Talk:Ketanji Brown Jackson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ketanji Brown Jackson, Harvard Board of Overseers.jpg
• Ketanji Brown Jackson, University of Chicago Third Annual Parsons Dinner.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A proper version of the Parsons Dinner photo was uploaded on 6 July 2020 by the Associate Dean for Communications of the University of Chicago Law School (wikicago), who speaks for the copyright holder, the University of Chicago Law School. The University of Chicago Law School has uploaded this photo with the proper Commons license so that it could be used on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicago (talk • contribs) 00:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Convenience note post-thread-archiving: the licensed file is c:File:File:Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson - Wikimedia Commons.jpg (CC-BY-SA 4.0) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Turn on Semi-Protection?

This individual is a possible candidate for nomination to the United States Supreme Court. I know now might be early, as the definite candidate has not been announced, but I believe it may be a good idea to semi protect even now. - Samuuurai (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Mrs Brown’s Uncle Thomas Brown Jr. and Cocaine conviction

Although the article nonchalantly mentions her uncle and his cocaine conviction, it fails to articulate the full facts highly relevant to his life sentence in Florida for the drug offense under the US Sentencing Commission’s guidelines for Career Offenders §4B1.1 or the “three strikes” rule or simply stated, he was at least 18 when he committed the offense, it was a felony (violent or drug related), and it was his third conviction of a felony (violence or drug related) thereby allowing the enhanced sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmustbeheard (talk • contribs) 23:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I made this small change, see if you think it's an improvement. You say "nonchalantly mentions", but the text on her uncle seems fairly WP:DUE to me, this article is not about him. I'm not saying the text can't be improved. In the WP-context, we can't use your link to state anything about her uncle, see WP:SYNTH. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Former clerk rewrites SCOTUS contenders’ Wikipedia bios

A former law clerk for a potential Supreme Court nominee embarked on a Wikipedia editing spree over the past week, bolstering the page of his former boss while altering the pages of her competitors in an apparent attempt to invite liberal skepticism, according to a statement from his fellow clerks.

(Redacted)

soibangla (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have redacted the above link under the same rationale as given here -- TNT (talk • she/her) 23:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@TNT: That rationale seems to have been removed. -Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: For reference, the diff content was I have redacted the above link per OSPOL#1—connecting an account to an undisclosed identity contravenes our policy on OUTING. Please do not reinstate the removed content -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime, there is also the "Press" template on this talkpage and an editsummary with the Politico articles url at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

And of course at least 3 citations in the article atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Another question. What is the WP:OUTING position on citing something like the Politico article, not including a name based on it of course, but without including a link/url in the cite? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think of the Tenebrae example where he was allegedly able to hide under the WP:OUTING policy until a press article wrote about it.[2] Was there any attempt in the Politico article to link the edits to specific accounts? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it stated "this WP-user=this person." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added a banner noting the COI I would provide the Politico link but it seems it has been redacted. Horsemanofdeath (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(Redacted) -Dervorguilla (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC) 07:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hm. I've added {{press}} as usual and then saw this discussion. I would the say the cat is out of the bag, it's now well-known public information so there's nothing to out. Nemo 07:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be easily searchable public information at this point, that a former clerk has been rewriting this and other SCOTUS contenders' bios on Wikipedia. Tony Tan · talk 07:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's on Daily Mail now too, but afaik, WP:OUTING makes no allowance for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

UPE tag

@Mhawk10: Why is a COI tag insufficient for cleanup purposes? I've used both COI and UPE tags multiple times (as you alluded in your edit summary), but never used both of them at the same time – they strike me as overkill together. I'm unable to link to the RS that led to the both of us making our different decisions for good reason, but we both know the nature of the relationship between the subject and the editor's alleged identity. We both know that the source did not mention paid editing. We do know that the source stated that there was a conflict of interest. So why is the UPE tag necessary? Sdrqaz (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I am unaware of convincing evidence that this editor was paid for their Wikipedia work. In the spirit of not overtagging high visibility articles about indisputably notable people, I have removed the UPE tag. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't even see the need for a COI tag here. As is usual with "current topics", the article is overblown and excessively detailed (every ruling that's verified is notable?), but that is unavoidable. There was one editor with a clear COI, and I blocked them--their edits no longer stand. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I've reviewed all of the edits this user made to both this page and those of other judges. To the extent any content he introduced on this page was more favorable or flattering than is compliant with WP:NPOV (something I am not especially convinced is true), it's already been removed. All of his other remaining edits are appropriate, and so I was about to remove the COI tag from the article (which another editor did while I was editing). I've also restored the substance of his edit here. He was correct that the WaPo article, which summarizes the confirmation hearing, does not contain any mention of questioning regarding reversed decisions. ÷seresin 23:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@seresin: That WaPo article does mention that a senator (Tillis) asked about

Jackson’s 2019 decision requiring former Trump counsel Donald McGahn to respond to a subpoena from House Democrats ... Jackson’s ruling in the McGahn case was twice reversed by an appeals court panel ...

