Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

'Recent edits in law'

[ copied here from User:LawrencePrincipe's post to my talk page since it's relevant to other editors here as well ]

Hi Wasted Time R; Your recent edits on Sonia Sotomayor were posted yesterday. Presently, there are at least three new books on the Roberts court which have come out this year and last year. It seemed that this would be a good opportunity to bring the page up to peer review upgrade status. This is the plan and perhaps you and others you may know would like to join in the upgrade effort. Please feel free to re-post this edit on the Talk page at Sotomayor if you think it helpful to invite others to this upgrade process. Regarding your two items for your two edits, you first brought up the "next twenty years or more issue" in the Lead section. This material was actually sourced to the book by Marcia Coyle from last year with the cite pages I included as a footnote for verification. Second item was the parenthetical comment on "first Latin justice" which has been debated in the press. My deference has been to the major Latin organizations which have asked those interested to discount the Cardozo reports as anecdotal, largely because Cardozo did not seem to either make or support the claim himself.

The solution I suggest for both is, for the first one, to include the part of the Coyle sourced comment dealing with her age which identified her as among the three youngest members of the court. This seems relevant to the issue of experience which is normally discussed in such articles. Second, to incorporate the parenthetical text of 'first Latin justice" into the narrative of the section along with sourcing the identification of the Cardozo comment as anecdotal by major Latin organizations. This would enhance the narrative quality of the section as well. If you have any interest in participating in the upgrade process, or know of anyone else who could join the enhancement process, then let me know and I can share the sources and publishers that I am relying upon for the upgrade preparation. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, if you check this stats page you'll see I have been the primary contributor to this article, and if you check the history here you'll see I'm the one who brought to a successful GA nomination several years ago. So I'm a bit resistant to the notion that the article has major problems.

That said, I agree that the Supreme Court tenure section can use some revisions, as is always true of a section that is written as events occur. And using book sources that have come out on the Roberts court is a good idea too, as books tend to bring to bear a broader perspective on things.

However, I disagree with talking about how young she is in the very first paragraph of the lead. It's a matter of speculation that this will mean that she becomes an historically influential justice - some long-serving justices don't, and some shorter-serving justices do. It's speculation even that she will serve a long time - people with diabetes tend to get health problems later in life, or she could tire of the role, or who knows what. If it does turns out that becomes a long-serving and important justice, this article can be updated then, assuming that WP has lasted that long too.

I also think that some of your recent additions have been overly verbose. This is already a 10,000 word article, and we still have most of this supposedly long and significant Supreme Court tenure to go! Things should be stated concisely. For example, there is no need to give a long recap of what the J.D.B. v. North Carolina case was about. Just briefly mention Sotomayor's opinion and why it's biographically significant to her jurisprudence. And there is no need to mention Coyle's book in the article text itself so much, not is it necessary to quote at length from it. Just state something and footnote it to that book. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is this article being rewritten?

This long-standing GA article is being systemically rewritten by two relatively inexperienced editors. One editor has added verbose descriptions of cases that Sotomayor ruled on, as discussed in the previous section. Another editor is rewriting all the language. This rewrite is an improvement in a few places, unobjectionable in a few other places, but degrades the quality of the article in a number of places. Some examples of where it is making it worse:

• portraying the slow-down of her confirmation to the appeals court as coincidental with political considerations, instead of a direct result of them
• "the confirmation went slowly but was confirmed in 1998" - awkward reuse of word, ungrammatical
• creating one-sentence paragraphs - these should only be used in special circumstances
• overuse of semi-colons, including sometimes in consecutive sentences
• "Although Juan Sotomayor had a third-grade education and did not speak English, he worked as a skilled tool and die worker" - not unusual; this is the kind of semi-skilled and skilled labor that did not use to need formal education
• "and grew up in the Puerto Rican communities of the South Bronx and East Bronx" - this implies that everyone in those areas was Puerto Rican, not true
• moving "and described her time there as a life-changing experience" to the top of the Princeton material - this should go at the end of that material, so the reader knows what about it was life-changing
• removing the name at the time of the student publication she edited, leaving only the name it's now known by - if anything this should be reversed, leave the name she knew it by in the text and then in the footnote indicate its current name
• "publicationn" - the spell-checking that is shown inside the edit window of many browsers would catch this
• "Professional peers, legal experts, and news media organizations identified the inclination of her opinions being toward being liberal" - barely readable, 'being toward being'?
• "Others thought differently since it was their perception that she by submitting such detailed rulings that reviewed many conceivable issues of a case after typically reviewing the entirety of the appellant documentation submitted; Her lengthy rulings tended to feature leaden, ungainly prose." - completely unreadable, what language is this written in?

