Talk:Elena Kagan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Color-corrected image

I color-corrected the photo of Justice Kagan, in order to eliminate much of the feeling that the backgroud looked too flat.

The corrected version is here.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kagen-color_corrected.jpg

If others think it is worth relinking, please do so.

Thanks. Marty — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartyInTucson (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention whatsoever about Kagan's political leanings in the opening paragraphs?

Hi. Just wondering why neither Kagan nor Sotomayor have anything at all in their opening paragraphs that detail their decidedly liberal stances on the Court? I think everyone would agree that these two Associate Justices are members of the Court’s liberal wing, and I’m sure there’s plenty of citations to support it. Further, it’s not like any other Justice lacks a description of where they stand on the Court politically speaking. Don't believe me? Observe: (taken from the opening paragraphs of each Justice's own Wikipedia page)

Roberts: “He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy in his jurisprudence." Scalia: “Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court's conservative wing." Kennedy: “Kennedy has often been the "swing vote" on many of the Court's 5–4 decisions." Thomas: “He is generally viewed as among the most conservative members of the Court." Ginsburg: “She is generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the Court." Breyer: “Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court." Alito: “Alito has been described by the Cato Institute as a conservative jurist with a libertarian streak.”

Kagan: (nothing)

Soromayor: (nothing)

What gives? I’m sure it’s an oversight, but if so, could someone who’s logged in please rectify this in order to conform to all the other Justices’ opening paragraphs? Fair is fair, after all... Thanks122.25.244.97 (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed the Sotomayor article. But unlike hers, this article isn't semi-protected. You can make the change yourself. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

100th Justice Overall

Should there be mention of this? According to our page on U.S. Supreme Court Justices, she is the 100th one overall. As this is an important number in Western Society, should that be mentioned.

A sidenote; I cannot myself do this at the moment, as I can't access the appropriate link to check, but if I am wrong in my reasoning I would love a response, thank you.

If anyone would wish to add that, here is the link I suspect would be the appropriate reference, from the Court's own website: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.pdf Cheers.

Sorry, but I think it's trivial.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, trivial. JOJ Hutton 23:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
If she were the 100th Justice, I think it would be worth mentioning, but she's the 112th. She's the 100th Associate Justice, which is somewhat less milestoney. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The 100th overall Justice to be appointed was William Rehnquist. Rehnquist actually used to enjoy asking law clerks and others around the Court the trivia quesstion "who was the 100th Justice?" and, when they guessed wrong or gave up, answering with a smile "It's me." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Scholarship year error?

"She received Princeton's Daniel M. Sachs Class of 1960 Graduating Scholarship" As she was born in 1960, should that be the 1980 scholarship?75.15.163.251 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)just wondering

No. Everything from the word "Daniel" to the word "Scholarship" is part of the name of the scholarship. I'm not sure the best way of making that clear in the text: perhaps quotation marks or italics would do the trick. -Rrius (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

External links

The battle on the article page cannot continue. The IP has reverted a bunch of times. DHeyward has reverted twice. Other editors, including me, have reverted once. Frankly, I don't see why the two ELs can't remain. As articles go, particularly one of this stature, it's very few ELs. If someone thinks they are otherwise inappropriate (not because of the length of the list), let them explain why here. Regardless, no more reverts by anyone, or I'll seek full protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