–Dervorguilla (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't read it that way--the senator was asking about MSNBC reporting on that decision, which the article suggests was part of his attempt to link the decision to "the addition of her name to a shortlist of Supreme Court nominees compiled by the advocacy group Demand Justice." There's no indication that the fact that the opinion was reversed was an element of the questioning--it's just additional context added by the article about the decision. This distinction is important because, as noted in an earlier edit by that user, ahead of the hearing "[c]onservative activists [we]re pointing to decisions Jackson has made as a federal trial court judge that were reversed on appeal as a potential blemish on her record." I did not restore that edit because, at least based on the WaPo article, the prediction that the reversals (as such) would be an element of questioning did not come to pass, and so it seemed unnecessary to mention. (Even if you disagree with the line I am drawing, the article before his edit was inaccurate, as it suggested different reversed decisions were the subject of questioning, something the WaPo article certainly does not support.) ÷seresin 06:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading through WP:UPE again, I think you're right. It was my understanding that UPE occurs whenever someone who is paid by an employer makes edits to the page of that employer. This doesn't actually appear to be the case; UPE seems to require that the person is being paid to edit rather than simply being paid for Wikipedia-unrelated work by an entity whose page they are puffing up. My apologies for the inconvenience. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Court of Appeals service

I've restored a three-sentence passage that was added (twice) by Marquardtika (in revisions 1069342512 and 1069391737) and removed (twice) by H2rty (in revisions 1069363017 and 1069396197):

In 2019, Jackson ruled that provisions in three Trump executive orders conflicted with federal employee rights to collective bargaining. Her decision was reversed unanimously by the D.C. Circuit. Another 2019 decision, this one involving a challenge to a Department of Homeland Security decision to expand the agency's definition of which noncitizens could be deported, was also reversed by the D.C. Circuit.

I've placed this reliable information in its proper context: paragraph 2, about the subject's reversed decisions (rather than paragraph 3, about the Senate committee hearing). –Dervorguilla (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC) 20:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC) 04:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

And I've moved that paragraph to the 'Career: District Court' section. –Dervorguilla (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

In the image caption for the infobox, add “Jackson in 2020” as the photo was taken in 2020 2607:FB91:1603:B44B:91B8:A084:CE3F:A36E (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

In "Notable rulings", please change "In noting that Brown" to "In noting that Jackson" for consistency. Thanks. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Bbb23 for the fix, and to 3PPYB6 for closing out the request. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Her birth middle name

Should her middle name Onyika be included in the lead? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. There's already a source (ref name: SenateQuestionnaire), which is in the first sentence of the "Early life and education" section. The opening sentence should begin with Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson. The "Born" field in the infobox already includes the middle name. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Updated to "Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson" in the opening paragraph so it's the same as on Amy Coney Barrett. The info box was already correct. --Asr1014 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Reference for term end of Sentencing Commission

Is there any source for the date when Jackson's term on the U.S. Sentencing Commission officially ended? I found one for when it began (https://www.ussc.gov/about/news/press-releases/february-16-2010), and there are multiple sources confirming it ended in December 2014 ([3], [4], [5]) but I haven't been able to find a source confirming the specific date. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Updated: 2014 is accurate. There are two citations in the article confirming her term. One is from the US Sentencing Commission website. Asr1014 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Personal life

In 1996, Jackson married surgeon Patrick G. Jackson, a sixth-generation Harvard graduate and a professor in the Department of Surgery at Georgetown University Medical Center. The couple have two daughters. Patrick Jackson's twin brother is the brother-in-law of Janna Ryan, wife of former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. MedTeach (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

I have started Draft:Calvin Ross, about her police chief uncle. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson.html Calebwclark (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

Under personal life, change "In 1996, Brown married surgeon Patrick Johnson" to "Patrick Jackson" 216.255.101.53 (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Maskless Ketanji