I could go on, but the changes are so widespread that the differences between revisions are hard to read and it's easy to miss all the modifications that have been made. I don't like to be harsh, but overall these changes are making the article worse, not better, and sinking the article below the GA quality that it used to have. I know this article has some watchers; I'd ask them to chime in on whether they think this rewrite is beneficial or necessary. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, these articles have two kinds of edits to them, obvious vandalism and incremental changes. Both are relatively easy to deal with. When a relatively new editor comes along and starts making significant changes, not just to this article, but to many if not all of the articles about the justices, it's much harder to control because it requires far more analysis of the many changes. I suppose I'm not alone in being "lazy" because I know I'm not the only user who actively watches these articles. For me at least part of the problem is that I have so many administrative tasks that to devote a major chunk of time to the content of these articles is hard for me to justify. But that doesn't mean I'm happy about it. As a rule of thumb, such signficant changes to all of these articles, whether or not they've achieved GA or FA status, should be proposed on the article talk page, and the proposer should break down the changes so each can be evaluated without having an amorphous blob to sort through. Thank you for raising this issue, Wasted Time R.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been keeping half an eye on the changes; to be honest, I was planning to wait until they subsided before trying to wade in and do clean-up (from my lay-person point of view, at any rate). Yes, the edits need clean-up, and I can see the case for making a proposal in talk before such extensive additions, but on the other hand it's nice to see someone being enthusiastic about editing (it's been a while since I had that much energy for it). Magidin (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not certain as to what is the point of WASTED TIME if "This rewrite is an improvement in a few places" and "obvious vandalism". I am not an expert and do not have the advantage of extensive courses in the maths and science but logic tells me that two things that are different cannot occupy the same space. Could WASTED TIME please clarify just what is the point of this non-diplomatic statement and what is it that needs to be done and by whom? Otherwise it would be a waste of time for me to continue not knowing just what is the dispute(s), the distraction(s) and the long term usefulness(s) of WP?

But briefly let me say that WP articles should be written with long term value in mind so that the least amount of changes need be made especially when people are unable to realize just what is temporal and what is otherwise. What benefit is there to include the title of a publication in which someone had contributed at the time? Especially when the newer title is used far more and widely than the previous? As the newer title persists in usage it will be the newer title that is remembered and used and when someone needs a historical reference to what was once then bring it up for that purpose. There is absolutely nothing unique about the title of the publication to which she submitted comment that has since then come to be called something else and with far more popularity. Is this issue something worth becoming hot sweaty and irritable about?

Also, for the benefit of all those that have come before us and will come after who make their way in life without university training. Please understand the terms and their definitions when you express yourself. Don't confuse formal training with academic education. A formal program can be in most any subject that has a need of specialized knowledge or practices used in that field. This may have been common in guilds or apprenticeships. Her father sometime along the way had some type of formal training to be a tool and die guy despite the third grade academic education--unless way back then they used to chain kindergarten kids to milling machines.

One last caution, be a pearl rather than arthritis.GinAndChronically (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

We'll continue to see what others say. From my perspective, your response here shows that you don't write succinctly and you don't write clearly. I don't think you should be undertaking a top-to-bottom rewrite of a GA-level, high-visibility BLP that gets a half million readers a year. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the original "undertaking" was by LawrencePrincipe, not the user above (who has done some minor changes on those done by the former). Also, if you understood the last two paragraphs above, I could use a hint. I've read them several times and still have no idea what they are trying to say or why they are being said here... Magidin (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to repair more of GinAndChronically's changes, but in some parts it's too difficult and I've just restore the previous version. Note some examples of additional problems I found with these changes that are not just wording issues but straying from the underlying sources:

• "skilled tool-and-die worker" - the "skilled" is not in the source
• "[she] seemed to lack a quality found in her peers in order to be considered among the top students in her class" - this wording is an invention, the source simply says she wasn't a star
• "She was co-chair of a student group for Latin, Asian, and Native American" - the source says she was co-chair of a group for Latin, Asian and Native American students, not at all the same thing

Note also that GinAndChronically's edits on other articles have prompted a series of complaints on his or her talk page, mass reverts of those changes, combative responses to those reverts, and an appearance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Odd behavior by GinAndChronically. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Chapter 2: Why is this article being rewritten, many url's not linking

Just to clarify, prior to my first looking at the state of affairs of this article on Sonya Sotomayor and its problems (described above in the enumerated list by User:WastedTime), it was already (virtually on a point by point basis) already that way before I ever saw it. The article looked like it was well written 3-4 years ago, but for whatever reason, the article was not updated in any substantial manner since 3-4 years ago. My own purpose was to add the new section on her Supreme Court activity since 3-4 years ago which did not even have a separate section delineated for it (I have since added that section). It is now at least partially up to date in the Supreme Court section based on 3 new books on the Roberts Court (Marcia Coyle, Jeffrey Toobin, Mark Tushnet). No one else had done this and the article was/is becoming dated by 3-4 years. A large number of url's in the article also have become deadlinks since 3 years ago. (@Wasted Time R, @Magidin, @Bbb23) LawrencePrincipe (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My objections in the previous section were to GinAndChronically's rewrites of the language, which you were encouraging, but which I thought were doing damage to the article for the reasons I have stated. But that is now past, since GinAndChronically has been indef blocked for disruptive and incompetent editing across a broad range of articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The other editor you refer to is basically unknown to me. I had contacted that user based on 2-3 isolated edits I saw before July 22 which looked reasonable in and of themselves on the Sotomayor page, and I had no knowledge of what was taking place elsewhere (his/her Talk page on July 22 looked benign). After July 23rd, a fuse seemed to go off on that editor's Talk page which was unknown to me at that time, and fortunately all 3 editors in the section above were able to put out the fire, which is fully supported with my comments here. I have returned to the Sotomayor page to continue the update of the outdated url's one by one which have to be repaired carefully and one at a time. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Court of Appeals Judge section

