Talk:Elena Kagan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed. The removal of "moderate" is pretty fucking important.Faceless Enemy (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Resolved

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

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)

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)

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)

That's good, thanks Rrius. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Born to a Jewish 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)

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)

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)

Agree: A properly sourced sentence on religious views is appropriate. --N419BH (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This report says she's Jewish. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 07:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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, [1] shortly after MSNBC reported it. 98.231.142.70 (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Or MSNBC scooped CNN, which may well have had trouble confirming the story. -Rrius (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Umm, it was on Politico on Friday. [2] 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)

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)

How is it POV? Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

OK. Then don't trust it. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Miscellaneous

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)

She won't be the first Jewish woman on the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Jewish.

John 02:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

{{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)

Done -- œ^™ 00:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What should the article say about rumors of Kagan sexuality?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[3], the Atlantic, and Slate, among other places.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

During Sotomayor's nomination Senator Leahy states “What she said was, of course one’s life experience shapes who you are, but ultimately and completely — and she used those words, ‘ultimately and completely’ — as a judge you follow the law,” ... Fitness to serve is one measure of a candidate; it is argued that alongside being qualified diversity on the court is often sought, or at the very least, discussed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States --Extrabatteries (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So are you agreeing with me that we shouldn't include speculation because being gay wouldn't make any more or less qualified? -Rrius (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that arguments in favor of diversity on the court are often made. Even though qualified is qualified, a candidates personal traits or affiliations have been weighed as a plus or minus. 108/111 justices have been male, 109/111 have been white; there will no longer be Protestants on the court which has caused discussion (even though 91/111 have been Protestant). Considering there have been zero gays, of course its a matter for dialog. At which point it becomes notable enough to enter into this article (if ever) I am in favor of doing so.--Extrabatteries (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

"...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)

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)

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)

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)

Looks like it's been removed. --N419BH (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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[4], Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan[5], Politico's Ben Smith[6], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

P.S., which US Senator said in 2005 that, absent a judicial background, a Supreme Court candidate requires "extreme scrutiny" ?

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-flashback-a-supreme-court-nominee-with-no-judicial-experience-requires-extreme-scrutiny/

Jessemckay (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's ignorant. Not all lawyers, indeed not all Supreme Court justices, are trial lawyers. Hell, not all trial lawyers do jury trials. In any event, whether she is gay or straight is not something that goes to qualifications or judgment so it is not clear why you think it would be relevant. That "extreme scrutiny" Obama was talking about was in regards to legal qualifications and experience, not who a nominee is attracted to. -Rrius (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

But is it really ignorant? Ignorance, by definition, is lack of knowledge or education. When we examine a candidate for office, do we not investigate the record? Do the candidate's statements, actions, or votes help assuage any doubts that we might have before we agree to support? Do we want another stealth candidate? I invite you to study the phrase "pig in a poke." In the Middle Ages, people purchased supposedly fresh meat in the London area marketplaces, but a tightly-closed sack ("poke") sold as pork was liable to contain anything. Now what about us in 2010? Do we have open government? Shall we know everything about our nominee, or nothing? Wouldn't it be refreshing for one of these thousands of candidates or appointees to step forward and say, "I'm a proud, gay, secular progressive and I firmly believe in big government, socialism, Marxism, and the whole ball of wax." The Democrats have a clear majority. Twenty weeks from tomorrow, Kagan is certain to be seated in the Supreme Court regardless of her views or activities, thus saith Obama, so why all the secrecy? Kagan should answer the question, not because it "matters," so much as that, for the first time, it doesn't matter. So let's meet the folks. Why are they hiding? What's that? White House orders? Oh my, no. Gay or straight, married, single, hand-fasted, or group-married, she should be proud of who she is. We know that some "first _____ Supreme Court Justice," labels are going to be applied. There are going to be some parades and some new schools named after our new Justice. But there are no straight pride parades (or are there?)

Andrew Sullivan article - "Answer the lesbian question"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article7127574.ece

Jessemckay (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it really is. You are obviously ignorant about what lawyers do for one thing. More importantly, it is incredibly arrogant to suggest that whether the woman is attracted to men or other women somehow bears upon her fitness to serve. You ask why all the secrecy; I ask you, what business is it of yours? Gay, straight, or other, she may well be quite proud of who she is without feeling any compulsion to tell you about it. It is baffling trying to ponder why it is that people such as yourself feel she has a duty to satisfy your juvenile curiosity. -Rrius (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, I hope that you will direct a personal comment to me on my Talk page. (And, Readers, may I direct you there as well if you have an opinion? Is that reasonable?) I have not offered my opinion about "whether gay equals unfit" on this page, and such an opinion doesn't belong here. For good or bad, the confirmation hearing is a political process. It is not a criminal or civil process -- so there's no guilt, no innocence, and no money damages, but the various Senators will offer their own opinions about what is right and wrong.

As pertains to Kagan, the gay question is not necessarily a prurient one. The government is requiring that all Americans' medical records be stored on the Internet, and some of these questions are intimate. Fine for us, but not fine for them. With President Obama's blessings, Kagan will become one of the most powerful women in the world on October 3, and in our race to document her we are struggling to get out of the blocks. We haven't heard her speak, we haven't heard any tough questions directed to her, and instead of an open debate like we might expect from an Obama-type person, we hear crickets. We hear nothing. We don't see opinions. We don't see rulings. We don't see lectures. We get the silent treatment, and in the Obama administration that means no interviews, friends and family won't talk to reporters without White House approval, and somebody left the country for a few months to stymie subpoenas. Justice is blind, but Justice nominee Kagan sees just fine and hears just fine and we are made blind, deaf, and... watch out... next comes mute.

JFK had serious back problems and took powerful medications. LBJ had a serious heart attack. Lurleen B. Wallace, even as she sought the office of Governor of Alabama, had terminal cancer. The voters simply had no idea. They lacked important information.

I'm reminded of the Governor of New Jersey, who told the assembled media, "I am a gay American," as he announced his resignation. Wouldn't it be great if we actually heard the nominee say that, right from the get-go? Gay, or straight, or bisexual, or the thing with the donkey, just like she's saying Coke or Pepsi. Aren't we a little sick of our government folks outing themselves or being outed just a little bit late? I remember reading an awfully long Obama Administration Application form - remember that? And then I noticed, when the candidate in question is a sure enough real radical, why, he doesn't even have to fill out the form that everyone else has to fill out, the one that asks dozens of intimate questions. Nope, he didn't fill out the form, so the President had no idea he held all of these crazy views and published all of these videos online.

It's about time we start seeing the long application form. A month after Kagan is seated, as many as 24 of the Senators who vote on confirmation present themselves before voters.

I don't know about others, but I was around five years ago when President Bush decided to appoint White House Counsel and personal friend, Harriet Miers, to the US Supreme Court. It was a very funny joke to many people on both sides of the aisle, and after 24 days, Miers asked for her name to be withdrawn.

Jessemckay (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No where in that ramble did you explain how her sexuality could possibly bear on her qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice. Your point about medical records on the Internet is so bizarre and irrelevant it is not even worth answering. As to your several analogies, her sexuality is not important information. It is nothing like the health problems of Kennedy, LBJ, or Wallace. The heart of Greavey's problem wasn't that he was gay or even that he lied about it; his sexuality was irrelevant. The problem was that he sexually harassed a staff member. Miers was objected to by Democrats as not qualified, and Republicans were worried she might be pro-choice. None of those analogies you draw in anyway supports your argument. Her sexuality is not relevant to her qualifications, so there is no reason to address this in the article. -Rrius (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, I hope you will direct any personal complaint to my talk page, where I pledge to respond to any comment you have, whether it deserves to be on this page or not. Your repeated conclusion that a candidate's sexuality isn't relevant to qualifications and therefore isn't notable -- unfortunately I cannot cede that point to you because I do not speak for the Senate and the voters. Senators may well explain their votes after the fact, saying, "I simply had no idea." Since the 1980s, it became important to know that a candidate was not a member of an all-white golf club; that a candidate's domestic help (maid, sitter, etc.) were legal workers and FICA taxes were properly withheld; that the candidate has not produced a volume of writings (opinions, even fiction writing) that would prove objectionable; other supposed character flaws have involved past alcoholism, past accusations of sexual harassment, video rental histories, and allegations of soda-can dander humor. Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell nominated by Nixon but were not confirmed because charges of sexism, racism, or past support for segregation were raised. I just don't remember a serious gay allegation, but in the Clarence Thomas days, the facts wouldn't matter as much as the significance of the allegation.

It made no difference in terms of qualifications, for example, that 2000 Presidential candidate George W. Bush had been cited for drink-driving in 1976 -- because, after all, the President is provided a driver; but this record was put into the news media machine three days before the election when it would have maximum effect. Pollster Zogby showed that the "Bush OUI" story moved the polls from Bush+3 to 50/50 on Election Day. So, it's possible that Senators from one party hope the "gay rumor" will cause Kagan to remove her name from the nomination, while opponents hope that the same rumor will trip up examiners at the hearing and allow counter-charges of homophobia. Jessemckay (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You really don't understand what is going on here. The question is whether we should include a rumour about her sexuality. Might some senator take it into consideration? Sure, it's unlikely to sway a vote, but sure, it's possible. What difference does that make? None. Whether it is conceivable that someone might make a decision based on something does not make it relevant to this article. If some senator in fact says, "I voted no because she's a lesbian," then we should include it. So far that hasn't happened. Your latest set of analogies are even worse than the ones that came before. Membership in an all-white club is evidence of racism. Employment of illegal immigrants and failure to pay payroll taxes for employees go to honesty and public-mindedness. Driving under the influence goes to judgment. Sexual harassment goes to judgment, the degree to which the candidate will be a liability to the institution they would be joining, and other flaws. Printing that rumours exist about those things would be okay. But, most importantly, with regard to the things you allude to, we aren't talking about rumours. By and large we are talking about facts, or at least on-the-record allegations. The retracted rumours about Kagan's sexuality are no where near that universe. I realize you don't like Obama and Kagan (that is clear from your comments to this point, so don't bother denying it), and that is obviously clouding your judgment. I'd like to be done with this nonsense, so I'd ask you not to respond with something provocative. -Rrius (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, I hope you will criticize me personally on my talk page. I will discuss personal sentiments of politicians and their minions on that page, BTW.

Hopefully this story helps: In a certain town, there was a pop singing duo consisting of two girls. The girls have beautiful voices and they are very well-received locally. At some point they go national, which means these two 16-year olds are suddenly putting a lot more time into their touring schedules. Then a rumor emerges that the girls are lesbians. People who believe the lesbian rumor point out provocative lyrics to one of the songs on their album and how the girls will face each other and sing a love song. More and more people believe the rumor and the duo achieves nationwide status. But: is the rumor true? Are the teen girls deeply in love with each other? Or is it a particularly ugly lie spread by the manager in order to boost sales? I suggest that Wikipedians should make no comment of such a rumor because these girls are underage and such speculation becomes prurient; however, if they were adults and not teens the rumor is probably notable if it is popular enough, and the properly-sourced speculation that the whole thing is a hoax is probably also notable.