I believe the photo of Biden and Jackson together should be replaced with one where Jackson is maskless. During the nomination announcement, one of three speakers (Biden, Harris and Jackson) was maskless at any given time. I believe we should use a photo like that for Ketanji Brown Jackson. --LABcrabs (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"Sights so high"

Second line in the third paragraph of "Early Life.." the quote "sights so high" needs verification. What would constitute a reliable source as its spoken about one whitehouse.gov, numerous newspapers, twitter, etc? Asabiyya (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is a video clip from Twitter of Biden talking about it: https://twitter.com/CAPAction/status/1497291012540186629 Asabiyya (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the source that was used for that content, which was the White House website. That's not a reliable source in this context. I see a mention in Politico, but it just links back to the White House website. I would want to see coverage in an independent reliable source to show this is noteworthy enough to include here. I think there may such a source out there, although I couldn't find one myself, so that's why I tagged the material rather than just removing it. Marquardtika (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This WaPo article mentions a similar quote and uses this article (also from WaPo) as a reference. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This WaPo source looks good, but it just says "When she ran for class president in high school, when she traveled the high school debate circuit and won a rack of prizes, or when she applied to Harvard despite her high school guidance counselor's suggestion that she set her sights a bit lower.." and doesn't give a direct quote of setting her "sights lower." I think we could say something like "Brown Jackson applied to Harvard despite her guidance counselor's advice to set her sights lower." Marquardtika (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Great! This helps alot as I'm also translating this wiki into norwegian. Asabiyya (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Photo is not good it has bad lighting and looks like she is in a dark room

The photo is poor quality and looks like she is in a dark room I would advice getting a new photo with better lighting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The photo is fine, particularly compared to the ones that are also available for use. It must be free use and can't just be taken off the internet. Additionally, once she is named to SCOTUS, her official photo will be used, so it's not even long term. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

See Category:Ketanji Brown Jackson. These are the currently available ones, but you can upload more if you have ones you have taken with your own camera, or ones with the right license. What do you suggest as replacement? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this picture would be better as it looks more like how she looked at the Senate hearings and other recent public appearences File:10.18.2019, Ketanji Jackson.jpg Victor Scimitar (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, looks good Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

To what article/section should "studied government" be redirected?

Apokrif (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought it was political science but seems its a different field of study, can't seem to find a wikipedia article explaining "Major in government"

Would a link to Harvard's pages itself work? (https://undergrad.gov.harvard.edu/academics)

Asabiyya (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Senate just voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson. However, she won't officially be a Supreme Court Justice until Stephen Breyer retires in June, but she will have a commission approved by the Senate. Will she be listed as Associate Justice Designate in her infoxbox now? Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No, not yet. She's a designee. The infobox currently reflects the correct status. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove information about her husband being a boston brahmin

The original source for that is here . She mentions it only to contrast it to her upbringing. The information is irrelevant to her personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.229.181 (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say her husband and his upbringing is relevant to her personal life, and it's covered in NPR and WaPo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The background and ancestry of a person's spouse is a routine part of the biographies of highly notable people, if that content is well referenced. And in this case, it is. We have a direct quotation from the subject of this biography, referenced to an impeccably reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen. Not seeing any issue. ––FormalDude talk 04:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

While it may seem odd to mention, it's stated in several credible articles. He's a 6th generation grad of Harvard with ancestors that came in on the Mayflower so yeah it needs to be there. More details about him are being reported as of today so in comparison to other judges's spouses, the additional info should be added when there is enough credible sources to cite. Most that I see as of now are only 12 hours out but I like to wait incase there are corrections.

References

I think the Main Reason it felt odd to me is that in the Indian context it would be frowned upon to start introducing a person by their caste. While I recognize that Boston Brahmin does not directly reference caste, The word brahmin while starting an introduction to a person will not go well amongst Indian readers in my opinion. Maybe another Indian editor can back me up here? I don't know whether my reasoning for deletion falls under the WP:TDLI policy. Softmattereditor (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I find the use of this phrase unencyclopedic. It is not only archaic, it is pejorative, for anyone aware of its etymology (India’s caste system). Furthermore, this page is about her, not her husband. It should just be removed. We could say his race, religion, and that he can trace his lineage back, if we want to include this information. The “Boston WASP Republican big business establishment with purportedly forward-thinking and benevolent views” no longer exists. Today, it’s all about primarily white and Jewish owned tech businesses in the SF Bay run by Indian immigrant managers (oftentimes actual Brahmins), businesses with little interest in or even disdain for the communities they operate in, that instead champion shallow and nonsensical causes around gender to confuse people and gain power. Anyway, if my provocative description offended you, you should think about the phrase “Boston Brahmin”, its historical connotations, and whether it should remain in the article. It’s definitely not dispassionate phrasing. 2600:1012:B069:6CE9:444A:B61E:32E2:11A6 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

supreme court 69.115.171.78 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Why no hyphen between Brown and Jackson?