(@Wasted Time R, @Magidin, @Bbb23); Should there be serious consideration given to the question of whether the section on her time as a Judge on the Court of Appeals is too long. Originally in 2009 when there was a complete absence of a Supreme Court record, it made sense to include a long and detailed section of her Court of Appeals record. Now that she has 5 years on the Supreme Court with a substantial writing career of Supreme Court opinions, it seems like the Court of Appeals section may be too expansive and long. Could any of you take a glance at it? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a school of thought that appeals court judges make more of a difference than Supreme Court justices. That's because most cases never make to the Supreme Court and because in most Court of Appeals cases, you're one of three judges deciding instead of one of nine. That was my rationale for the section being as long as it was. The second motivation was that different editors contributed most of the individual appeals court rulings subsections and I hate to throw out the good work of others. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The quality of writing is quite high in that section. My concern was strictly with its relative size and with the observation that many of that section's cases still lack an article on Wikipedia to support them. Both Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor are peer reviewed at GA, with Sotomayor literally 5 times larger (150KB compared to 30KB). LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Breyer article is threadbare and does not merit being GA. Had I seen Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Stephen Breyer/1, I would have supported delisting it. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Your reading of the Breyer article did occur to me. During the past week I have been running the reflinks tools on the Sonia Sotomayor page to bring things up to date. It seemed to work well for the first 170 references, but cite #180 and #185 do not seem to match up any more with the actual article citations. In reflinks tools, cite#180 gives a redlink for a "Gingrich" citation, but the article citation number has nothing to do with Gingrich. Not working for 2 days. This is the reflink invoked to produce the list of link checks [1]. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Clunky Opening, Inaccurate Statement

It is not correct to say that Sotomayor is the first justice "of Hispanic heritage." Cardozo also had Hispanic heritage. (See Andrew Kaufman's biography of Cardozo, among other sources). Saying she is the first Hispanic is closer to the truth, since Cardozo was not "Hispanic," in the modern sense of the term, but rather descended from Sephardi Jews in Portugal. The best phrasing here would be to say that Sotomayor is the second Justice in the Court's history of Hispanic lineage, and the first Latina on the Court.

Furthermore, the intro oddly couples this rather interesting distinction (being the first Latina) with other less-impressive or less notable distinction. She "has the distinction of being its first justice of Hispanic heritage, its third female justice, and its twelfth Roman Catholic justice." It also focuses excessive attention on the age issue: "Sotomayor shares with John Roberts and Elena Kagan being among the youngest justices on the Supreme Court." I'm not sure what this means, but Alito is also about the same age. At a time when four of the nine justices are about the same age, her relative youth is not significant enough to warrant this placement in the article.

I suggest the following intro: "Sonia Sotomayor is an Associate Justice of the United State Supreme Court. She has served since August 2009, when she was appointed as the 111th Justice in the Court's history. Sotomayor holds the distinction of being the first Latina to serve on the Court, and is only the second individual of direct Hispanic lineage to serve (a distinction she shares with Justice Benjamin Cardozo). She is also one of only four female Justices in the Court's history."

Joelaready (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Cardoza business has been extensively discussed here – see the Talk archives - and the consensus among both news sources and WP editors is that Cardoza does not 'count' and Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice. And note there is a mention of the Cardoza question currently in the article body - "Some attention has been given to Justice Benjamin Cardozo – a Sephardic Jew believed to be of distant Portuguese descent – as the first Hispanic on the court when appointed in 1932, but his roots were uncertain, the term "Hispanic" was not in use as an ethnic identifier at the time, and the Portuguese are generally excluded from its meaning.[202][203][204]"

As for the other stuff in the lead, last year I got in a series of disagreements with another contributor about what the article should be like, and part of how it fell out resulted in the first paragraph you see. I don't believe either the religion aspect or the relative ages belong there. My preferred first paragraph before this happened was just this:

Sonia Maria Sotomayor (...) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving since August 2009. Sotomayor is the Court's 111th justice, its first Hispanic justice, and its third female justice.

I would be happy to return to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sephardic Jewish ancestry

Why is no mention made of Ms. Sotomayor's Sephardic Jewish ancestry? Spehardic Jews come from all over the world like many other Jews. Sonia Sotomayor’s mother’s maiden name is “Baez,” which is a Sephardic Jewish surname:

My sources: http://genforum.genealogy.com/baez/messages/24.html http://www.italian-family-history.com/jewish/_Genova.html http://anusimcenter.org/Successes.html http://www.cryptojews.com/Garza.htm http://articles.latimes.com/1992-09-01/news/vw-6750_1_jewish-community?pg=1 http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.velasquez/156/mb.ashx http://boards.ancestry.com/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=175&p=topics.religious.jewish.sephardic --197.229.120.26 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that most of your "sources" are worthless: the ancestry.com and genealogy.com message forums are certainly not reliable sources. The LA Times article happens to mention a Cuban jew whose last name was Baez; the rest mention the last name. But you seem to be arguing that the last name is a definitive indicator of sephardic jewish ancestry (so that anyone who has that last name must have Sephardic jewish ancestry) and your sources certainly don't get anywhere near such a conclusion. Given that Justice Sotomayor has given no indication of such an ancestry, and there is no reliable sources that have been put forth to justify such a claim, that would by why it is not mentioned. Magidin (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

How many Sephardic Jews with that name would it take to convince you that it is Sephardic? It's like saying that we cannot say a Mac Donald is of Scottish, or Irish extraction, because other ethnicities have also called themselves by that name at times. Incidentally, many Sephardic Jews were Marrano Jews who due to oppression, or for other reasons hid their Jewish identity over the centuries. You don't need to have someone claim to be of a certain ethnicity to know they are from that ethnicity either.--197.229.120.26 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