I think I can safely opine here that (1) gay rumors haunt pretty much every celebrity; (2) this is annoying to celebrities; (3) the "none of your business" response is popular and well-founded; (4) I really don't care what Chaz Bono thinks about all things small and large, because it's not going to matter much between now and when I'm 80; and (5) and this is important, I really don't like playing the trillion-dollar home version of "20 Questions," but when someone in the audience blurts out a question for me to ask, I don't like it when the judges tell me that I can't ask it.

Jessemckay (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You should take care not to mess with other people's comments, and you really shouldn't go back and change yours, especially after others have responded to them. In the end, the fact that you don't like it when "the judges tell you" you can't ask a question is irrelevant. This is not about what you can ask, but about what should be printed in this article. The fact of the existence of rumours is not important, and should not be mentioned. It is as simple as that. If you want to start a blog dedicated to demanding that Elana Kagan explain her sexuality because somehow you deserve to know and it somehow has something to do with how she'll decide cases, then go ahead and do so. You have a right, despite what you say "the judges" tell you, to just that. The article, however, is not your forum for challenging Kagan to answer the questions you wish her to. Your maybe-gay teen-pop-duo hypothetical is a complete mystery to me, and I don't really care what you are getting at. Nothing you could mean changes the fact that reporting a rumour in this situation is unwarranted. -Rrius (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Again, this is off-topic. We're not here to discuss the nomination and confirmation process. I'm on the verge of archiving this entire thread, and will do so the next time there's a comment that isn't directly related to improvements to this article.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • You have yet to establish how discussing whether to include the gay rumours is off-topic or anything other than a discussion about improving the article. I believe Jessemckay's reasons are irrelevant, but he or she thinks they are. I for one am assuming that his or her belief is genuine and that the arguments are made in good faith. If you dare remove another comment in this thread or archive this thread before it has run its course, I will revert you and report the situation to ANI. I don't know why you can't see that we are directly discussing an article-content matter, but it is. If it bothers you that we are having this particular discussion, either take this page off your watchlist or get over it. -Rrius (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• This thread keeps gettung off-topic. The sole topic for this page is how to improve this article. We're not here to discuss Kagan, politics, or general social issues. Further remarks like this be carefully deleted, per WP:TPG.

  Will Beback  talk  03:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 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)

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)

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)

FYI, politico has an article out today where they interviewed Kagan's friends and they say she is straight - [7]. Remember (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

True. The same can be said of the article Newsweek just ran on the same subject. bd2412 T 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Howard Kurtz article on this topic claims liberals are baiting heterosexual GOP with Kagan "gay" rumors, to use as a political football. It's very possible, according to the article, that Kagan is being tagged as gay when she really isn't, in order to expose Republicans as so-called homophobes. In order to keep out of this trap, Republicans should focus on keeping gays out of the military, not keeping them out of the Supreme Court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR2010051301283.html Jessemckay (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think if this odd controversy should be covered, it should be discussed on the nominations page and not this page since it seems to be more about the crazy nomination process and less about Kagan. Remember (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where in the linked article Kurtz says that Republicans should "focus on keeping gays out of the military". bd2412 T 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

BD2412, should Senators discuss the DADT policy at the Kagan hearing, this is a matter of policy and position and viewpoint; it is not directed at the nominee in an attempt to tag or smear her.

Jessemckay (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think if there is no reliable source saying that she is gay then this article shouldn't be saying she is gay. Even if she was gay, if she was not saying that she is gay, then there surely can not be a source saying she is gay. Isn't that the summation of the situation? People are speculating about her sexual orientation — so what? Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So what? So --- an ordinary person like you or me, who is not well known outside of her town, her industry, her circle if you will --- is about to be given an awesome amount of power to shape and change the country, not for a year or five years but for the rest of her lifetime. A few people are scrambling to learn anything about this person, and sometimes when you dig for dirt you get mud. If this story is dirt (in other words if there is truth to it) then it is notable in part because the White House denied the story and attempted to hide it. If this story is mud (if it is untrue) then it may be notable if someone wished to slander Kagan or if someone wished to set up conservative senators.

Jessemckay (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Again, this page has one purpose: improving the associated article, which is a biographical article on a living person. Further debate here of the nomination or wider social issues will be removed. This is not a forum. Jonathunder (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

It's easy to guess what side of the fence you sit on.. 72.100.140.84 (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Is it really anti-semitic to mention that she was born in a Jewish family? Truthsort (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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).

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)

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

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)

"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)

What source says she was "never married?" It looks un-sourced. Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Here's one source for it. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

The Condoleezza Rice page has this one line about her family status; "Rice has never married, and has no children.". We could copy this sentence verbatim for the Kagan 'personal life' section. "Kagan has never married, and has no children.". Mytwocents (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. Jonathunder (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Added under external links. Jonathunder (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Interviews with family members

Have there been any interviews between media personnel and Kagan's family members? I heard there was a media blackout. If so, is the White House involved?

Jessemckay (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

2008 is the only year for which we have her pay. Feel free to find additional information. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Do we have citation(s) covering Harvard's policy/history concerning on campus military recruitment? TIA --Tom (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This citation [8] is used to cite the brief mention in the Harvard University article.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's actually on the ROTC policy but I think the two are linked.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Tom (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why has the title been removed? Having it not appear makes it look like something is being hidden. Also, the conversation below regarding the actual article contents is interesting. Has anyone verified the source referred to (Patriot Post? Never heard of it).--Lfarmingham (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

== Does her thesis show her to be neutral on Socialism, like a professor was later quoted as saying, or actually rooting for it? The ending paragraph reads: "The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the debilitating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York proves anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope."

If that isn't a plea for Socialism, what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.164.122 (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

An actual plea for socialism. What you quoted sounds supportive of radicalism, not socialism. -Rrius (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"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)

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

Actually I think "unsuccessful" nomination would be more appropriate, having looked at the WP page for unsuccessful nominations to the supreme court, which seems to be a more neutral wording. If that is standard terminology for a nomination that doesn't culminate in confirmation then it would apply to circumstances where the nominated person declines the nomination, and in such a context the concept of failure doesn't seem at all appropriate, in much the same way it seems inappropriate where the nomination lapses.Ninahexan (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point (I could accept either resolution), but this was not a declination or a withdrawal. The nomination was sent to the Senate, which could have considered it and voted favorably, but it didn't come out of there alive. bd2412 T 01:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ninahexan is on to something. Saying it "failed" or was "unsuccessful" implies the Senate voted her down. At the very least it is not as particular as it could be. Why not call it as it is?—Republicans blocked the nomination.[9][10][11][12][13] -Rrius (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I know it wasn't a declination or a withdrawal, but it wasn't voted down either. I just thought the word "fail" was loaded with some connotations that "unsuccessful" avoids. It seems more neutral, that's all. Ninahexan (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you thought it was any of those things. Rather, I was following on from "Isn't there a more descriptive word for what happened?". "Unsuccessful" is just a slightly less charged version of the same problem as "failed". It is vague to say either one, and each leaves the reader with the impression that she was rejected, which she wasn't; she never even had a hearing. -Rrius (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say the the nomination was 'withdrawn?  Will Beback  talk  05:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No. She was nominated on June 17, and the nomination was referred to the Judiciary Committee the same day. The committee did not hold a hearing or doing anything else with the nomination, so when the Senate adjourned its session sine die on December 15, the nomination was automatically returned to the President under Senate rules. -Rrius (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"I wasn't saying you thought it was any of those things"- I know, I was replying to the previous message. Sorry for the confusion. It seems that lapsed provides more information than the word failed, and isn't too wordy. The lapse is explained later in the article anyway, so it seems logical to change it. Ninahexan (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Given Rrius's clear explanation (thanks), "lapsed" seems appropriate. "Expired without action" might work too.   Will Beback  talk  06:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Expired without action" sounds right to me. bd2412 T 22:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A.B. or B.A.?

Her education is described as "A.B." from Princeton, but sidebar says "B.A.". Someone?Ronsword (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Princeton University awards the Bachelor of Arts as an A.B. (artium baccalaureus). It means the same thing. Jonathunder (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed in the article. bd2412 T 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Attacked by gay people

Should we include attacks by gay people on Kagan for being (according to them) the closet? 72.47.38.205 (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources?   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Is she related to the foreign policy Kagans?

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)

Yes she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.40.134 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Taken far enough back, all human beings are related. What the Slate article investigated was whether there is any documented kinship to the other Kagens, and it found none. Jonathunder (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. Just remove anything that isn't cited properly immediately. Probably tedious but its the only way to balance breaking news while reducing vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattkloz (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In the specific example of a US Supreme Court nominee, I do *not* agree. It's the only functional example in the US of a coronation - state power conferred for life upon a person who is not particularly well-known. Only 100 people have a say about the nominee (101 including the President) and as of today only 23 of these people are sitting for re-election in November. In 20 weeks, whatever is said here won't matter at all, but until the confirmation it would seem altogether appropriate for this space to contain as much sound as fury as is possible. I certainly cannot imagine why our last vestige of royalty should be further corrupted with a private censorship campaign.

Jessemckay (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, as you were already editing here in 2005, when the exact same nomination-and-confirmation system was in place, but raised nary a peep about the "coronation" of Roberts and Alito. bd2412 T 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like I gave Sotomayor a pass as well, for which I would like to profusely apologize. Jessemckay (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not the role of Wikipedia editors to use this space to spread fury. See WP:SOAPBOX.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

See if you can corroborate it with another source. That one is specifically labeled "Opinion". --N419BH (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. An editorial in the Harvard Crimson said, "The evident double standard sets a poor example for the student body and for the wider community..""

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

Since no one has objected, I have added it to the article. Physalia physalis (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• There's something wrong about that line. "Normally, students who do such a thing are required to leave the school, but Kagan did not require that of the two professors" - but what is "normally" done in cases of plagiarism by professors? Are these tenured professors, immune from a simple firing? Of course there's a "double standard" in how professors are treated. Students don't "normally" grade upper-level exams, either. bd2412 T 20:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The line does closely follow the NYT source, see the second paragraph. You may have a reasonable reply in a debate, but what the line says is what she was criticized for.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed this section from the article, pending confirmation that Kagan had the authority to fire professors accused of unintentionally committing plagiarism. Accusing someone of applying a double standard is meaningless unless they had the ability to apply the same standard in both situations. If the New York Times piece addresses this concern, then the segment should be restored with complete disclosure of the circumstances. bd2412 T 20:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I find that reasoning a bit flawed. Reporting that actions were criticized is different then determining officially that her actions were wrong. It seems a little bit like original research that we would need to determine who is right and wrong, instead of writing based on the sources that she was criticized for her part in this.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the links, I am not seeing any assertion in the New York Times piece of criticism of Kagan. The piece does indicate that one of the professors had been disciplined, and the other professor's situation was under review. The other piece, an editorial by the student newspaper, does suggest a double standard is at play, but does not expressly criticize Kagan for that; it also does not support the language of the above section, in that it says students who plagiarize are normally suspended for a semester or a year, with expulsion coming only in "extreme cases". bd2412 T 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Kagan and socialism

The current version of this article includes the following: "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."

