given that this is a biography of a living person, being nominated from the Supreme court, and the recent series of vandalism, should this be fully protected? Mherlihy (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine as it is right now. It's important that information be added to it quickly, since this is a website that many people will use to get information about her, and the article is pretty bare-bones right now.Faceless Enemy (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of deleting all the stuff about the appointment until it happens then protecting the page for a few days to let the news settle out. Wiki is not a newspaper and we do not handle breaking news well. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about the appointment is the only reason the page is interesting to most people though. Faceless Enemy (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better to interesting or completely correct? Are we trying to drive up circulation? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can strike a balance between adding relevant stuff in a timely manner and making sure it's properly cited.Faceless Enemy (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goldman Pay

Someone just removed the phrase "and received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008". Personally I think that's pretty damn important, since it establishes a pretty clear, quantifiable financial connection and helps to describe the nature of the relationship. I'm going to revert it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not list her remuneration for any of her other jobs. Inclusion here is undue weight, and looks like a smear tactic. Besides, $10k for a Harvard law school dean who likely makes several $100k per year is pocket change. LK (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Besides, $10k for a Harvard law school dean who likely makes several $100k per year is pocket change." Exactly. By quantifying it, it establishes that this was an open and "normal" job, rather than some sketchy deal where no money ever changes hands but random favors were promised in back rooms. And if you know her other amounts of pay, feel free to add them in. Just because we don't have one set of information available doesn't mean we should miss out on other pieces of it. As for undue weight, the author of the cited source saw fit to include it in the first 3 paragraphs. Faceless Enemy (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "stipend" is not accurate if the person already has another, full time job. The word Stipend "... represents a payment that enables somebody to be exempt partly or wholly from waged or salaried employment..." Physalia physalis (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would "wage" be more appropriate? Either way, it's quite important to the sentence, since it describes the nature of their dealings with each other as being "above the board". Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "wage" usually refers to hourly pay, so I don't think it would apply here. I think the word "payment" is the most accurate. Physalia physalis (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the source says "stipend", and if we don't have a source using a diffeent word, then we should use "stipend". To reference a Wikipedia definition of the word and then decide that the source is therefore incorrect is at odds with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR.   Will Beback  talk  16:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That makes sense, according to the rules that you cited. I guess with wikipedia rules, verifiability takes precedence over accuracy. I'll have to keep that in mind. Thank you for pointing it out. Physalia physalis (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education

Can someone review this sentence, which doesn't seem to make sense (or, at least is difficult to parse) and is not exactly supported by the cited source ?

She received Princeton's Daniel M. Sachs Memorial Scholarship, one of the highest general awards conferred by the university, which enabled her to earn an M.Phil degree from Oxford University, at Worcester College in 1983.

Abecedare (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might work better:
From Princeton she received the Daniel M. Sachs Memorial Scholarship, one of the highest general award conferred by that university. This enabled her to continue her studies at the Worcester College of Oxford University where she earned her Masters in Philosophy in 1983.

JimD (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}}]

PLEASE CHANGE: "At Princeton, she wrote a senior thesis under historian Sean Wilentz studying the socialist movement in New York City in the early 20th century" TO "At Princeton, she wrote a senior thesis under historian Sean Wilentz studying the socialist movement in New York City in the early 20th century. Professor Wilentz insists, however, that she did not mean to defend socialism, noting that, "She was interested in it. To study something is not to endorse it."" (The additional material is drawn from the same article, i.e., the citation (7) should remain the same.) Jtropp1 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- œ™ 00:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use section titles, make stances more visible

The article currently has a chronological structure and it's hard to find her position on anything unless you also read all the boring details about on what date she transferred from this post to that post, replacing who, being confirmed by blah blah blah...

For example, her support for indefinite detention without trial is interesting, but few people would know to look for this sort of information in the Elena_Kagan#Solicitor_General section. So I put a subsection title on the relevant paragraph (Elena_Kagan#Indefinite_detention_without_trial). I think this sort of labelling for her other stances would make this article much more readable. Gronky (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination sub page?

Should people get started on Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination that would basically do the same thing as Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination? Thoughts? Remember (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess someone has already created this article. Remember (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where grandparents immigrated from?

Hello, I'm curious and don't know of a better way to find this out, but where did Elena Kagan's grandparents immigrate from? I've looked and looked on the internet and can't find this. Thank you. 71.228.188.109 (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone apply a little style

"...nominated Kagan to become the 112th Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, filling the expected vacancy..." If you've only been nominated you aren't yet "filling" anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.81.49 (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

-Rrius (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiters at Harvard?

The Harvard recruiting controversy seems a bit strange to the uninitiated. It seems amusing to think of them there waiting for someone to decide that academia was the wrong choice and they should join the Army... still, I'm sure they must have been having some success before the ban. Could someone find a little background on them - how many people they were signing up previously, any famous officers recruited? Wnt (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any direct example but not sure why it's so strange. There are a significant number of lawyers & doctors in the military. Where do you think they come from?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition keep in mind that this policy was for the entire campus. That includes the undergraduate portion. Not just the law school.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have citation(s) covering Harvard's policy/history concerning on campus military recruitment? TIA --Tom (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 2005, the Harvard Crimson criticized Kagan for not properly punishing professors who commited plagiarism.

link

I think this is worth mentioning somewhere in the article, although perhaps a better source would be needed.

Physalia physalis (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See if you can corroborate it with another source. That one is specifically labeled "Opinion". --N419BH (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I had searched, but it seems that all the other references are also from editorials. I do agree that a better source is needed. But at least this discussion is a start, and now people will be on the lookout for a better source. Physalia physalis (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times published this article about it in 2004. I would be interested in hearing any ideas about how to possibly incorporate this into the article. Physalia physalis (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this?