According to http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/baez/24/ :

"...the name Baez has been identified by the Holy Office of the Catholic Church of Spain (and other sources) as a Sephardic (Jewish) name.If you wish to research this aspect of the Baez family, you are invited to visit Sephardim.com located at http://www.sephardim.comhttp://www.sephardim.com"--197.229.120.26 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

According to http://www.sephardim.com/namelist.shtml?mode=form&from=B&to=C&Search=Search the name Baez is Sephardic. This site has many verifiable references.--197.229.120.26 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"How many Sephardic Jews with that name would it take to convince you that it is Sephardic?" It's not a question of convincing me. It's a question of having reliable sources within the meaning of Wikipedia. Even if the name itself is of Sephardic Jewish origin, this does not mean that Sotomayor herself is "of Sephardic jewish origin"; you would have to provide reliable sources for that claim. Guessing that she has Sephardic Jewish origins on the basis of a name to which she is connected would constitute original research. So, absent specific, reliable sources (within the meaning of Wikipedia) that establish that Sotomayor specifically has that origin, you are engaging in guesswork and original research. Which would be the main reason why it is not mentioned or included. A secondary reason is that its inclusion needs to be relevant. Even assuming without granting that the claim is accurate, why is it relevant? Sotomayor seems to be utterly unaware of it; she self-identifies as Catholic from a Catholic family; and there has been no mainstream discussion of this. So why would it need to be included, even if verifiable and not original research. Magidin (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not only is Catholicism a religion, and not an ethnicity, but the vast majority of Wikipedia articles do NOT adhere to your understanding of "original research". The amount of evidence I have supplied should be more than sufficient when you consider that similar amounts of evidence is used already on many existing Wikipedia articles on other famous people and their ethnicities. If it was important enough to mention her religion in the article, why not her ethnicity (they are not the same thing)? My source directly above is NOT part of my own attempt at original research as it is a secondary source which is well referenced to MANY reliable primary sources and authors which all agree, if you bothered to read what I linked to. Therefore it is more likely than not that I am correct.

I have also discovered the name Sotomayor is also highly likely of Sephardic Jewish origin (http://www.sephardim.com/namelist.shtml?mode=form&from=S&to=T&Search=Search) However, in the interest of compromise and in acknowledging the benefit of the doubt, however small, I propose something like the following be added to the article at the bottom of the section called "early life": "The name Sotomayor is either of Spanish, or Sephardic Jewish origin, likewise with the surname of Baez" - followed by citations using my secondary sources, or the many primary sources that they list (books, etc).--197.229.122.14 (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia definition of original research (not "my" definition) is: "material - such as facts, allegations, or ideas - for which no reliable published sources exist." You proposed specifically identifying Sonia Sotomayor as having "Sephardic Jewish ancestry"; do you have a reliable published source that specifically identifies Sotomayor as having such ancestry? Because what you provide is sources that identify the maiden name of her mother as a name that is associated with Sephardic Jews. That's a very different proposition from saying Sotomayor has that ancestry. Specifically, you are engaging in synthesis: "the combination of material from multiple sources in order to reach or imply a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in any of those sources", namely, the conclusion that Sotomayor has Sephardic Jewish ancestry. So: absent a reliable published source that actually reaches the conclusion that Justice Sonia Sotomayor has Sephardic Jewish ancestry, you are, in fact, engaging in original research within the meaning of Wikipedia. Sotomayor's religion was in fact a matter of public discussion during and after her confirmation (the emergence of a solid "Catholic majority" in the Supreme Court). Her latino ethnicity likewise was a matter of discussion and appears in sundry published sources. Hence they are included. Can you find any published reliable sources discussing a Sephardic Jewish ancestry? Absent such sources, why is it notable? Yes, I read your primary sources, thank you very much for the personal dig. And because what you are doing is taking primary sources and conducting your own personal synthesis, that constitutes original research (regardless of whether it is "more likely than not" that you are correct; it's still original research). As to your proposed compromise, I continue to fail to see why it is notable or worthy of inclusion, given again the complete absence of any reliable verifiable source that indicates this has been something notable or discussed anywhere as it relates specifically to Justice Sotomayor. Again, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; whether you are "more likely than not" to be correct is irrelevant; whether others do it elsewhere is likewise irrelevant; you are proposing original research within the meaning of Wikipedia in the form of synthesis. Magidin (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Magidin is correct. You can only add that she is of Sephardic Jewish ancestry if there are reliable published sources that state that she's of Sephardic Jewish ancestry. You can't research it yourself using ancestry.com and the like. That's exactly what "original research" means here.