Whereas it is fine to include Wilentz 2cents, this article is failing to state the obvious by ANY fair reading of the thesis. It is 134 pages lamenting why radical socialism has not taken hold in America, and proposes solutions to that "problem". There is no question, Ms. Kagen was a socialist at the time this thesis was written, and was actively advocating that socialism must use the Democratic process before it can implement radical change.

Just look at the preface to her thesis: "The staff members of the Tamiment Institute greatly facilitated my research for this thesis ... Finally, I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas."

By those words alone, this thesis is a watershed document together with experiences shared by her own brother's "involvement in radical causes." Throughout that thesis "radial" is used to mean "radial socialist". (Of course, the wikipedia already has an article on the "Tamiment Institute", which is a research center for historical data on "radials and left" including socialism in all of its forms.)

And look that the conclusion in the thesis: "The story [of American Socialism] is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope."

Quoting from an article today from the Patriot Post: In her thesis, Kagan lamented the fact that free enterprise overcame socialism and concluded, "In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness."

"Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force?" wondered Kagan. "Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties? Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjdadis (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• That is what is called an "observation", not a "lamentation" - if writing about the facts surrounding socialism makes one a socialist, then that label could be slapped on every Wikipedian who has edited any article on the subject. Please show me where in her thesis Kagan endorsed socialism (rather than merely making observations about it) or said that America should be socialist. bd2412 T 16:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I object to your editing my original title, just as I should have objected to the repeated redaction of the title of that thesis ("To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933".) Just what "Final Conflict" do you think she's forecasting? And why is the wikipedia afraid to disclose that title? Why is the wikipedia afraid to post a link to the actual thesis, but more than ready to post a link to her thesis adviser's defense. I didn't object to his "2cents", I objected to misleading the public and treating the public as too stupid to want to read that paper ourselves.

• Moreover, you can have your own opinion, but you can not make up your own facts. you might want to look up the word "lamentation", because that's exactly what she does in that thesis, systematically, and certainly as per the sections I quoted and the sections that the Patriot Post quoted. From the latin, lamenting is an emotion most often associated with the loss of death. And that death, here, in her thesis, was American Socialism as a political movement.

• Your other claim is just as specious, tortured, tautological, deceitful and frankly a waste of time. Clearly, every wikipedia article, and therefore my own contribution here, are not advocating [sic] socialism. To assert same is a flat out falsification of my own work here, and you should be ashamed at such a pathological attempt.

• Moreover, as to her thesis advocating socialism, by any FAIR reading, the ENTIRE thesis is looking at the national and then New York City historical reasons why socialism has NOT become a replacement for one of the "sham" political parties, "Republican" and "Democrat". It specifically makes recommendations as to how American socialists SHOULD have operated rather than fail to thrive and implement "radical change" to America.
  • Are you a mind reader? Lamentation is (as you have said) an emotion. Please show where Kagan states in her thesis that she personally feels badly that socialism failed in the U.S., or otherwise indicates a personal emotional response. If you can't point to that, you can't characterize an observation as a lamentation. Otherwise, any time anyone writes that "X failed", the statement could be characterized as a "lamentation". bd2412 T 17:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Again your response begs the question, is purely argumentative, specious and plainly ignorant of the facts. There are 134 pages all focused on the original facts surrounding the death of the American Socialist party. Hence, my use of the word "lamentation" is absolutely accurate and fully descriptive.
  • Moreover, it's quite telling that none of these complaints cite miss quote from this thesis.
  • In fact, here's another excerpt where its conclusion section begins: "In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness." Those are not my opinions, those are hers. And no where in her thesis does she cite any value proposition for any socialist implementation anywhere or at any time in history. And clearly she had access to any and all the historical data vis a vis the "Tamiment Institute". Tjdadis (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that this editor (User:Tjdadis) tried to include Obama's Kenyan birth certificate on the Obama article [14], I'm not sure I trust his ability to judge sources as accurate and NPOV, so could someone else check out what he is quoting. Remember (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

now there's an adult response to the facts here. It's a ridiculous non-sequitur to bring something up like this here, but clearly there are several states on record already that they will demand to see the proof of the Presidents natural citizenship before admitting his name to 2012 general election ballots. Tjdadis (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

By the same stroke, she is referring to capitalism as glorious. Are you seriously suggesting that someone can't write at length on a philosophy without adhering to that philosophy? bd2412 T 00:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't answered why the title of the paper has been removed. Also, "glories of capitalism" in this context does not mean that she thinks that capitalism is glorious. But we are not here to make a judgement as to what she thinks. Which is why Willentz's defense should be balanced by some of the concerns that others have raised. Otherwise, it sounds like absolution before any accusation has been made. Please read the thesis. And please, if someone links to it, do not remove it.--Lfarmingham (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to including the title of the thesis. However, "please read the thesis" is no solution. It is merely an invitation to original research. It is not our place to read the thesis and interpret it to mean that its author experienced certain emotions while writing it, but rather to report what reliable third party sources say can actually be drawn from the text of the thesis. bd2412 T 14:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No original research does not mean not reading the source. A published thesis by a known author itself is a reliable source as to what is in the thesis, and it can be quoted in the article without issue. But my reasoning for asking you to read it was that I felt it would give you context which you might not be aware of based on previous comments (since many of the comments here and commentary elsewhere has been regarding snippets).--Lfarmingham (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The line I'm drawing is between reading the thesis and interpreting it as exposing the emotional state of the author towards the topic. People often write about ideologies for which they have contempt. People write about philosophies in which they have a passing curiosity. The only way to know a person's personal predilections from their writings is if they write something akin to "my personal predilection is X". If someone writes "I lament that X failed" you may quote that, and there you have support for claiming "lamentation". However, it is your own interpretation to say that just because a person explained why "X failed", then this person would have preferred to see X succeed, and is lamenting the failure of X. bd2412 T 14:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Lfarmingham, if you can't see the difference between Kagan's thesis being a source about socialism and being a source what Kagan feels about socialism, you need to take a step back and examine whether your own feelings aren't getting in the way here. Taking quotes out of context serves no purpose other than to try to paint her as a socialist, which would serve nothing other than the purposes of right-wingers who oppose her nomination, and don't really need the excuse to throw around the word "socialist" anyway. -Rrius (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So you are OK with language from Wilentz characterizing her paper as neutral, but no mention of the mini-controversy should be made? So what we have in the article is a defense of something that isn't claimed? It doesn't even look right, as he is basically leaping to her defense. It looks right in the NYT article, because it is in context. Let's face it: the defense was put in this article and the title removed to frame an anticipated debate. I'm just saying it needs to be re-balanced to speak from NPOV. And I will thank you to not make assumptions about what I think about her thesis. What I think about it means nothing, but it is a valid source. The fact that you are throwing "right wingers" and your obvious disdain for those who label others "socialist" makes me think that for you this is a slightly emotional issue.--Lfarmingham (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, have never had an issue with including the title. I have no issue with including a reference to a reliable source indicating that notable opponents of Kagan's nomination may seek to paint the thesis as favoring socialism. I have yet to see such a source, but I have not been busying myself with searching for it. What I object to, however, is the effort by Tjdadis to inject his own views that Kagan's analysis of the failure of socialism consitutes a "lamentation" on Kagan's part, based on Tjdadis' own "reading between the lines" of the thesis. bd2412 T 16:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming the added quote from her thesis relating to socialism is following an agenda to paint her as a closet socialist. It is a waste of space, and is only there to fling mud. You could find many quotes from her thesis that give a totally different impression, and this would start a pointless back and forth. As far as I am concerned the quote from her thesis borders on original research, since the inclusion of it in this page is from a user's interpretation of it. Why not wait until the thesis is discussed by reliable sources? Ninahexan (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: commonscat

{{Commons category|Elena Kagan}} Please add

{{Commons category|Elena Kagan}}

to the top of the Elena Kagan#External links section. Thanks. 67.101.6.7 (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

{{Request edit}} At the end of the discussion regarding Kagan making improvements at Harvard Law School, after footnote 27, please add another footnote. FN Elena Kagan and the Miracle at Harvard, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1631496 Thanks

 Done Please be more specific with future requests, as there were two uses of footnote 27 close together, and it took some effort to work out which one was meant. twilsonb (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Politico article blog on Kagan's court hearing, about a question she refused to answer vaguely answered

link

During her confirmation hearing, Kagan was asked whether or not it would be constitutional for the government to force people to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day. Kagan did not give a clear answer to the question.

71.182.185.53 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty clear answer to me. Also, I have adjusted the headline to more accurately reflect the information you have presented. N419BH 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Acting Solicitor General

This comment is applicable here and on the Solicitor General of the United States page. Kagan has stepped aside in her duties as Solicitor General, but still, as of today's date, the OSG official site says that Kagan is the Solicitor General. Certainly, Katyal is the acting Solicitor General, but should he be listed in the line of succession of Solicitors General, or if Kagan's nomination is not successful and she resumes the office? Curious.--Enos733 (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted erroneous information.

I deleted an erroneous and unsubstantiated claim that Kagan has already been approved. The link led to a page that had absolutely nothing to do with that statement. I also could not independently find any news source that confirmed it.Napkin65 (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that you may have deleted too quickly. What you deleted said that she had been approved by the committee, which is true. I heard it reported on NPR as I was driving to work yesterday, and I see it in the New York Times as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/us/21kagan.html?_r=1&hpw Sterrettc (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Questioning Ms. Kagan's Title

The article now states that Ms. Kagan is currently an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This is presumably a result of the Senate having voted to confirm her nomination. I wonder, however, is this is not premature. We have no sources that she has been given her judicial commission by the president yet, and she has not taken any oath of office. I do not know the legalities involved, but I am not sure if at this moment she is actually an Associate Justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.83.61 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The article also indicates she takes office August 7. Jonathunder (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Attending Synagogue

hello. I don't intend to do any editing, just read the article and was shaking my (European) head. The fact that Kagan is Jewish is not directly mentioned where it should be, but indirectly “introduced” by the incomprehensible remark (you have no idea, how many people there are in the world, who don't have the faintest idea, what a synagogue is, and who “attends” it, or what for) “and attended Lincoln Square Synagogue”, which won't do at all. Please, change it. Thanks, ajnem (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Perhaps you missed "Kagan was independent and strong-willed in her youth, according to Bill Lubic, a former law partner, who recalled Kagan clashed with her Orthodox rabbi over aspects of her bat mitzvah." I mean rabbi and bat mitsvah are technical Jewish terms you are perhaps not familiar?

And then there is "Kagan's rabbi, Shlomo Riskin, had never performed a ritual bat mitzvah before." Most non-Jews don't have a rabbi but I'm just one of your stereotypical American strawmen who don't have the faintest idea what a synagogue is and who attends them.

"Today, she identifies with Conservative Judaism." Again, this is a sentiment not likely found in non-Jews.

"She is also the eighth Jewish justice in the Supreme Court's history, and the third on the current bench."

Given how sparsly her religious affinity has been treated and not directly mentioned in the main article, I can certainly see how you would think the way you do.