"According to the New York Times, while dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan was criticized for allegedly being too lenient on two Harvard law professors who had unintentionally committed plagiarism. Normally, students who do such a thing are required to leave the school, but Kagan did not require that of the two professors.[1] An editorial in the Harvard Crimson said, "The evident double standard sets a poor example for the student body and for the wider community.."[2]"

  1. ^ When Plagiarism's Shadow Falls on Admired Scholars, The New York Times, November 24, 2004
  2. ^ A Disappointing Double Standard, The Harvard Crimson, April 19, 2005

Physalia physalis (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early Education

The main article mentions Ms Kagan was a graduate of Hunter College High School. For those interested, she also was a graduate (1972) of Hunter College Elementary School, as a check of its alumni directory shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.16.229 (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening line

{{Editsemiprotected}} The biography should start with "...is an American lawyer and President Barack Obama's nominee" rather than "is President Barack Obama's nominee", per Wikipedia:LEDE#First_sentence and WP:RECENTISM. Thank you, 86.41.61.203 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited to put "is Solicitor General of the United States" back in the first sentence. I hope you find that satisfactory. -Rrius (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, thanks Rrius. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title of Thesis

I see that the title of the thesis she worked on, "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933", has been removed. The editor reasoned that the description was more useful than the title, but why remove the title, since it has been a point of discussion? I think that he title should be added back in, as seen in this and prior revisions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Kagan&oldid=361302891 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.208.192 (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the title is back. Why not have both the title and the description? :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Kagan/ "Early Life & education": How does her marital status have any relevance here?

I find the inclusion of Elena Kagan's marital status at the very start of her bio -- and in the "Early Life & Education" section, where it has absolutely no relevance -- to be offensive, and a strong suggestion of non-neutraility.

Cassandra's eyes (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Cassandra's Eyes[reply]

As I said in response to the same assertion above, I don't agree. We commonly include a brief mention of the subject's family and domestic life in any biography where we have verifiable information. In this case, the verifiable information is simply that she has never married, so it's reasonable to state that. It wouldn't be reasonable to include unverifiable information, and it also wouldn't be reasonable to emphasize that she is unmarried in attempt to make the reader draw conclusions about the unverified rumors, but mentioning it is fine. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"elena kagan married" is a top google search in the last 24 hours, so its fair to include the verifiable fact that she is unmarried.--Milowent (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What source says she was "never married?" It looks un-sourced. Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've suggested above, the model to follow is that of David Souter, who was also "never married". bd2412 T 01:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one source for it. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was already aware of (& have no argument with) the fact that almost every Wikipedia bio mentions a person's MARITAL status - and that isn't my objection. Once again, my objection is that "EARLY LIFE & EDUCATION" and marital status are not related topics. If indeed Justice Souter's bio is the precedent and standard for the mention of marital status, then Elena Kagan's marital status would LIKEWISE be mentioned...way down in her bio...under "Personal Life". The placement of her marital status in the second paragraph of her Wikipedia bio therefore seems to be motivated by an attempt to underscore her single status as soon as possible in the article, so that readers can find out that she has "never married" (and begin to form their biases) just as early in the piece as is barely permissible. Cassandra's eyes (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say Souter's article is the precedent, but it is a longstanding example of how this issue is addressed for someone in a comparable position, and I can see no principled reason why Kagan's article should be set out any differently than Souter's. bd2412 T 02:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Souter and Condoleezza Rice articles have the lack of marital experience mentioned in a later section on Personal life, near the end. Putting it up in Early Life indeed seems like a dogwhistle attempt to bias readers.173.56.129.135 (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be toward the end of the bio. Sandeylife (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one here disagreed, I moved it to a better spot, as the bio is expanded, it will need to be moved again. Sandeylife (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant POV

"Her engaging personality will make her a lot of fun for her fellow justices. Although she's no Jon Stewart, she does have a pretty decent sense of humor. And she unfailingly treats all of those she encounters, regardless of their station in a life, with respect.[14]"

In section "Dean of Harvard Law School" needs to be removed for being POV --81.100.215.14 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it POV? Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's POV and crystal balling and unencyclopedic language. The problem was that it wasn't clear it is a quote attributed to Walter Dellinger because the attempt at a blockquote failed. I've rectified that, so all should be well. -Rrius (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not clear why a fellow Clinton Administration figure should be a trusted authority on what "thoughtful conservatives" think. He may well be right, but there is no reason to trust his statement. -Rrius (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then don't trust it. MastCell Talk 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-polemical suggestion

Is there any way that proper citations of Kagan's publications could be added to this article? What I mean by this is, for example, what is the name of the journal, volume number & pages for her article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V.,"? And the same for her other articles? I expect people will come to Wikipedia looking for what she has written to know her better. (Sorry I couldn't work in a rant about her being too liberal/reactionary for my POV; I'll try harder next time.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Here's a source. http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=112&show=bibliography —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensiverson (talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Failed" nomination?

The repetition of how her nomination to the court of appeals "failed" is a little strange to me. Isn't there a more descriptive word for what happened? The nomination didn't so much fail as lapse. Ninahexan (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the standard terminology for a nomination that doesn't culminate in confirmation. bd2412 T 03:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External link

The Library of Congress has a page devoted to Kagan: http://www.loc.gov/law/find/kagan.php It contains articles, Congrressional documents, transcripts of oral arguments by her, and more. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elena_Kagan&oldid=361918672"