If feel that you're an authority in the field, please go ahead and get your findings published in a reliable source, and then we can consider adding a line or two using that published, reliable source as a citation, provided there is a consensus to do so. TJRC (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the opinions of Magidin and TJRC on this matter. The proposed addition by the IP is original research and synthesis, and therefore should not be included absent substantiation by a reliable source. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence Tribe Letter

This article should include some discussion of Lawrence Tribe's letter cautioning President Obama against nominating J. Sotomayor. Numerous notable sources have reported on this, see, e.g.: ABA Journal, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. Exclerk1414 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I know that Laurence Tribe is an icon, but I'm not really sure this is really all that notable. Legal luminaries say all kinds of things about potential Supreme Court candidates, both good and bad, and I don't think is much more than a flash in the pan. But if we do mention his comments, then we should also mention that Professor Tribe later stated that "his early reservations about Sonia Sotomayor ... have been 'happily negated by her performance as a justice thus far.'" Also, it may be better to present this information at Laurence Tribe's article rather than this one. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Given Tribe's stature, his opinion on Sotomayor's nomination is certainly significant, and it has been covered in-depth by reliable sources. So, not only would the Tribe letter satisfy Notability (were we creating a standalone article) -- it should also be included here in accordance with the principle of due weight. And of course his later comments should be included as well. Note that the article already mentions commentary re: Sotomayor's nomination by far less significant figures, e.g. Rush Limbaugh. -- Exclerk1414 (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sonia Sotomayor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/27/nation/na-sonia-sotomayor27
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7681616

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016

In the "Early Life" section when the author is talking about the importance of education in the Sotomayor household please add that when Sotomayor was in high school, her mother went back to school for a college degree. Sotomayor, her brother and her mother all sat at the dining room table working on homework together (Felix, A. (2010). Sonia Sotomayor: The True American Dream. New York: Berkley Books). Throughout their life they say how hard their mother worked for her education and how seriously she took it. This was a constant motivator for Sotomayor to do well in school. While in elementary and middle school, her mother made sure Sotomayor's homework was done before she could hang out with her friends Felix, A. (2010). Sonia Sotomayor: The True American Dream. New York: Berkley Books).

In the "Early Legal Career" section please add that Sotomayor "decided on a career path at age ten after watching Perry Manson on television" (Cushman, 2013). She wanted to be a dectective but her doctors told her the job would be too demanding with her diabetes. She still loved law and the mystery and suspense that surrounded it, so she decided to be a lawyer or judge. They fit her love for law, but weren't as demanding on the body. Lsteele96 (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

C-Can you please provide hyperlinks to respective pages of the books/other references.Otherwise, it is difficult to ascertain the veracity of the statements.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2017

Please include mention of Justice Sotomayor's dissent in the case of Utah v Strieff. The case of Utah v Strieff is a significant Fourth Amendment case as it extends police stop and search powers, effectively 'forgiving' illegal stops if the policeman (now in possession of the effected person's name) discovers an unrelated warrant against that person. Justice Sotomayor (along with Justice Kagan and Justice Bader Ginsburg) was in dissent, pointing out the systemic abuse of police power and racial and socioeconomic impacts of the majority judgement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_v._Strieff, and https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf. Justice Sotomayor's dissent was described in popular media as 'thundering', 'brave', 'fiery, 'barn-burner' and 'lambasting': https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/supreme-court-says-police-may-use-evidence-found-after-illegal-stops.html, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/20/sonia_sotomayor_dissent_in_utah_v_strieff_takes_on_police_misconduct.html, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/utah-streiff-sotomayor/487922/, http://www.npr.org/2016/06/20/482879905/evidence-found-in-illegal-stops-backed-by-justices-but-brings-fiery-dissent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.17.172 (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018

When you add this page to "watch list", it says "Sonia Sotomayor" and its talk page have been added to your watchlist." Instead of "its", can you please instead use "her", or ask her. She is a human, not an "it".

thank you Danceupon (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It's not referring to the person, it's referring to the page (not a person). JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2018

The citation link for a law firm apologizing to Sotomayor for implying she was the result of affirmative action, at "and news of the firm's subsequent December 1978 apology made the Washington Post.[54]", seems dead. I think the article it wants to link to exists at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1978/12/16/law-firm-apologizes-to-yale-student/476c0d94-63b8-44d5-a990-a4dfc446abc7/ instead. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4700:2ABD:E04C:684B:A1DD:148A (talk • contribs)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Surname pronunciation

The first pronunciation has no source. Who says her surname as though it's Soto-Meyer? Since I've never heard anyone speak this pronunciation, why is it given prominence when the correct pronunciation is designated as "Spanish", as though it's a more exotic pronunciation that isn't used in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.151.5 (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it as unsourced (and contradicted by the source given after the other pronunciation). This reminds me of when people tried to add the "ow!" pronunciation to J K Rowling's article. -sche (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

94.241.247.118 (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"wise Latina woman" in the lead