By the way, what was your point again? Nightg1 (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the point is that it is not outright said "She is a Jewish American." It could be mentioned earlier in the article instead of dribbled into the paragraphs later. That aside but closely related, the "Personal Life and Educational History" section as a whole reads like a storybook rather than an encyclopedia. Really, it's interesting to note, but her high school yearbook photo? I mean, I'm not for hasty deletion, but could it be better presented or justified perhaps? 184.0.123.138 (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite detention without trial

I've rewritten this section, which is based on a single article by Charlie Savage in the earliest days of the Obama administration. As I understand it, Kagan may have been questioned on this point at length during the Supreme Court nomination process but there's absolutely nothing about that here as yet, so I've tagged the section as incomplete. Obviously any actual words from Kagan about her views on the matter, rather than paraphrases by a journalist, would help to make this section far more complete. --TS 22:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this section, especially if it is based on a single article, worthy of continued mention in the Wikipedia article? My preference would be to delete.--Enos733 (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted for now. If someone finds more substance with reliable sourcing, and it is written without violating WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:RECENT, it can be added. Cresix (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

With some difficulty, I've found the official transcript of the solicitor general hearing and the part of the transcript that addresses this issue. Why don't you let me update the section with some quotes and the source and see how it reads before we decide whether to delete it?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Cresix (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Having now read the relevant part of the transcript, I don't think Kagan's responses are especially radical (in WP parlance, notable), particularly in the context of a solicitor general confirmation hearing. Therefore, I vote in favor of deleting the subsection. For those of you who want to look at the transcript and form your own opinion, you can find it here (it's quite large). What I read starts at page 112 when Graham is questioning her.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus that the section should be deleted? If no one comments objecting, I'll delete it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think so. Cresix (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation

Has Obama signed her judicial commission yet? Until then, she's a confirmed nominee, but not a justice... It's the commission that makes them a justice, not the confirmation vote or the swearing in; see Marbury v. Madison. Just sayin'. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

According to CNN, she received her commission on August 5. However, I'm not sure you're correct. For example, according to the Federal Judicial Center, Sotomayor received her commission on August 6, 2009, the same day the Senate confirmed her. However, the the official Supreme Court bios and WP say she took her seat on August 8, which is the day she was sworn in.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is she?

Who is this woman? Is she really so notable to deserve a front page news feature? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Who are you? Looking through your talk page, it looks like you are a professional troll. 69.115.54.57 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah I've got a real job so I can't be considered a pro. But seriously, this feature seems like a prime example of USA bias. This news item means nothing to most of the world. I read the article, and she still means nothing to me. I'm not trying to be a d***, I just really think that this isn't front page material. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As for US bias, if you want numbers, think of how many native speakers of English there are in the world and how many of them live in the United States, and consider that the Wikimedia Foundation's postal address is in San Francisco and the cofounders of Wikipedia are from Alabama and Alaska. All that aside, she's Obama's newest Supreme Court Appointee. That's a big deal. 184.0.123.138 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're here to discuss improving this article, you are in the right place. For discussion of the main page or in the news, please use the talk pages for those. Jonathunder (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why Is There no Mention of Her Multiple connections to the Monsanto Corporation????? - anonymous coward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.147.25 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources and significance? Monsanto is one of the largest corporations on earth, meaning that almost every person on the planet has some "connection" with them. bd2412 T 15:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Law shool attendance

"After attending Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard Law School..." (from intro)

Do these all refer to law schools? Why would Kagan attend 3 law schools? DRosenbach ^{(Talk |Contribs)} 13:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the only law school is the one that says it's a law school. I don't find it unclear. Not sure about other readers.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So 2 colleges? Or she has a Masters? DRosenbach ^{(Talk |Contribs)} 14:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the article spells it out clearly:

She received Princeton's Daniel M. Sachs Class of 1960 Graduating Scholarship, one of the highest general awards conferred by the university, which enabled her to study at Worcester College, Oxford University. She earned a master of philosophy at Oxford in 1983. She received a Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, at Harvard Law School in 1986.

If you see a way to word this more clearly, please do. Jonathunder (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the lead, which is what's being challenged, it's easy to word more clearly, but it will make it wordier. The issue is whether it's necessary. The Infobox has her degrees listed. As you point out, the body has even more detail. I don't see why the lead requires more than it has.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think DRosenbach missed the letter S in his own post....the line referred to is fine as is, "After attending Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard Law School..." If the mention was to more than 1 law school, there would be an S at the end of the word school (as DRosenbach added when questioning the passage, "Do these all refer to law schools? Why would Kagan attend 3 law schools?". With out that pluralizing S, the reference is clearly to three different schools, one of which is a law school.Rhodesisland (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thread closed, please - comments on sexuality should not be here

BLP violations --Errant[tmorton166] (chat!) 18:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
I don't disagree with their point. You're recommending that the article mention Kagan's sexual orientation based on spurious evidence that she looks gay by your standards, which is original research, or by using substandard sources at celebgalz, or general conjecture that stout women with short hair must certainly be gay. This is patently ridiculous. Andrew Sullivan's tone does not seem serious. The more you belabor the issue and pretend (or are simply unable) to understand that there is a significant difference between the press speculating on one's sexual orientation and a person in the news ending the speculation and stating her sexual orientation as fact, the more you draw in editors to this discussion, which violates the BLP policy. Unless Kagan confirms that she is gay, no mention of her sexual orientation should be included in the article. It bears repeating every time you bring something else up. Unless Kagan confirms it, it should not be included. --Moni3 (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC) This post is certainly quite a piece of work. What I have recommended is to put the White House denial in this article and to source the statement to the Washington Post.[15] Dozens of media outlets have covered this issue without waiting for Kagan to, "confirm that she is gay." We can report what they have said without, "stating her sexual orientation as fact." I have explained this several times already, but it seems that you don't want to understand. When you or others post unfair accusations against me, it is only natural that I respond. It is not a question of belaboring anything. Kauffner (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Whatever happens with the text of User:Kauffner's claims, we need to have some sort of visible warning for the article and the talk page that any claim that she is a lesbian (or not) will be reverted unless it is based on a statement by Kagan, or by someone claiming to have actually dated her. Rumour and innuendo may be enough for Kauffner and the person he quoted above, but apparently people do not realize it is not enough for Wikipedia, so something must be done. This discussion is tiresome, so we should do all we can to avoid more iterations of it than necessary. -Rrius (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC) NOTE: I have deleted some of the posts here due to BLP concerns, but left these two for context. Please do not add to this thread. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Her Picture

An editor just swapped out the then brightly smiling picture of her for the more somber picture saying "official" is better, that despite the former picture was one of her in her robe in front of the American flag in the justices' conference room. I remember a slight battle I had over the current picture of Scalia, which if the editor who replaced Kagan's picture thinks her picture wasn't official enough, might have apoplexy over. I thought the Scalia picture was way too casual (and weird) but got shouted down. Of course, her picture in the S. Ct. article is the picture replaced by the editor. Maybe, he should change it for consistency (I sincerely have nothing against the editor, even though it sounds like I'm taking potshots at him).

Anyway, barring a really grotesque picture, I don't care one way or the other. I just think that pictures are so subjective that there will always be disagreement about the "best" picture, and we ought to leave well enough alone. Or maybe we should have picture albums in articles so users can scroll through them.

My guess is the "current" picture will remain until some other editor comes along and replaces it, giving some "basis" for doing so in the edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree photo selection is very subjective. I don't see anything more "official" about the one of her in the chair. In fact, all current and retired justices' photos (with the interesting exceptions of Scalia and Kagan) are in their robes. I haven't looked at all articles for deceased justices, but I suspect most of them are in their robes also if such a photo is available. There is nothing "unofficial" about a photo of justice in his/her robe in the Supreme Court building. The "official" nonsense is not the real reason it was changed; it was a personal preference. If no one expresses any objection within a reasonable period of time, my opinion is to change it back to the photo of her in her robe. Cresix (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the photo used on the Supreme Court's website - here - http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justice_pictures/EKagan1.jpg or here - http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/portraits/Elena_Kagan2.jpg - if the question is about being "official." Do the articles for the Presidents of the United States use the official photograph/image? If so, then we should used one of the public images produced by the Supreme Court for each of the Justices. --Enos733 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's not much difference between the one linked above by Enos733 and the one that had been in the article: File:Kagan 10-1-2010.jpg, except this one is in color (which makes it a better photo, in my opinion). Cresix (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Kagan 10-1-2010.jpg is a cropped image - File:Sotomayor,_Ginsburg,_and_Kagan_10-1-2010.jpg. --Enos733 (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Cropped per se does not make it a bad image. If it had another justice's shoulder in front of part of her face that might be an issue. It's a good image, clearer than http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justice_pictures/EKagan1.jpg, and it's in color. I see no problem with it. Cresix (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Do we REALLY need to include that she's the EIGHTH Jewish justice? Are we just going to keep counting forever??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.63.103 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes we do. Eight Jewish justices out of 112 justices in the 221-year history of the Court is notable. The second Jewish female justice is even more notable. Appointment of minorities to a court traditionally male and non-Jewish is important. Do we need to report the ethnicity, religion, or gender of white, Protestant males appointed to the court? No, there have been LOTS of those. Cresix (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

White House and judicial nomination

The reference to her statement about the Klu Klux Klan and the NRA as bad guy organizations is admirable, but seems randomly placed unless there is a comprehensive listing of notable viewpoints and positions -- which there isn't. Should we build it out or take it out? Lawblogger18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC). The real question is after she advised the White House over the health care reform law, will she excuse herself from the up coming case, on a conflict of interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.12.68.9 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about Sources

Bbb23: I understand the viewpoint that one pundit does not make a generally held belief, but I am unsure why the New Republic is deemed a poor source in itself. I will seek additional sources, but could you give me guidance on what your viewpoint is regarding appropriate sources? Lawblogger18 (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Eighth Jewish justice

