Talk:Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Sentence in the lead

I've noticed some back and forth on the following sentence in the lead "Ginsburg has received considerable attention in American popular culture; dubbed the "Notorious R.B.G.", she is seen as a symbol of public resistance, private resilience, and justice." I don't know when this sentence was first added, but I don't recall it being there during the GA process. I'm inclined to think it's a little bit too much fluff. I think it's worth discussing here to find a consensus for keeping it as is, altering it, or getting rid of it. Any thoughts? Knope7 (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "public resistance" refers to. Was she at protests or rallies? I don't see that in the article. I think this is more of a cultural phenomena and is already covered in the popular culture section. MartinezMD (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with some amount of tweaking of the text, to conform with WP:LEAD (the text should summarize article body prose), but outright removal is not the answer. RBG is certainly a popular figure, more so than other supreme court justices. It's proper to convey something of this essence to the reader in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed that she is a symbol of the resistance. That sounds too political for a Justice and is not supported in the article. I removed a quote from 'In popular culture' that called her a symbol of the resistance and was followed by three sources, none of which included the quote in the article text (unless it was an embedded tweet). We need better sources than articles linking to a bunch of tweets. I think it's fine to note her popularity, but this is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't get carried away. Knope7 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Name of surgeon

I've noticed several edits over whether the name of the surgeon who recently operated on Ginsburg should be included in the article. I think we should discuss and attempt to reach a consensus. I would vote not to include it. Ginsburg has had surgery numerous times and if the surgery went according to plan, I don't see the point of including that level of detail. Who performed the surgery is not important to an article about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's entire life. Knope7 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Knope7, I removed it once, when I saw it included. The surgeon doesn't have her own wiki page. If it's really worth including the name of the surgeon, I say write the article first, and then we can talk about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above for the same reasons. Also perhaps applicably, William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor had cancer surgeries and no mention of their doctors either. RBG had a seemingly routine lobectomy with nothing notable about the surgeon's involvement. using the WP:BRD cycle, I'll remove the surgeon again until we decide whether they should be included. MartinezMD (talk)

An editor brandishing "MD" as part of a userID claims that since Valerie W. Rusch has no WP article, she is not notable? How pathetic! _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

83d40m, don't comment on commenters. Comment on articles. And Valerie Rusch doesn't have one. That doesn't mean she's not notable, but it does beg the question of why we should mention Rusch on RBG's article if she doesn't have her own. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe instead of attacking me, you should work on consensus building. There are thousands of doctors in existence. What would make this one notable? Then, even if notable, What would make mentioning her by name important in a simple lobectomy? Especially when I've shown two examples of other justices who had cancer surgery and no mention of their surgeon. And lastly, two other editors before me felt her inclusion wasn't indicated. Maybe you can address their points as well. MartinezMD (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• It was a routine surgery, and I can't see any particular reason why the name of the surgeon might be important. The surgeon themselves might be notable, but it seems like an extraneous detail in this article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Education

"Years later, Griswold told me he didn’t ask the question to be unkind. He said there were still doubting Thomases on the faculty who thought it was unwise to admit women. So the dean wanted to be armed with stories from the women themselves, about what use they would make of their legal education, so that he could satisfy his dubious colleagues." -- It seems like this would be a relevant and helpful follow-up quote, if someone wouldn't mind adding it to the article in the correct place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:141a:43:c86b:7ea9:b366:ccd3 (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Feminist References

Feminist references in the article reference articles which don't supply supporting resources. Therefore, they read as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.93.213 (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry in what way does this qualify as propaganda?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 05:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think getting specific would be helpful. Can you please discuss which entry in the article you mean? MartinezMD (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of party from scotus justice pages?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Removal of party from scotus justice pages. jhawkinson (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

First public appearance since cancer surgery: 2.4.19

Time Magazine and a number of other MSM news sources reported Ginsburg appeared in public for the first time since her recent cancer surgery. She reportedly attended a concerted dedicated to her "life in the law" at the National Museum of Women in the Arts on Monday night, February 4, 2019. "The justice sat in the back of the darkened auditorium at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. The National Constitution Center, which sponsored the concert, did not permit photography." Without photographic evidence of her appearance at a concert dedicated to her, some have questioned whether she was actually there at all (leaving questions in some minds as to whether she is still alive).--Artaxerxes 02:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you proposing adding this text to the article? These online conspiracy theories are not significant enough for this article. Even the source cited is dismissive of the theories. We don't need to add material every time someone makes a comment about Ginsburg on the internet. Knope7 (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Knope7. We also must recognize that there is no notoriety when the press publishes such an article without any kind of proof, or using twitter users posts as proof. It's clear to everyone that the media is struggling with the shift to the internet and will publish sensational pieces for impressions (clicks) without doing any kind of fact checking, as it's in their best interest to stay relevant more than truthful. User:neuroelectronic 6 February 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.172.153 (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

First appearance back at court?

References

This has been added to ITN ... ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.48.102 (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"Notorious R.B.G."

We can't assume readers will necessarily know who The Notorious B.I.G. was. To those who don't, "Notorious R.B.G." will not make much sense. Worse, as the title is said to reflect her "fiery dissents" and "refusal to step down", an uninformed reader could easily assume that the epithet is intended to be an insult. Context is definitely in order here, although I'm unsure how to make the connection without introducing original research. For the moment, I'm going to add a piped link; perhaps others have better ideas? Joefromrandb (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb and Sphilbrick: Sphilbrick, I'm just letting you know that what you recently removed has been brought up here before. I do think some additional context is in order, but the piped link isn't vandalism. I understand why you thought it was, though, as I think the reference is unclear, even with the piped link, for those unfamiliar with this aspect of American culture. Maybe we should be explicit about the reference, with something like: Ginsburg has received attention in American popular culture for her fiery liberal dissents and refusal to step down. She has been dubbed the "Notorious R.B.G.", in reference to the rapper Notorious B.I.G. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 22:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Airplaneman, After I removed the link, it occurred to me that it may well not have been vandalism but deliberate. However, I was responding to an OTRS email to Wikimedia. The reader was pointing out what they believed to be an error. While it may have been deliberate, I think it can be confusing and I support your alternative wording. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I just added "in reference to the rapper Notorious B.I.G." to the last sentence of the lead clarifying it. I don't think we need any additional changes.MartinezMD (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding a reference tag is meaningless to its relevance in the lead. Mentioning that in the already very long lead is in poor taste and reads horribly partisan. Should be removed from the lead and added below. Incredibly poor taste and lack of impartial judgement that it's even placed in the lead to begin with. Is it really that significant to belong there? Absolutely not.Jakobees (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2019

Ginsburg has received attention in American popular culture for her fiery liberal dissents and refusal to step down; she has been dubbed the "Notorious R.B.G."[2] The link at the end of the first section to the above line on "Notorious R.B.G." is incorrect. Please remove the link. Ripple.goyal (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the link. What specifically is wrong about it? MartinezMD (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

MartinezMD, I think the concern was not the reference, but the link, which was wrong, and I just removed. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence is nonsense.

It looks like two separate sentences were inadvertently joined:

"In her concurring opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), a decision upholding Michigan Law School's affirmative action admissions policy, Ginsburg noted there was accord between the notion that affirmative action admissions policies would have an end point and agrees with international treaties designed to combat racial and gender based discrimination." West5414 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)