The lead should not include the faux controversy ginned up by some Republicans and right-wing actors during her nomination process about her comment, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." It's a play on remarks by Sandra Day O'Connor that "A wise old woman and a wise old man will reach the same conclusion," and an argument for diversity on the judiciary (because people's backgrounds affect their adjudicating). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No, definitely not lede material. It can be (and is) covered with appropriate weight later in the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree; to my recollection, it was the biggest controversy (whether rooted in valid concerns or not) during her confirmation. Both Kavanaugh's and Thomas's articles include their respective controversies-during-confirmation in the lede, and at least the former is often (IMHO falsely, but that's beside the point) described as a controversy caused by false accusations (faux accusations?) ginned up by some Democrats and left-wing actors intent on derailing his confirmation (and similarly for Thomas). I think it should stay where it is. Magidin (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is undue weight for the lead section, as this is not a defining feature of the life of the subject of the article. This material is already properly addressed in the body of the article. Neutrality^talk 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Neutrality - First, you really need to get a new name; you are anything but neutral. Including a mention of the controversy surrounding her "wise Latina" statement is not undue weight. The statement is a defining feature of what Justice Sotomayor believes, and the controversy surrounding the statement was front and center during her nomination and confirmation. It absolutely belongs in the lede, and not simply buried deep within the article. Similarly, the controversy regarding Justice Kavanaugh and allegations of misconduct is mentioned prominently in the lede for that article. GlassBones (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Further, Snooganssnoogans really stretches credulity by stating that the controversy over Sotomayor's remark was somehow "faux controversy" ginned up by some Republicans and right-wing actors. It was not - this was a statement that Sotomayor made repeatedly, in a number of speeches, because it's clearly what she believes. This is fundamental to who she is, as opposed to the false allegations against Kavanaugh that were manufactured by the Democrats. Yet - that controversy is prominently mentioned, perhaps rightfully so, in the lede to the Kavanaugh article, but you want to keep the racist, sexist statement made repeatedly by Sotomayor, defining who she is, buried deep within the article. Don't you see any conflict between those two positions? Or do you only care about making sure articles only reflect the liberal POV of most Wikipedia editors? GlassBones (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks or treat Wikipedia as a battleground. And please also keep in mind WP:NOTFORUM; if you want to expound upon your views of the Kavanaugh affair, you're welcome do do so on an Internet forum or personal blog, not here. I've reverted your latest attempt to stick in the challenged material into the lead of this article. This has no consensus and you know that. Neutrality^talk 16:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If consensus is required for an edit, there can never be an edit to any article, particularly articles regarding political figures, because there will always be differing opinions. But by "consensus" it seems you really mean "majority opinion". In any event, the outcome is the same. Because the majority of editors, at least those who edit full time, are liberals, Wikipedia articles invariably are written with a significantly liberal bias. The attempt to include language in the lede regarding the controversy over Sotomayor's "wide Latina" remarks, which were front and center during her Supreme Court confirmation proceedings, and are central to her persona and beliefs, was an attempt to install some degree of balance in the article. Important issues like these remarks are appropriate in the lede, and should not simple be buried deep within the article. That is why the issue of the unproven/false sexual assault allegations are in the lede of the Kavanaugh article. For the sake of argument, I am sure if Justice Scalia had stated that a wise Italian-American man could certainly reach better conclusions that a Puerto Rican woman, that statement would be in the opening paragraph of the Scalia article. But since the racist, sexist "wise Latina" statements were made by a liberal judge, some editors here want to keep them buried, despite the importance of the statements and the amount of controversy regarding them. The double standard is striking, and not a good look for Wikipedia, which supposedly presents articles in a balanced manner with a neutral point of view. GlassBones (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record: I favor the inclusion, not because "they are central to her persona and beliefs" (I have no idea), but simply because they were a notable part of their confirmation process and they seem to mirror the similar mentions in the Kavanaugh and Thomas pages. Whether it was a "real" or a "manufactured" controversy is besides the point: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. Here it is a matter of weight, not veracity. As such, discussions about whether the comparable mentions in Kavanaugh and Thomas are "unproven/false" or not are red herrings and irrelevant. By contrast, the rather minor discussion of the "frozen trucker" case in Gorsuch's confirmations does not merit a mention in the lede, though they were perhaps the most "controversial" part of his confirmation hearings, because they did not make such a lasting impression. But this isn't about "liberal" or "conservative." I consider myself a liberal, so I'm not favoring inclusion because of the specific content or what it reflects about ideology, but simply because it was a rather important point during her confirmation, and similar situations with other Justices are similarly mentioned in the lede and expanded in the article. In addition to Kavanaugh and Thomas, the following former justices or nominees mention controversies during their confirmation or nomination in the lede (these are those I found on the basis of my memory of issues arising): Robert Bork, Douglas H. Ginsburg, Abe Fortas (elevation to Chief Justice), and Louis Brandeis. For counterweight, I'll mention Felix Frankfurter. John Marshall Harlan II and Harlan Fiske Stone have no mention of the controversies in their nominations in the lede, nor is the controversy of William Rehnquist's memo on Brown v. Board mentioned in his lede. (Frakfurter and Stone ha the first hearings, because both felt they were being unfairly attacked during the confirmation; Harlan's nomination actually lapsed after the Senate refused to take it up at first, because he was seen as being in favor of the decision in Brown). So it could go either way. Again, it shouldn't be a discussion of "true" vs "manufactured", or of "liberal bias" vs. "conservative bias", but rather of how important this particular issue was in her confirmation. I think it was important enough (after all, she sort of apologized for them) to merit the brief mention in the lede. Magidin (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not include it in the lead? It seems her comment was widely publicized. However, also if the comment is added, it should also include that she later backed off or walked back her comments as seen here and in other sources.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing the language that is in dispute, I don't think it's actuate to say her nomination was controversial. The statement was controversial, but even then, the statement itself was not controversial enough to be an issue when she was nominated to the Court of Appeals. Reading both cited sources, I don't think either fully support the claim that her nomination was controversial. I don't think the "controversy" is notable enough for the lead and BPL and POV concerns would I think require also including the response of Sotomayor or her allies to the controversy. To be clear, I don't think anything about the "wise latina" episode needs to be included in the lead given the relative lack of importance to her overall life and work. It's sufficiently covered elsewhere in the article. Knope7 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Knope7: Thank you for clarifying that. You're right. Hers was not a controversial nomination. She wasn't accused of sexual assault or molestation or whatever the hell that was with Kavanaugh. Re: her comments for those who characterize it as racist (and I know this is not a forum), I think what she meant was that she had lived in bad neighborhoods, so I think her comments don't need to be included in the lead. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