Jojhutton removed 8th Jewish justice from the lead, and BD2412 restored it. I don't think her being the 8th Jew to be appointed is the real issue because that fact is in the body of the article (and in my view belongs in the article). The issue is whether it belongs in the lead. I don't feel strongly about the issue, but I suppose I favor not including it in the lead because I don't think it's important enough. The lead is supposed to "explain why the subject is interesting or notable" (WP:LEAD) and I don't think her being the 8th Jew to be appointed is that notable, whereas being the 4th woman, to me, is much more notable, partly because women comprise a much larger group of the population and partly because as Jojhutton hints, at what number does a fact start losing traction?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And its not cited at all. Put it in the body, which it isn't now anyway, and since the lead is a summery of the body, it probably doesn't belong.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about whether it should be in the lead (although it should be in the article), but one point about "not cited at all". It is cited in the article. It does not need to be cited in the lead if there is already a citation in the article. Cresix (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As I said, it is in the body: "She is the fourth female justice in the Court's history (and, for the first time, part of a Court with three female justices), and the eighth Jewish justice appointed,[68]". And it's cited in the body - see here. In my view, it doesn't need to be cited twice (see WP:LEADCITE). However, as the guideline states, it is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus. I think redundant citations clutter the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree it's a matter of editorial judgment (meaning it's not absolutely required to cite in the lead if cited elsewhere). But removing it from the lead with the edit summary "Then provide a citation" misses the point. The issue is whether it belongs in the lead (as I said, I have no opinion), not whether it should be cited in the lead. If a consensus were to develop here to include in the lead (which I doubt), it could go in the lead, uncited. Cresix (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Then the question is, when does being the umpteenth number of something begin to become non notable? In other words, what is the line to be crossed?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I'll quote myself from above: It belongs in the article (not necessarily the lead) because "eight Jewish justices out of 112 justices in the 221-year history of the Court is notable. The second Jewish female justice is even more notable. Appointment of minorities to a court traditionally male and non-Jewish is important. Do we need to report the ethnicity, religion, or gender of white, Protestant males appointed to the court? No, there have been LOTS of those." When do we stop counting? When no one thinks it's important enough to count, which is exactly why no one has bothered to put that "Justice X is the Nth white Protestant male on the Court". Cresix (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I already made Cresix's point (whether it belongs in the lead) and Jojhutton's point (what is the numerical line) when I started this discussion. I agree with Cresix that Jojhutton's edit summary was misguided. However, that aside, what we need are more views on whether it belongs in the lead or doesn't. So far, Jojhutton believes it does not, BD2412 believes it does, I slightly favor leaving it out of the lead, and Cresix is neutral.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit summery. Wasn't aware that it would create drama. I also wasn't aware that it was in the body already. I took a quick look and couldn't find it before the first removal.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is not that being the eighth Jewish justice is notable, but that notability is not the criteria for including this information in an article. The very first piece of biographical information presented in this article is that Kagan was born April 28, 1960. Is this a particularly notable date on which to be born? Probably not, but we include it not because it is notable but because it is part of a complete biography of the subject. It would be absurd for the lede to neglect mention of the fact that Kagan is Jewish. That she is the nth Jewish Justice presents this information in context. bd2412 T 19:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So then what's the line to be drawn before whatever umpteenth number of something starts to become redundant? Especially in the lead. Every fact in the arcticle doesn't need to be presented in the lead. Most editors would agree with that. The question is how notable is she for it? Yes shes Jewish, but so what, lots of people are Jewish and its not mentioned in the third sentence of their articles. I'm not trying to downgrade any accomplishments, only trying to come up with some sort of standard of whether something needs to be mentioned in the lead.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

BD2412, I don't really agree with some of your assumptions. We include the birth date in a biographical article because (1) it's common practice and (2) it conforms to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. By the same token, I don't think it would be "absurd" not to note Kagan's Jewishness in the lead. Pursuant to the same guideline, "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." My view is too often Wikipedia puts ethnicity in the lead, and it doesn't really belong. When I first started reading Wikipedia, I was struck by this. Since, I've kind of gotten used to it, but it still often seems like overemphasizing a person's background that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their notability. And even if there was a consensus that Kagan's Jewishness is notable, a passing mention that she's Jewish is quite different from saying she's the 8th Jew to be appointed to the Court. The latter puts much more emphasis on the Court's record rather than Kagan's.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with everything Bbb23 wrote, although I see the possibility that sometimes ethnicity might go in the lead (and sometimes it does). I also think it's a good point that Kagan being the 8th Jewish Justice speaks much more about the Court than it does Kagan. Jojhutton, I think you're trying to nail down a "rule" about when to stop counting how many Jews (or Muslims, or homosexuals, or atheists, etc.) have been appointed, when there can never be a carved-in-stone rule. It becomes less important when fewer people (and reliable sources) mention it, whcih was my point that no one identifies how many white, Protestant, males have been on the Court. On Wikipedia it is simply not feasible to draw a line (such as "After the 5th appointment of a Justice with X gender, Y ethnicity, and Z religion, it will no longer be notable enough to mention). It's not notable enough on Wikipedia when it's not notable in the real world. Cresix (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Fourth female justice

Responding to the question of whether the lede should note that Kagan is the fourth Jewish justice, User:Jojhutton asked "when does being the umpteenth number of something begin to become non notable? In other words, what is the line to be crossed?" Indeed. It's quite obvious to me that the line is crossed somewhere before the eighth; a harder question, although not ultimately that difficult, is whether that line is crossed before the fourth. It is. I have some doubts about whether we should note that Justice Thomas, for instance, is the second black Justice, or Ruth Ginsburg as the second female Justice, but it seems absurd that we would note the third, fourth, fifth, etc. ad nauseum.

By way of comparison, although we observe that Hillary Clinton is the 67th SoS, and that she was New York's first female senator, we sensibly do not detain ourselves on her being the third female SoS. In fact, the line is sometimes drawn after one: Ann McLaughlin Korologos, Barbara Franklin, and Patricia Roberts Harris were the second female secretaries of labor, commerce, and DHHS respectively, but their ledes doesn't mention it—and if fourth counts for Kagan, why not fifth for Alexis Herman and Kathleen Sebelius? It's true that our articles for several recent female governors recite their place in the state's line of female succession, but I think that actually underlines my point: This fixation is recentism. In articles about women whose service predates Wikipedia by a sufficient time that it can be seen in proper historical perspective, we are more apt to weight details correctly, and less apt to engage in counting. And it is especially difficult to see why we should make a fuss when the subject of the article appears laudably indifferent to it.

This kind of line drawing is a sordid and silly business. Generally we should stop after one, and particularly, I think this ought to be removed from the lede.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I completely disagree for all the reasons I have given several times in previous sections above, and if you examine other opinions above I think you'll find that several other editors disagree with you. Secretaries in Presidential Cabinet positions do not have nearly the prestige and press coverage that a Supreme Court Justice has (except for Hillary Clinton because she was already very much in the public eye), so of course they don't get the public mention as much as a Justice. As for Kagan being "indifferent", silence is not equivalent to indifference. There are many reasons people in general, and Justices in particular, don't make public comments about themselves. That says absolutely nothing about whether she is "indifferent" to the concept of appointing women and minorities to the courts. And, as has been noted earlier, Kagan's gender and ethnicity say much more about the court (including its history of dominance by white, Protestant, males) than it does about Kagan personally. You may consider those matters "sordid and silly", but to many women, Jews, African-Americans, and other minorities, using the term "silly" is insulting. Wikipedia can stop counting when the rest of the United States (or the world) stops counting. And so far, that hasn't happened for female or Jewish justices. Cresix (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Cresix. As I've said on the issue of black justices, the fact that the Court was almost competely male and white for so many years makes Kagan's appointment as the 4th female notable. Because it's the 4th, I don't feel as strongly as I do about Thomas being the 2nd - obviously, at some point the numbers become less important. I don't like line drawing either, but it's something we have to do when we exercise editorial judgment, as opposed to applying some bright-line policy (or even guideline). In my view, the line has not yet been reached to exclude Kagan's status.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It was also almost completely protestant for so many years; when did we stop counting Catholics? After one. To be clear, I reject the premise, not the conclusion: First X may or may not be notable, but second, third, fourth, umpteenth don't become notable simply because their ancestors weren't on the court. Notability isn't inherited! If the current editors aren't amenable to change, with all due respect, I'll take the issue to RFC in search of a broader consensus.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Kagan's family (or lack of it)

What is the relevance of the sentence 'Kagan has never married and has no children'? This seems to be defining her by a negative, as if she's violating some norm. Why don't we just leave this sentence out? (Or say something more positive about her personal life, if it's known). 80.69.30.244 (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Personal life" sections of biographical article generally mention spouses and offspring. The absence of any mention would probably have readers ask "Who is she married to? Does she have children?" There's nothing wrong with documenting this status.

The article David Souter, for example, says "Once named by The Washington Post as one of Washington's 10 Most Eligible Bachelors, Justice Souter has never married, though he was once engaged." TJRC (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If something positive is offered in a reliable source, we can certainly put it in. Until then, the statement about no children and no marriage is perfectly fine. And it can be found published by many good sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the sentence becauase I'd probably lose on consensus, but I agree with the IP, it's an unnecessary sentence. And Souter's example doesn't change my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be the norm to make such statements on Wikipedia, but I think the Wikipedia community should take a close look at that, whether for Kagan, Souter, or anyone. There is an unspoken connotation about the individual with such statements, that they have some undesirable traits or personality quirks. Traditionally the pejorative nature has generally referred to women ("old maid" or "spinster"). I prefer that there be no expectation about whether articles mention spouses or children, and in fact I'm not altogether sure that it something that we need to rush to add. Just because many article refer to spouses/children doesn't mean that all articles must include marital status. I'm not opposed to such mentions, but I think it should not be expected. If readers wonder "who is she married to?" so be it. Cresix (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As always, we follow the example of our best sources. The New York Times thought it was significant enough, writing ""...and Kagan never married and has no children..." NYT is certainly not the only source but it suffices to settle this question. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree (1) the NYT is one of "our best sources", or (2) we "follow the example of our best sources". NYT certainly is a reliable source, but that doesn't mean that because the NYT follows traditional stigmatizing language anyone else should do it. I trust the factual accuracy of the NYT, but not always their sensitivity to language or other social issues. And there is no dictum that Wikipedia should follow the patterns of any source, other than in terms of accuracy, fairness, and balance. Whether Wikipeida uses such phraseology is determined by its editors, not the NYT or any other source. Cresix (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The NYT is one of our best newspaper sources.