Shouldn't her name be Brown-Jackson since Brown is not her middle name. That would be the proper rule for double barrelled names. Is that her defiance to American naming conventions or just plain ignorance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalthing (talk • contribs) 04:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This naming convention is the same one which all three married female justices have chosen to use: Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Amy Coney Barrett. The same is true of several past or present U.S. Senators: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Shelley Moore Capito, Catherine Cortez Masto. SilverLocust (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022

Please change the number of Republican senators who voted for KBJ from the word “three” to the number “3” so it can match the 50 Democrats who voted for her and the 47 Republicans who voted against her. 2601:588:C500:9FD0:FCDE:5432:2CDE:A71D (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NUMERAL says "integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It further says “Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32.” It should be consistent: either 50, 3, 47 or fifty, three, forty-seven. SilverLocust (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Which African language is Ketanji from?

I have been searching for sources on this, but have come up dry. Apparently her aunt was serving in the Peace Corps in Africa and sent over some names to her parents. If we knew which country her aunt served in, that would probably help narrow down the possible languages. The closest I can find to a reliable source is this Slate article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/ketanji-brown-jackson-name-african.html, but no specific West African language is mentioned. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Linguist John McWhorter agrees with your wondering, and has a lot to say about African languages. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"born Ketanji Onyika Brown" (in first sentence)

So, did she drop the Onyika part of her name? I'm confused by this phrasing, since Onyika is not included in the first instance of her name. Zagalejo (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Like many American women, when she got married she dropped her given middle name and took to using her maiden name (Brown) as a middle name. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Right, but some people do keep their birth middle name, as well. Is there anything that confirms she legally dropped "Onyika"? The juxtaposition of the two names implies a level of certainty that she did. Zagalejo (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Eh, never mind. I don't know if middle names are really part of the "legal" name, anyway. Zagalejo (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's silly the way we list all four names of some women in the lead sentence even if that is a version of their name that they have never used. Example: Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is a name that she has never used as far as I know. She went by Hillary Rodham for the first part of her career, including her first turn as First Lady of Arkansas. When Bill was re-elected to the governorship she started using Hillary Rodham Clinton, and continued to do so as First Lady of the US. During her two runs for the presidency she shortened it to Hillary Clinton or just Hillary, but she still uses Hillary Rodham Clinton for books she writes. See footnote c in her article. My point is: she has used multiple versions of her name, but one version she has NEVER used is Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, which we use in the lead sentence. Another silly example that ought to be changed: "Joan Ruth Bader Ginsberg". And another: "Amy Vivian Coney Barrett". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. If the middle name is discarded, we should mention it in the first sentence of the life story, not in the first sentence of the lede. But -- are we consistent about it generally? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Update

Judge Jackson is a confirmed US Supreme Court Justice as of April 7 2022 24.192.49.150 (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

She remains a justice-designate since a spot on the court has not yet formally opened. She will be sworn in once Stephen Breyer formally retires, planned for later in 2022. VQuakr (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2022

change her profession status to "supreme court justice (2022-present)" 168.99.199.6 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: She's not on SCOTUS until Breyer's retirement at the end of the ongoing term. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Appeals court term end date

The profile states that KBJ’s term on the appeals court ended on June 30, 2021 which should be the same date in 2022. 12.23.123.133 (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed EvergreenFir (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request: Paywalled article

The USA Today article about her religion is paywalled. Here is another version of the same article that is not. Please change the footnote (currently 111) to use the free version. -- 24.90.77.69 (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request: Language consistency with other SCOTUS associate justices' articles.

The first line of the article contains titles/designations/positions in addition to the subject's primary current role. This is inconsistent with the first line in articles for other members of the US Supreme Court, which uniformly restrict the first line to the subject's primary known role. According, edit requested to move any other titles or positions to subsequent paragraphs/sections, and correct the first line to the following:

Ketanji Brown Jackson (born Ketanji Onyika Brown; /kəˈtɑːndʒi/ kə-TAHN-jee; September 14, 1970) is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Nafb852 (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nafb852 I agree with you, but not all the articles are like that: Sotomayor, Alito, and Roberts include additional wording. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding Category Abortion

given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.