What Justice Sotomayor meant by the comments is not really relevant to whether or not a mention of them belongs in the lede. Further, it is not up to the editors here to attempt to determine what she meant by the comments. The point is - the comments were very controversial, Sotomayor made the comments repeatedly, and they were widely publicized during her confirmation process. A mention of the comments belongs in the lede, not merely buried deep within the article. GlassBones (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A lot of things are "highly publicized" during confirmation hearings. Again, I don't believe her comment about "wise latina" needs to be included in the lead because hers was not a controversial nomination for having said it.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Eloquent Peasant - Her comments were controversial and widely discussed, and her nomination was certainly controversial as a result. Also - she made the comments repeatedly, demonstrating that this is something she believes deeply. Accordingly, her comments should not simply be buried deep within the article. Hypothetically, if Justice Scalia had stated that a wise Italian-American man could certainly reach better conclusions that a Puerto Rican woman, would you be making the same argument? GlassBones (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems that there are no compelling arguments from excluding mention of Justice Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" comments in the lede. GlassBones (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how "compelling" you think the argument is, consensus is clearly against you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan - Well, if it's a matter of a vote you may be right. But a majority vote based on various editors' opinions should not determine what should be included in an article. And I haven't read any real good reasons for keeping the information out of the lede. Snoog stated something about "faux controversy", which this definitely was not - this controversy was real, and Sotomayor really made the "wise Latina" statement repeatedly - nothing "faux" about that. Other than that, the only issue appears to be "undue weight". By that standard - anything, no matter how important to the article, can be kept out of the lead if it is mentioned, however briefly, in the body of the article. But the lede is supposed to contain those things that are important regarding the subject of the article. And her "wise Latina" comments, made repeatedly, and which were front and center during her Supreme Court confirmation, and which were obviously controversial, certainly merit inclusion in the lede. GlassBones (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you care to supply a reliable source stating that this was a major part of her life? Not that she said it, not that people jumped all over her for it, but that it was a defining feature? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan - She said it in speeches to a number of organizations. If she didn't believe it, she wouldn't have stated it over and over. That alone arguably makes it is a defining feature. The fact that she said it repeatedly, that many people condemned her for it, and that it was a major topic of discussion and controversy during her confirmation process certainly makes it a defining feature, meriting inclusion in the lede. GlassBones (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan - Here are a few sources that make it clear that "wise Latina" is a major part of her life and who she is, and discuss the controversy regarding her statements. GlassBones (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• 8 of these 9 links date to 2009, during her confirmation hearings, when this kerfuffle/micro-controversy arose. The other link is a retrospective about the 2009 confirmation hearing and Jeff Sessions' fixation on the comment. This rather undermines the argument that this is some sort of mega-important aspect of the subject's life that somehow must go into the lead section. Viewed in historic perspective, the episode is not a "major part of her life." This biography of Sotomayor (from 2012) devotes 2 pages (out of ~170 pages of text) to the "wise Latina" comment. And we are now eight years beyond even that, so her jurisprudence on the Court would naturally take up a bigger portion of the lead when time goes on. And even this book (Univ. of California Press, 2019), which is specifically about "Sonia Sotomayor and the Latino Question," mentions "wise Latina" on about 5 pages out of ~170 pages. The lead section more properly should focus on her career, her jurisprudence, etc.—you know, the reasons why she's actually notable. Neutrality^talk 20:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's pretty much what I thought from the links I reviewed. Neutrality, thanks for going onward and reviewing additional sources. Can we put this to bed now as not ledeworthy? BLP demands that we not take heroic measures to paint people as racists. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Broken citation

An addition today added "stumbled academically in the her first two years" to a description of Sotomayor's performance at Princeton. When I attempted to verify this in the citation that already existed for the page, I was unable to access the reference; link rot (an error message from SNworks states "this page does not exist"). The reference has at least 3 citations in the body; it is currently reference number 46: Gilinsky, Adam (February 28, 1976). "Germany, Sotomayor receive 1976 Pyne Prize". The Daily Princetonian. Retrieved August 1, 2014. If someone knows how to fix it and get a new link, that would be good; it could also verify the addition (which I removed pending verification). Magidin (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I have added the archived version of the source. Knope7 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; it is now clear that the addition was not supported by the reference, so it should stay out until properly cited. Magidin (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2020

you shold add more to it so people can know more abut her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1D01:80FE:714E:8D35:2A9D:A5B9 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem: Sotomayor not confirmed by 'unanimous consent' of the Senate.

According to the U. S. Sentate published voting records for Supreme Court Nominations the vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor was not unanimous. She was confirmed by a vote of 68-31. --Colbyringeisen (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You understand that the paragraph in question is not about her confirmation to the Supreme Court, but about her 1992 confirmation to the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, right? Magidin (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2020

Add affiliations section like there is on republican appointed justices pages

Affiliations

Sotomayor was a member of the National Council of La Raza from 1998 to 2004. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. One sentence is not long enough to justify a section by itself. It has been nestled under "other activities" instead. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021

change "first Hispanic" to "second Hispanic."