I'm not arguing phraseology or stigma via language; I'm arguing that the information was judged sufficiently interesting by NYT to comment on it. Information like this is sought by readers and there is no reason for us to stick our heads in the sand and fail to offer it to readers. Many readers have faced the choices inherent in raising children, maintaining a marriage and meeting the demands of a career, and they may well wish to know what Kagan chose. I am not at all comfortable with your concept of an encyclopedic biography article leaving the reader puzzling over something this simple and common. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary for your comment is "so easy to put it in". Any of your other comments aside, we're not talking about how easy it is to make an edit. We're talking about what is an appropriate edit. Now, apart from that edit summary, I continue to disagree that because the NYT does it we should do it. There may or may not be good reasons to include the information, but doing it because the NYT does it, or because readers have marriages and families, should not be reasons. I share the sentiment with Bbb23 that it is an uphill battle to achieve consensus for the position to omit the information, but I feel compelled to express opposition to automatically including such information in every bio article; eventually perhaps other editors will begin to see the stigmtizing effects of such comments as "never been married". I don't expect that to happen soon, but I just want to go on record that my opinion is that such comments not only should not be required, but they also damage Wikipedia or any other publication that uses them, including the NYT. I've said my two cents, and I acknowledge there is no consensus for my position. Not yet anyway. Cresix (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that not every bio should automatically get information about marriage and family. I disagree that if such information is commonly available that we should ignore it. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think its addition only serves to rub her face in the fact that she's single. I vote to remove.--The lorax (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason we are being told that "Kagan has never married and has no children"? It is a statement that asserts what Kagan is not, as opposed to what Kagan is. I would vote to remove that statement. Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. This information is both widely reported and a matter of interest to our readers. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Remove - (Since we seem to be voting now) For all the reasons I stated above. Cresix (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Remove Why is a woman not being a wife or mother noteworthy? Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• RFC comment. If it's reliably sourced, I don't see a BLP problem. As to whether it belongs in the article, I'd say yes. Other notable unmarried figures, like James Buchanan, or those who married late in life, like Grover Cleveland, have their unmarried state noted in their articles. I don't see the harm in it. --Coemgenus 19:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to Coemgenus: I think it is a WP:BLP problem. The implication is that of a shortcoming on Elena Kagan's part. It is well-sourced but it still should not be said, because "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively…" That statement is not conservative because it takes an objectively jaundiced view. It exhibits a particular prejudice that grows out of women's traditional roles which Kagan fails to fulfill. The writing style of WP:BLPs should be "cautious", which would not include stating what someone is not. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I feel that the family information should not be expected in an article, and that it is more than reasonable to omit any mention of it because of its connotations, in all fairness I am not convinced that this is a BLP issue. BLP is a Wikipedia policy directed more at clearly negative (especially unsourced or defamatory) content. Although we might consider changing BLP policy with these issues in mind, I am hesitant at this point to state that there is any BLP violation. I'm not terribly concerned here with violating Wikipedia policy as I am with what is considered the norm for Wikipedia to include. It may be a fine distinction, but an important one. Cresix (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is not a violation of BLP which includes the WP:WELLKNOWN section allowing negative allegations for famous people as long as they are well-sourced. Note that the example given in that guideline is a politician who has had personal information published in The New York Times; the same situation we find ourselves. For Kagan, the level of negativity in the the non-marriage and non-mother information is so mild and neutral that any and all of our guidelines would allow it. With BLP not an issue, what's left is editor preference, which is why I began the RfC and started the voting. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is at all necessary to rely on WP:BLP to find that we should not be adding gratuitous negative information. The information in question is negative because it states what Kagan is not—a wife and mother. In this context that information is gratuitous. Were this an article on say, the changing roles of women, such information would be fitting. But it is not clear what such optional conditions as marriage and motherhood have to do with Kagan. Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not very negative, it is true as far as we know, it is sourced well, and it is of interest to many, not gratuitous. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet—you say it is "not very negative". It is not negative at all. But it is basically inapplicable. We don't normally state what is not applicable. It is only a negative statement in that it makes a point of mentioning conditions that are not applicable to the individual that the biography is about—which makes such a statement gratuitous. This is the contrived inclusion of information attesting to what someone is not—married and a parent. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:WELLKNOWN, we follow our sources in determining whether to include information about someone's personal life. Widely reported information of prominent public figures is appropriate no matter whether the information is considered positive, neutral or negative. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Whether or not someone is married or has children is a basic encyclopedic information. no reason to exclude it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Remove. It is not noteworthy. It states a negative. It leaves the lingering implication there is something wrong with her because she is not married and doesn't have children.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  You assume that the reader already has negative impression of unmarried women with no children. On the other hand, the information may be read as empowering to a female reader who wants to find role models for her desired life choice of non-motherhood etc. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We are not trying to power or disempower women. Normally, and this should be no exception, we make statements that are positive. For example: John is a cat. We would not say, John is not a dog. There is nothing negative about someone not being married or a parent. But we don't normally state a condition that does not exist. There could be exceptions. If somebody was an exceptionally talented lawyer, but they in fact had never passed the law exam, there would be reason to note that. But in the case of the individual that is the subject of this biography, a reasonable response to, "Kagan has never married and has no children" is, "So what?" Or, "Why do you mention it?" Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There are several instances in biographies of similar situations such as the accomplished writer who never graduated high school or the physicist who failed math. In biographies, if this kind of ironic information is widely reported, we would be remiss not to report it as well. For Kagan, this line of argument is not relevant.
Much more to the point is the a biography of Susan B. Anthony where the fact that she remained unmarried and childless all her life is definitely discussed in the article. It's not like Anthony was a cat and people report she is not a dog... Anthony is a woman and in her life she was questioned time and again about the absence of children in her life; the absence of a spouse. It's more like Anthony was a cat and we report that she was not afraid of dogs. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet—you say, "There are several instances in biographies of similar situations such as the accomplished writer who never graduated high school or the physicist who failed math. In biographies, if this kind of ironic information is widely reported, we would be remiss not to report it as well."

Can you please tell me what is "ironic" about Elena Kagan not having a husband and/or a child?

You say of Susan B. Anthony that "the fact that she remained unmarried and childless all her life is definitely discussed in the article."

I actually don't find that discussed in the Susan B. Anthony article. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In the Elizabeth Cady Stanton article it says SBA remained single and childless. In writing the above example I must have been remembering a previous version of the SBA article, such as this one from 2009 which says she never married. The current version of that article carries cleanup tags and could use a lot of attention. If I fixed it, it would say she never married and had no children. It would say she chided her suffragist friends for having so many children, taking their time and attention away from the suffrage movement. It would say that she often cared for Elizabeth Cady Stanton's children to give Stanton time to write in solitude. It would quote several of her classic responses to inquiries about her childlessness, such as "Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own..."

The irony is not about Kagan, it is about your example of a lawyer who never passed the bar, and my response about a physicist who failed math in grade school. There is no irony in Kagan not marrying, in not having children. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, one would have to have their head in the sand not to know of the rumors about Kagan's sexual orientation. Stating she is not married and has no children, particularly as it is unnecessary to include that non-information, could be seen as reinforcing those rumors.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to open the door for a discussion of Kagan's sexual orientation. That nonsense is unsupported by any kind of evidence and consists only of innuendo. I'm well aware of it, but I am not talking about it here. The only thing I want this article to say is that she has not had children, has not married. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for certain notable people the absence of information should be explained. The negative statement in this case is encyclopedic and informs the reader about what they may be interested in. In the absence of an overt WP:BLP violation, keep.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. This is standard biographical data. Any negative (or positive) connotation is in the eye of the beholder.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Language connotations, such as those in racial epithets, are always in the eye of the beholder. Some have far more beholders who are offended by them than others; those are the ones that are not considered acceptable. In years past, for example, the "N-word" was widely accepted; most beholders of the connotations were not offended by them; now most beholders of the word's connotations are offended. The issue isn't whether the words' connotations are in the eye of the beholder, but whether enough people disagree with their use. Cresix (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant digression. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll ask you to watch your tone, Binksternet. You may not agree with my comment, and expressing disagreement is fine, but don't nonchalantly dismiss it as irrelevant. My comments were as relevant as your unfounded claims about the Susan B. Anthony article. For your benefit, let me provide a bit of detail. I was not drawing an analogy between racial discrimination and inclusion of information about marriage and family. That's far from my point. My comment was directed at the power of language, how connotations can be acceptable in one context or period of history, yet how they can become unacceptable as more people find them offensive. There is nothing irrelvant about the connotations of language; in fact, that is a major aspect of this entire discussion. Cresix (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
        • It's irrelevant and a digression because there are no such words being discussed here. There has not been a significant change in connotation of the words "married" and "children" as there has been with "nigger". The comment you offered has no bearing on the question at hand. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Irrelevant digression by Binksternet. Cresix (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - standard biographical information. If the negative aspect is an issue, perhaps we could modify it to: Kagan is unmarried and childless. Well, maybe not...it's way more awkward and not demonstrably more positive. Seriously - as stated above, negative connotation is in the eye of the beholder. It's publishing the information that is known about a subject people are interested in. As a smaller point, leaving it out leads the reader to believe we simply don't know, sort of like a null value, which isn't the case.  Frank  |  talk  17:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing "standard" that we must follow. We do not have to include everything that is sourced. We are writing in twenty-first century America about a living individual. That she is not married and has no children sounds anachronistic with the sensibilities of our times. Therefore it should be omitted.

This information happens to be totally irrelevant. Therefore a reason for inclusion should be provided. I don't think the onus is on others to find a reason why it should be omitted.

It would be potentially relevant if it bore a positive relationship to the individual the article is being written about. But in fact this information doesn't say anything directly about the subject of the biography—its only comment is in relation to what the subject is not—not a wife; not a mother. In twenty-first century America we don't define a woman by her being not married or not a mother.

There could be a reason to include such information. But thus far no editor here in this discussion has presented any reason why the public needs to know this. Again—we need not include any information that is sourced.

We don't have to say what the subject is not, unless a good reason for doing so is provided. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not yet read the NYT piece which begins, "If Elena Kagan is confirmed by the Senate, there will be three women on the Supreme Court for the first time. This is a measure of how far women have come. Two will be single and childless. This may be a measure of something else entirely." The "good reason" for commenting on Kagan is that such commenting has been done by prominent sources, and that people in general find it interesting.

The article continues by discussing the children of the male judges and female judges on the Supreme Court. It discusses how times have changed. It even says that a feminist friend of Kagan's wished that Kagan had children because of the "wrong message" being sent.

If you wish, we can fortify the "has never married and has no children" comment by bringing in some of the comparisons from the NYT article. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet—yes, I am familiar with that source. It is not not speaking from the perspective of Elena Kagan, the subject of this article. As I said above, "Were this an article on say, the changing roles of women, such information would be fitting." It is indeed a source which supports that Kagan is "single and childless". Under discussion here is whether that information should be included in the biography of Elena Kagan. Certainly that information would find a rightful place in articles on other topics. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The NYT article is about Kagan attaining a seat on the Supreme Court. Kagan is central to the article's message. Kagan's qualifications are questioned; the notion is raised that perhaps more wisdom and judicial compassion are gained following motherhood, and that Kagan does not benefit from this. It is a personal question, directed at Kagan, not just a general topic question. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet—no, it is not an article on Kagan. Kagan is merely incidental to the subject of the article. In point of fact every Supreme Court justice is mentioned. Nor is anything said about Kagan beyond the noting that she is not married and does not have any children.

Why do we need to know what she is not—not married and not a mother? Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You wrote, "Nor is anything said about Kagan beyond the noting that she is not married and does not have any children." Really? The article says Kagan's status as childless and not married "may be a measure of something else entirely." It says Kagan was faced with a tradeoff and chose not to take five years off of her career path to stay home and raise children. It says her friend thinks the "wrong message" is being sent, likely about whether motherhood and high level career are mutually exclusive. It winds up pointing to mothers who have reached high political office and says that Kagan's situation is nonetheless "realistic—and cautionary". Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep reference to her beng unmarried. If editors prefer that this not be stated as a negative, we can always say that she is a childless spinster. However, I'm not sure that it is worth noting that she has no children, as this usually goes along with being unmarried, and I would therefore expect only an out-of-wedlock child to be mentioned in the article. bd2412 T 18:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

bd2412—you say, "If editors prefer that this not be stated as a negative, we can always say that she is a childless spinster." I understand that is just a joke, but it is very telling. Should our article be saying that she is a "childless spinster"? That would clearly be in violation of WP:BLP. Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

How would that invoke BLP? She is, by definition, "childless", and a "spinster". There may be more flattering ways to say it, but there is certainly nothing potentially defamatory about saying it this way. If we were to declare her to be "barren" or "unmarriagable", that would raise BLP issues. bd2412 T 18:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

bd2412—all articles are required to adhere closely to the wording found in sources. "Spinster" would therefore have to be found in sources of good quality if we are to uphold the enhanced standards of WP:BLP. Beyond those sourcing requirements, I think we would have to demonstrate that an off-color word was called for.