-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Jackson had nothing to do with the recent decision that abortion was not a constitutional right. Dobbs was decided before she joined the Supreme Court. Of all the current Supreme Court justices, she has the least relation to abortion. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

None of the individual justices should be categorized in the abortion category. Yet, I see that this editor has added them all. I'm removing them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that no justices should be in the abortion category. BD2412 T 17:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason to add that category. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with removal. We don't add any of the individual topics on which the Justices rule, even when they are major rulings. Magidin (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with removal for this article and any other judges article. Abortion is to far disconnected from the subject. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges. Endwise (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

March 2023 Personal Life Section reference revisions and citation needed tags

I have revised the order of references in the section such that the reference citation appears next to each fact the reference is used to support in the sentence, as opposed to lumping several references together for purposes of clarity of the cited references. Where single references are used to support each fact, I have inserted a citation needed tag because when referring to a notable person's personal life we need to be citing at least two, and preferably three, independent references to support the same point of fact, such that we do not overly rely on a single source, as a matter of maintaining encyclopedic tone and encyclopedic integrity. 2600:8804:7100:4000:EC6A:1CC7:5C62:74B3 (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"when referring to a notable person's personal life we need to be citing at least two, and preferably three, independent references to support the same point of fact"

Who told you that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the facts cited are inherently contentious in nature, Its required by WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLPREMOVE. The Policy states "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced"... A single citation to a fact constitutes poor sourcing of that fact, especially where the refernce given is a reference to the media or other non-academic sourc which is itself editorialized. 2600:8804:7100:4000:EC6A:1CC7:5C62:74B3 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong! Wuffuwwuf (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Woman Confusion

Four the conservative justices like Brent Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and others we have a whole section on “controversial” things (including found to be baseless accusations made by Michael Avanazi) that were said during their confirmation hearings. Why don’t we say anything about Kitaōji Brown Jackson’s difficulty explaining what a woman is here? It’s an objective fact and it should be covered objectively. Jessica-albatross (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

What text, in what section, cited to what WP:BLP-good WP:RS, do you suggest adding to the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a mention of this exchange in Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nomination. That exchange with Senator Blackburn was during the confirmation hearing and people may have heard about it, so it probably deserves an accurate mention in Wikipedia. But doesn't seem relevant to the biography of the Justice herself. ~~ ---- M.boli (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Bar Exam?

Did Ketanji Brown Jackson ever pass the Bar Exam? My understanding is that you don't necessarily need to to become a judge, but it is presumably unsual. If that is the case with her, it should presumably say. If she did pass it, then it should also say that. LastDodo (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@LastDodo: she was an attorney in DC and California so yes she would have passed multiple bar exams. I don't think specifically noting this is worth the space in a biography on a Supreme Court justice. I just glanced at Stephen Breyer and don't see any mention of the bar there, either. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. I just checked the wiki pages for all the other SCJs and only 2 (Thomas and Sotomayor) mention the bar. I'm not sure it is not worth the space though, as it is what allows you to begin practising law, which seems quite important in the career of a lawyer or judge. LastDodo (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

But run-of-the-mill. If they are a lawyer, it's a given. If a contemporary judge didn't pass the bar, and reliable sources had discussed that fact, then it might be worth noting. VQuakr (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The date is not a given though. They all have a paragraph or two about their education, so I don't think adding when they passed the bar or were called to the bar, which will be less than a line can be said to be not worth the space. Here is what Thomas' says:/ After graduation, Thomas studied for the Missouri bar at Saint Louis University School of Law. He was admitted to the Missouri bar on September 13, 1974. / I am only suggesting the others have the equivalent. LastDodo (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote regarding "Justice Jackson"

rv, the court refers to KBJ as "Justice Jackson", a title which may be equally applied to Robert H Jackson

From GuardianH's Special:Diff/1164939184: Please see Special:Diff/1164813470 removing the hatnote. Justice Jackson is a disambiguation page that covers all of the Justices Jackson. While Ketanji Brown Jackson may be referred to as "Justice Jackson", anyone searching for that will be brought to that disambiguation page and not to this article. Looking at the redirects that point to this article, none of them are "Justice Jackson" or similar. See also the hatnotes guideline: this title is not ambiguous and doesn't have ambiguous redirects pointing here. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind thank you