The first Hispanic was Benjamin Cardozo, almost a century earlier. Allan W. Azouz (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See footnote a at the end of the first paragraph of the lede Cannolis (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

She has been known to be discriminating against religions and people with disabilities. She even stated multiple racist statements towards caucasian Americans. 74.78.244.116 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not unanimous support and made multiple racist comments

She was not unanimously voted for. That's a flat out lie. She also made multiple racist statements. Also, she has been known to be discriminating against religions and people with disabilities. 74.78.244.116 (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, for the latter allegation you need to provide reliable sources, not just repeat "she has been known". For the former, the unanimous consent was for her nomination to the District Court. Do try to read carefully. Magidin (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"Wise Latina"

How can there be such an extensive article on Justice Sotomayor, with no reference to her racist, sexist "wise Latina" comment, that she made in a number of speeches? (I apologize if there is mention buried deep in some obscure portion of the Wikipedia article, but I couldn't find it) Mention of this, which she is famous for and which defines her character, should receive prominent mention, perhaps front and center in the lead. BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

First, your characterization kind of shows the hand you are trying to play, and you can keep it close to your chest for all I care. Second, you are factually incorrect, as it is mentioned, as is rather easy to locate using the "find" feature of your favorite interface. It's in the second paragraph of the confirmation section, neither "buried deep" nor in an "obscure portion". Almost the entire second paragraph is about it. There is follow-up in the third paragraph, and discussed at the top of the fourth paragraph. It would appear that your comment here is merely meant to be inflamatory, not constructive. It does not belong in the lead. Magidin (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Injected False Information INTO SCOTUS Hearing

Sotomayor wildly ranted during oral arguments that 100,000 children were sick with COV-19 in Hospital. On January 7th, 2022 she said “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition,” Sotomayor contended, “and many on ventilators.” On January 9th, 2122 the CDC Director Dr Rochelle Walensky confirmed that only 3500 children were hospitalized. https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/01/10/cdcs-walensky-confirms-how-dramatically-wrong-sotomayor-was-in-stunning-biden-like-interview-1186641/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 21:58, January 10, 2022 (UTC)

Please keep colorful commentary out. In the same argument, Gorsuch asserted that "hundreds of thousands of people" die of the flu every year (in fact, they do not; they then edited the oral transcript to remove the misstatement by replacing the "of" with a comma, even though the assertion was clearly "hundreds of thousands" when made). If you are suggesting this belongs in the page, it does not (neither does); it is a single misstatement in a single argument, and this is not a news page. If all you are doing is venting, then this is not the proper place to do so. And please (i) sign your comments; and (ii) do not remove other people's signature from previous comments when you post. Magidin (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent oral argument false statement during OSHA mandate hearing

I question the inclusion of the recent false statement about hospitalized children. I do not challenge its verifiability or newsworthiness, but its notablity. As noted here, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion." The criteria about whether it is lasting and persistent are not fully dispositive (hence my commenting rather than editing), but I would think counsel against inclusion, at least at this time. It was a false statement during oral arguments; in that same argument, Justice Gorsuch falsely asserted that every year "hundreds of thousands" of people die of the flu. Justices make false and mistaken statements during oral arguments all the time. No one suggests the assertion affected the outcome, nor is it mentioned in any of the written opinions in the case. It seems to me to be a case of undue weight and recency bias. Magidin (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Magidin: I agree and support its removal from the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I will give it through the weekend, but if there are no dissenting voices, I will remove the addition on Monday. Magidin (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Photo of minor children

Why is there a photo with minor children here? Do we have their parents' permission? Shouldn't this be removed? Marc Yu 16:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcyu (talk • contribs)

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) 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Undone. Please see Talk:Ketanji_Brown_Jackson#Adding_Category_Abortion for centralized discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 3 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)

Controversy section should be added

"Sotomayor's staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children’s books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009. Details of those events, largely out of public view, were obtained by The Associated Press through more than 100 open records requests to public institutions. The resulting tens of thousands of pages of documents offer a rare look at Sotomayor and her fellow justices beyond their official duties." (https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-sotomayor-book-sales-ethics-colleges-b2cb93493f927f995829762cb8338c02)

AP News = Reliable Source

107.123.53.16 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, it would need to be reworded to avoid copyright bios. 107.123.53.16 (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION should be added because it would impair WP:NPOV. The information about her book sales can be added in the appropriate section, with the reliable source, and neutral wording that we agree upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, the article is locked so how do we go forward? 107.123.53.16 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Somebody already added content on this. I will take a look and copy edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Your reverting valid edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Sotomayor&diff=1164948917&oldid=1164925022) about Justice Sotomayor's ethically challenged conduct and replacing it with nonsense is disgraceful. Even CNN (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/05/04/politics/sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch-book-recusal-supreme-court-cases/index.html) has an issue with Sotomayor's conduct and your attempts at trivializing and minimizing this are awful, especially for someone who is an administrator and has been a Wikipedian for so many years. 166.199.114.53 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The CNN article is about recusals, and note that the AP article states on the same issue:

“Justice Sotomayor would have recused in cases in which Penguin Random House was a party, in light of her close and ongoing relationship with the publisher,” the Supreme Court said in a statement. “An inadvertent omission failed to bring Penguin’s participation in several cases to her attention; those cases ultimately were not selected for review by the Court. Chambers’ conflict check procedures have since been changed.”

Schazjmd (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I revised the content to take out factual errors. The text that was added that (1) Penguin House had business before SCOTUS and Sotomayor did not recuse herself, and (2) the books were bought with taxpayer money. These are both false. I revised the text and left edit summaries noting that. My being an admin has nothing to do with anything here, as I'm not using admin tools on this article. Your comment and taking this to AN/I are both unfortunate. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)