I was trying to make the point above that if "spinster" comes so easily to mind, that should serve as indication that there is a potentially "defamatory" aspect even to simply saying that a woman is not married and does not have one or more children.

But the even more important point is that the sensibilities of our time and place do not assume that women should be married and/or have children. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to make sure I understand this, bd2414, before I jump to any conclusions. Are you saying that "spinster" would be acceptable (just not very flattering) for the article? I thought you were joking also, but are you serious? Cresix (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we should use "spinster" to describe Kagan. I'm just saying that it would not violate BLP, just as it wouldn't be a BLP violation to describe Kagan as "short" by reference to her height compared to the national average. Even if no source uses the word "spinster", she falls into the traditional definition of being an unmarried woman beyond her potential childbearing years. Defamation is a legal cause of action that is very clearly spelled out, and one element of the claim is that the defamatory statement must be untrue. bd2412 T 19:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Remove until reliable sources point out how this information is relative to her tenure on the Supreme Court. Otherwise it seems like the age-old canard that a single woman is in some way less than fit to do a job she is obviously qualified for. That also reinforces negative cultural stereotypes. Wikipedia should not infer she is a spinster, a whore or in any way un-lovable. Jnast1 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This is basic information. It doesn't have a negative, nor positive connotation, unless it is framed in that light. Niluop (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. This is neutral verifiable factual information, provided in a unbiased form, appropriate in a biographical article. I'm rather astonished at the patronizing view that such information should be excluded because Kagan is a woman. Quite frankly, that's the type of attitude that sets back women's rights, operating on the assumption that we must treat this Supreme Court justice differently because she is a woman. We have no control, nor should we, over readers who might wish to draw inferences based on their own prejudices. That's not up to us, and not an appropriate reason to censor the article. Wikipedia's role is to provide factual, neutral, material information, without bias in either the information itself or the way it is presented, and we do so here. TJRC (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thanks for your opinion and vote, TJRC. But I completely fail to see any "patronizing". First, several of us have made a point emphatically that we don't see the need to automatically place family information in an article, whether the subject is a male or female. And as best I can understand the discussion, the comments about the fact that she is a woman pertain to the historical pejorative nature of such information being applied more to women than men ("old maid", "spinster"). That's not patronizing. In fact, it seeks to level the playing field and treat unmarried and childless women in the same way as unmarried and childless men. And that most definitely is not an attitude that has set back women's rights. There have been some reasonable points about why the information should be included (with which I happen to disagree), but patronizing and setting back women's rights clearly are not among them. Cresix (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The article does not say "old maid" or "spinster". If it did, I would find that to be a POV violation, and would agree that it should be edited to correct that. The proviso "provided in a unbiased form" is a critical part of my comment. TJRC (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
      • You seem to have missed my point. No one has said that those terms are used. A point has been made that knee-jerk reporting of being unmarried and childless for women is akin to the previous use of those terms. You may disagree, and that's fine. But there is no patronizing of women among those of us who oppose this information, nor are we doing anything to set back women's rights. Cresix (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree that neutrally reporting verified accurate factual information is akin to pejorative name calling. Kagan's unmarried status is simple neutral fact. "Old maid" is clearly just pejorative name-calling; and I would argue that "spinster" is as well. Neither of those is equivalent to reporting accurate factually neutral information about the subject of the article. It is routine to include family data in biographical articles, and absurd to make the argument that such verifiable accurate information should be kept from an article if the subject of the article is a woman. You don't give enough credit to women.

Some individuals may read the article and thinks that this fact is negative; others may read the same fact and take it as a positive, providing a role model. Either way, it's not our concern. That's the responsibility of the reader. And, yes, I sincerely believe that an attitude that Kagan somehow needs to be protected from this because she is a woman is precisely the sort of attitude that is contrary to women's rights. TJRC (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you disagree that the reference to unmarried and childless is pejorative. That's fine. The point that you are missing in my comments pertains to your claim that those of us who do not wish to include such material in Kagan's article are somehow being patronizing and promoting something that sets back women's rights. That is false. Maybe you didn't mean it as I am interpreting it. Please tell us how not including her marital status or number of children is patronizing and sets back women's rights. I fully understand you do wish to include her marital and child status; that's not the point. How is not including it in any way patronizing or a setback to women's rights? Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is beyond the scope of this talk page, not being addressed to the improvement of the article, so I'll respond on your talk page. This entry is long enough without adding additional off-topic discussion. TJRC (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary. It is directly germane to the issue in this section. Those who oppose including the marital-child information were told that we are patronizing and setting back women's right in our opposition. I asked for an explanation of that statement. So here is the continued discussion (or lack thereof) copied from my talk page, with comments not made by me in quotation marks (and before someone does a knee-jerk removal of this copied information, every edit throughout all of Wikipedia is to be clearly visible to all who wish to see it, and I can copy anything from my talk page). If more is added to my talk page, I will add it here:

"I find the exclusion of neutrally reported verified accurate factual information from an article whose subject is a woman, while not excluding the equivalent neutrally reported verified accurate factual information from an article whose subject is a man, is systemic bias reflecting some felt need that somehow the woman needs some sort of protection from having this information known that a man does not need. This is paternalistic and perpetuates the myth that women are not equal to men, and somehow require this extra protection. It assumes women require this special treatment and imposes it on them solely because of their gender, and gives credibility to and perpetuates the myth on which it is based. Kagan is a mature and powerful woman, and does not need Wikipedia editors to hide information to "protect" her from what readers might think by reading the same sort of information that is provided for other justices. TJRC (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)"

Again, you have missed my point. Those of us who have expressed opposition to including the information about marriage and children have clearly stated that this kind of information should not be expected (although is not forbidden) for either men or women. So again, how is not including it in any way patronizing or a setback to women's rights?

And I really feel that this discussion does belong on the Kagan talk page because you made a comment there that I am asking you to explain. Unless you don't want people to know what your explanation is, of course. Cresix (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am dropping out of this side conversation. As I said above, this side discussion is not addressed to the improvement of the article, and per WP:TALK should not be continued on the article's talk page. I moved it to user talk page both to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, and out of courtesy to other editors not interested in following an (to use your words) "irrelevant digression," especially in the middle of a lengthy on-topic discussion It was inappropriate of you to move it back. If I was trying to hide my comments from other people, as you imply, I would not have included a link to the continuation on your talk page. If you wish to continue the discussion, you will need to do so without my participation. TJRC (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

TJRC (talk · contribs) has utterly failed to defend his statement above that those of us opposed to including the marital-childless information have been patronizing and set back women's rights, either here, on my talk page, or his talk page, and despite my asking him to do so at least three times. That's his choice, of course. I think that speaks volumes as to why he decided not to continue this discussion here for all to see. Cresix (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's premature to declare victory over TJRC or over the matter. There are classic feminist arguments that go both ways: don't give the woman any special consideration relative to a man, allow the woman to be a woman and don't compare her to a man. These are not winnable arguments—they are viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You also missed the point, Binksternet. My comments are not about "declaring victory over TJRC". TJRC made a very bold statement that the editors here who oppose including the information have expressed a "patronizing view that such information should be excluded because Kagan is a woman. Quite frankly, that's the type of attitude that sets back women's rights". I have repeatedly pointed out that we oppose an expectation of including marital and child status, regardless of whether it is a male or female. TJRC has not stepped forward to defend his statement that we are paternalistic and setting back women's rights. Cresix (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest that a conservative approach is best. Saying she is "unmarried" or "single" is sufficient. "Spinster" is definitely derogatory, and childless is unnecessary.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, Will, no one here has seriously suggested using the term "spinster". That's not really the issue. Cresix (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Good. But saying she is "childless" and "never married" are proposals which I think are unnecessary compared to the simpler and more neutral "unmarried" or "single".   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
      • In retrospect, I agree that "childless" is unnecessary in light of her never-married status. bd2412 T 21:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        • The two states of being are independent of each other. Women can be mothers and also never married. Both states of being should be mentioned in the article as they are normal encyclopedic material, and of interest to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep While the source of this information appears to be an taking several facts together and commenting on the status of women in this day and age, nonetheless, facts are delivered. Agree, this is neutral verifiable factual information, provided in a unbiased form, appropriate in a biographical article. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep If reliable sources have talked about Kagan's marital status, we should too, so long as it is presented neutrally, accurately, and without undue weight. It is not for us to try to be more politically correct than the reliable sources we use. It is also presumptuous to suggest the information is negative; some may see the success in public life of an unmarried and childless woman as a good thing. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: If she was married with children, it would be mentioned. So not saying that she is not married without children would be treating that situation differently. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - the fact about never marrying, Remove - the part about not having kids as unnecessary given previous fact. BelloWello (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, women can have children without being married, and can be married without having children. The two pieces of information are independent. Both are useful, normal bits of encyclopedic biographical data. Both should be included. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Remove or contextualize properly I read through this thread and my opinion is that everybody is missing the mark. It's not about women's rights. It's about homosexuality. The "unmarried and childless" line that got repeated in the media was coded language to hint about sexual orientation, a la: "Hey, this chubby, short-haired woman sure looks like a lesbian! She's not married and has no kids, hint hint." I remember the coverage at the time even included this wink-wink-nudge-nudge picture of Kagan playing softball -- I believe in the New York Times if I'm remembering right. I'd say either take it out altogether, or properly contextualize it. Why was it a subject in the media? Because of the persistence of rumors that she was secretly gay, and so therefore the country was plunging headlong toward installing a gay Supreme Court justice. — e. ripley\^talk 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You may or may not be right about the underlying agenda, but, as strongly I oppose an expectation that marital and child status should be in any article, I don't think we can have a knee-jerk reaction that this issue pertains to her sexual orientation. That has been a matter of speculation, and even argued (and eventually removed) on his talk page. To tie the sexual orientation issue to the marital-child issue is far too speculative, unless you can find a reliable source, which I feel safe in saying you won't. Cresix (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My opinion on the topic isn't knee-jerk at all, it's quite considered and one I've held a long time. But, be that as it may, naturally we'd need sourcing to support such a thing. Whether that exists or not, I can't say. My opinion remains the same, however -- if it can be found, that would be the best way to handle it. IMO. — e. ripley\^talk 23:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it requires a source. A very reliable source, given the nature of the topic. Let us know when you find one. Cresix (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not such a stretch to think that there might be some kind of scholarly or reputable media critique about the way that the rumors about her sexuality were handled. I found something done by Poynter pretty quickly [16], which addressed the softball picture I mentioned above, but not so much the focus on her non-family and non-marriage, sadly, though it tangentially addresses it. Have a look. In any case, if it can't be turned up, I should simply be counted as !voting remove. — e. ripley\^talk 23:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me encourage you to read the archives and get some consensus here before adding discussion of rumors, even those discussed in reliable sources. I'm not saying there is never a place for such information, but this is a BLP, and BLPs have very high standards about such matters. Cresix (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm merely voicing an opinion, after seeing this listed on an RFC. I've never even edited this article, so I think your comments are a little premature, though as someone who adheres to policy I appreciate them in the abstract. I am very familiar with consensus and BLP policies and have no intention of going beyond what I've done here, which is to -- again -- simply voice an opinion. — e. ripley\^talk 11:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep never marrying as widely reported, important biographical information but Remove that she has no children, because if she did and it was known, it would certainly be noted. Allreet (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In the interim, an editor raised the issue of parochialism. I respect the editor's decision to revert, but think the concept is insightful. It is conventional (parochial) to mention a person's marital status, regardless of gender. It is unconventional to mention their lack of issues, unless other circumstances raise the question. A subject's marital status, then, is of conventional, virtually universal interest, whereas their not having children is not. Allreet (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Allreet—from where do you derive that it is "conventional" to mention a person's marital status, and is it equally "conventional" whether the person is married or not?

Just because information is sourced doesn't mean it should find a place in an article.

There is a difference between stating that an individual is married and stating that an individual is not married. The implication in stating that an individual is not married is that there is something unusual about their being unmarried, therefore noteworthy.

The stating of that which is not applicable is in some instances largely gratuitous. In this instance it carries with it the implication that not being married is unusual. Yet no editor has explained why Kagan's not being married is unusual or of interest in any other way. This is quite different from that which would apply if Kagan were married. The condition of being married would then be a straightforwardly applicable part of a description of Kagan. As such it would almost definitely merit inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Marital status is common demographic data, like birth date, gender, nationality, ethnicity and so forth. This basic objective information is routinely reported in biographies, obituaries, psycho-socio histories and the like. It is rarely absent. When some of these facts are not reported, it raises "natural", usually innocent questions. It piques our curiosity, because we've been "programmed" to build pictures of people around them. Where do you live? Where were your grandparents from? Have you ever been married? It's so prevelant that it could be genetic (e.g., pack behavior) but there's no doubt it's tied to socialization. All this strikes me as fitting the use of "conventional". Not that I don't understand how negative connotations creep in, but that's not our problem unless we allow any of it to affect how we objectively report such findings. Or decide not to report them. For myself, as an editor, I don't much care whether Justice Kagen is black or white, old or young, Polish or Macedonian, liberal or conservative, homosexual or heterosexual, married or single, a sinner or a saint. My only concern would simply be to "get it right", which in our case means following the paths sources lay down for us. If we choose not to go down certain of those paths, we better have a darn good reason not to, all other things being equal. Allreet (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've addressed a distinction I made between that individual who is married and that individual who is not married, as concerns our reporting of their marital status. When we report that someone is married we are describing an applicable condition. When we report that someone is not married we are taking the liberty to point out a condition that is not even applicable to them. By extension we are implying that it is notable that the referred-to condition is absent. In point of fact the referred-to condition—that of being unmarried—is not worth mentioning—except in such settings in which the position is maintained that being married represents an ideal state. I believe Wikipedia is agnostic about the value of marriage. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The condition is indeed worth mentioning: reliable sources mention it and it is of interest to readers. Trying to figure out the whys and wherefores is useless. We follow the lead of our sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet—not all information found in sources has to find its way into an article. Kagan is not married. Why should she be married? And if there is no reason why she should be married, then why would we mention that she is not married? Bus stop (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia. People go to an encyclopedia to answer questions they may have. One question they may have is whether Kagan has ever married. Basic, basic stuff. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Her height would be "basic stuff" if she were a professional basketball player. Her vocal range would be basic stuff if she were an opera singer. As it is, she is merely a judge. Jonathunder (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court justices are not that "mere." They're the nine most powerful people in one of the three branches of the United States government. Readers want to know a lot about them. Again, this is neutral verifiable factual information, provided in a unbiased form, appropriate in a biographical article. TJRC (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point her being not married is not applicable information. Sources attribute no importance to her not being married, at this time. That could change in the future. It is not inconceivable that a situation could arise, in her professional life for instance, that could cause reliable sources to attribute great significance to her not being married. At that point we would be obligated to report on her not being married. At this time it is merely an inapplicable dimension of the person, and it is gratuitous to state that which is not applicable. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain that if we asked Justice Kagan if she'd mind if we reported this, in her higher wisdom she'd look at us somewhat askance and say, "And why wouldn't you?" And if we asked the question differently, that is, if she would mind if we didn't report it, we'd get pretty much the same look followed by the opposite question, "And why would you?" So it's not really about her. As Binksternet points to, it's about the reader and about information being readily available. If we report Justice Souter not being married or Justice Thomas being married, why leave the reader out in the cold regarding this justice? Allreet (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point there are 15 people for "Keep" and 4 people for "Remove"—1 more says to remove or contextualize if kept. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep; I feel that it's standard information to have in a substantial biography; reliable sources have seen fit to comment on it; and it doesn't appear to be given undue weight (I'd say "remove" if this were some 2-sentence stub). Personally, I don't think that double standards between men and women are a concern, as I'd like to see similar information in articles about men too where their status has been the subject of similar coverage. If other wikipedians are applying double standards, that's a problem with those wikipedians, not with the article. bobrayner (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)\

• Keep - It's useful biographical information about a person in the public eye. The connotation on such a phrase is in the eye of the beholder, but fact is fact. Demokratickid (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Useful info, well sourced, and not even remotely derogatory (rather the opposite!). Mentioning the rumors that's she's a lesbian would be inappropriate, but the simple fact that she's single and childfree is a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Pais (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Elena Kagan is, for better or worse, unmarried and childless -- as are Condoleezza Rice, Janet Reno, and Janet Napolitano. (Wikipedia has articles on all three of these women -- but which ones note the fact? As of this writing, only one.) Kagan is not a politician -- she will not rise or fall through public awareness of her marital status. She is a public figure; if she were an actress, an astronaut, or founder of a top company, her family background would be known and notable. When a Presidential candidate says, "I will appoint people who look like America," as one did, the outcome of that promise becomes notable for that reason alone. When a candidate or officeholder such as Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich espouses conservative views, accepts a conservative tag, and is himself divorced or twice-divorced, this becomes notable (Kagan is described as a practitioner of conservative Judaism.) When an appointed official's son is himself appointed to a top position in a federal regulatory agency, that fact becomes notable. Kagan's family history would be notable if she were, for example, sister to CNN's former host Daryn Kagan -- she isn't, yet the rarity of the Kagan surname invites this question and such a connection should be readily disprovable. When Ted Kennedy and George Cabot Lodge sought the same open Massachusetts senate seat in 1962, said seat was previously held by one's brother and previously by the other's father. (And great-grandfather. And great-great-great-great grandfather. But I digress.) Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992 and was suceeded in office by Bush's son, George W. Political office is not particularly dynastical in the United States, and its existence (or non-existence) is of some import to readers.

Jessemckay (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Jessemckay—it is a contrivance to point to that which has no applicability to a subject of a biography. Your above post mentions Newt Gingrich and that his article mentions that he has been divorced. That is because he has been divorced. Divorce is applicable to Newt Gingrich. Had he not been divorced, would it make much sense to say, "Newt Gingrich has never been divorced"? Then why would we say that, "Kagan has never married and has no children"? Bus stop (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan accepted the conservative tag, and in his own generation a divorce was considered shameful; the seeming contradiction of Reagan as first divorced President drives notability. Newt Gingrich has been divorced not once but twice, and in his generation this may be acceptable, but for a President it would be a first and thus notable. Jessemckay (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is more than a month old and ought to be closed as if it had been formally put forward as a Request for Comment. The more recent arguments are not opening new lines of thought, and the 'keep' crowd continues to prevail. Binksternet (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet—though Jessemckay votes "keep", Jessemckay raises what I think is a very interesting point. Would we be saying that Newt Gingrich had never been divorced if in fact he had never been divorced? Of course not. By the same token we should not be saying that Elena Kagan has never been married. One does not logically state what is not applicable. To do so is to contrive to make gratuitous points. Gratuitous statements should not be in the Elena Kagan article even if the information to support those statements can be found elsewhere. Bus stop (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Your 'gratuitous' is everyone else's standard fare for an encyclopedic biographical summary. The question is often asked and answered of Kagan; were we to take it out, the readership would not be served. Binksternet (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet—I doubt that "The question is often asked and answered of Kagan…" Furthermore there is no reason to know whether Kagan has children or is married. That is because Kagan does not have children and is not married. Were Kagan married that fact would constitute properly relevant information for inclusion in a biography entry. As she is not married, information relevant to her marital status is inapplicable to her, strictly speaking, concerning her biography entry. The inclusion of inapplicable information always sends indiscriminate messages because any implications of such information have more to do with the preconceptions of the reader than they do with any indwelling characteristics of the person being written about. Newt Gingrich would not be said to be "never divorced" if he were "never divorced". That is because it is nonsensical to convey information to the reader that is not applicable to the subject of a biography.

Additionally, we are not, strictly speaking, voting here. We are presenting arguments. I do not mean to be offensive, uncivil, or engage in personal attacks, but I find Jessemckay's post particularly lacking in substance. You, Binksternet, are saying that, "The more recent arguments are not opening new lines of thought, and the 'keep' crowd continues to prevail." A "crowd" does not "prevail" on Wikipedia except by strength of argument. I am sure that Jessemckay did his best to present his argument and I am sure that in the final analysis his vote is for "Keep". But the "arguments" in his post leave a lot lacking, in my opinion, as concerns strength of argument. It is a fairly lengthy post. It makes many references to well-known people. But I find it impenetrable as concerns an on-topic discussion (whether or not Kagan's marital status should be mentioned). I am sure that this would be unintentional, but I don't think any relevant arguments are made in that post. I don't feel that Jessemckay's post addresses the question at hand squarely, thus I find the "Keep" vote to be little more than a vote. Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I didn't care to make the point more transparent to the readers, examination reveals that indeed, Condoleezza Rice's article notes she has never married and has no children. Condie is not a candidate for public office. Yet Janet Napolitano and Janet Reno have both sought office at the gubernatorial level, and their articles make no mention of the fact that they are unmarried and childless. If precedent is important, Rice's article should be evidentiary; Rice is more like Kagan than Reno and Napolitano are.

Jessemckay (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

At WP:CONSENSUS, the guideline describes what happens with difficult decisions: "Consensus is not unanimity. Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes." When I used the word crowd, I was referring obliquely to this part of the guideline. The ayes have it, in this case. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion for a long time because I figure the resolution is inevitable. But I will say two things now, mainly spurred on by Bus stop. First, I agree with everything Bus stop says. Second, Blinsternet's comment ("Your 'gratuitous' is everyone else's standard fare for an encyclopedic biographical summary.") is an overstatement. it's not "everyone else's", as evidenced by the disagreement here. Now I'll go back to not paying attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet—I hear what you are saying but WP:VOTE and WP:DEMOCRACY suggest a slightly shifted focus as concerns the nature of this project.

"Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration."

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion." Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is a "widely accepted" policy. The policy at WP:VOTE has exceptions, and we have hit upon one of them here in this article. The section WP:DEMOCRACY indicates that the primary action is discussion, but it does not cover what happens when consensus cannot be determined by discussion alone. It is in fact the policy of WP:CONSENSUS which applies best to our situation, specifically the instance in which as the final measure a majority must be established, and the simple counting of !votes is undertaken. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• dont include any comparisons to Souter are missing sources naming Kagen as one of "Washington's 10 Most Eligible Bachelorettes". -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)