They're not really external links, though. They're references that are just dropped into the page. Links to be avoided, as they were. There doesn't seem to be a need to keep them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Technically I've only reverted once as the first edit was to combine the deletion and the addition. There are only 3 EL's on the entire page and it's the smallest of all SCOTUS judges. The IP is rather vitriolic. --DHeyward (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Based on the policy definition of a revert, you clearly reverted twice. Thargor, can you be more specific? The links to be avoided is a long list; which number?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't approve of the IPs language/tone. The IP, however, is still correct. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23, DHeyward and Fat&Happy have all been editing the Elena Kagan article regularly, so presumably have it on their Watch lists. NONE had a problem when a dozen important links were deleted, and now all are pretending to be so "concerned" about a couple of relatively unimportant leftovers. "Rather vitriolic" isn't at all an accurate description. All three of you have been pointed to the deletion discussions (on your Talk pages, which you have each deleted in whole or in part.) None of you have shown the slightest interest in restoring any of those previous links - why is that? Why did you show NO interest in the template's eletion discussion? It showed up on the articles of Every Single SCOTUS Justice, sitting and recent. And look at who has been editing them:
Samuel Alito - Bbb23, DHeyward, Fat&Happy
Stephen Breyer - Bbb23, DHeyward, Fat&Happy
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Bbb23, DHeyward, Fat&Happy
Anthony Kennedy - Bbb23, DHeyward, Fat&Happy, Arthur Rubin
Antonin Scalia - Bbb23, DHeyward, Fat&Happy
Sonia Sotomayor - Bbb23, DHeyward, Fat&Happy, Wasted Time R
David Souter - Arthur Rubin
John Paul Stevens - Arthur Rubin
Clarence Thomas - Bbb23, DHeyward, Fat&Happy
If you had a problem with certain links, you could have discussed that on the template's Talk page, as was suggested in the deletion discussion for Template:NGOLinks, the stare decisis referenced in the JudgeLinks discussion. If you had some sort of "rule issue" with adding them to EL, you could have added them to Further reading - again, see the stare decisis. The rules are quite clear on the grounds for deleting an entire template, yet those were ignored - again, see the stare decisis. All of you were perfectly content to see all those links removed from each of the articles listed above. NONE of you has professed any surprise, shock, or disbelief that was done. You're all making interesting excuses about how you had "no idea gambling was going on". You were watching, you knew, you did nothing. Why is that? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Please don't say "stare decisis" so many times; it's hurting my head, and it has no application anyway. I had no idea about the template discussion until you mentioned it on my talk page. I have over 4,000 pages on my watchlist. I occasionally miss far more important things than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry your head hurts, but you're wrong. A small group of people succeeded in getting NGOlinks deleted, and then cited that as precedent ("per nom..." is the phrase they used) for then immediately moving to delete JudgeLinks, GovLinks and CongLinks. User:Plastikspork was the Admin who deleted the first three and gave them free rein to trash the fourth, all against the rules, including those rules explained in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion "Reasons to delete a template". Those rules were pointed out in the first discussion, but Plastispork ignored them in all four cases: see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure. Arthur Rubin and Thumperward are Admins who took part in that first discussion and ignored those rules. Roccodrift (sockpuppet of banned Belchfire) also took part in that discussion - "Delete, against MOS and obviously disruptive." Imagine that - a banned sockpuppet claiming something "disruptive". Look at how long those people have been Admins, which means they have no excuse for not knowing the rules. Look at their track records. Arthur Rubin was, and is, [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement banned from editing all articles connected with the Tea Party movement]. The first uses of NGOLinks appears to be Tea Party NGOs. Binksternet proposes the template for deletion, and Arthur Rubin "just happens" to join in. Well maybe not "just happens", if you read this. Arthur Rubin reverted an edit I made to the Virginia Thomas article, thinking I was someone called Michigan Kid. In trying to find out why anyone would 1. Think I was banned and 2. have a problem with adding an OpenSecrets.org link, I "met" MilesMoney and found out Arthur Rubin was banned from Tea Party editing. I posted on Arthur Rubin's Talk page, but Binksternet replied - who does that??? Look what followed - what appears to be a vendetta. All this raises extremely serious questions. Yet you show zero interest in any of that, although you're an Admin charged with protecting The Five Pillars. You continue to show zero interest in the dozen links deleted when that template was deleted. Why is that? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Please look at my edits. I have no clue about whatever it is you are whining about. Your edit didn't match the summary. I KEPT your contribution and restored material you took out. Don't mention me again as I've never removed anything you added. I have low tolerance full on asininity. --DHeyward (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, I'm sorry to hear you have no clue, so I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you. Here are your latest edits, in context:
07:13, 30 January 2014‎ DHeyward (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,835 bytes) (+266)‎ . . (Undid revision 593080592 by 71.23.178.214 (talk)kept addition, udid deletion
07:07, 30 January 2014‎ 71.23.178.214 (talk)‎ . . (47,569 bytes) (-237)‎ . . (→‎External links)
13:44, 24 January 2014‎ SporkBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (47,806 bytes) (-290)‎ . . (Remove template per TFD outcome)
You have this page on your Watch list, along with the rest of the SCOTUS judges. Pretty hard to miss when that Template was deleted, because ALL of the Justices would have been listed at the same time. Do you really expect me to believe you had absolutely no curiosity about that? That you didn't even check the diff?
JudgeLinks|scotus=yes | fjc = 3289 | llc = kagan.php | lii = kagan | oyez = elena_kagan | judgepedia = Elena_Kagan | washpo = Elena_Kagan | c-span = elenakagan | imdb = nm4309964 | opensecrets = | nyt = k/elena_kagan | worldcat = lccn-no95-27810 | nndb = 295/000167791 | findagrave =
If you're interested enough to watch these pages, I think you'd recognize 'scotus' and those abbreviations of legal websites. You'd recognize C-SPAN and the New York Times. You'd know Worldcat would be about the books she's written. So what exactly are you claiming as an excuse for ignoring this?
Are you also claiming you didn't check the discussion? Not likely, so let's assume you looked at it. Three people made comments: Thargor Orlando (never previously shown any interest in SCOTUS that I could find), an IP whose only complaint was that it didn't work for non-US judges, and SteveStrummer (also no previous interest in SCOTUS). You know the other people you regularly update the SCOTUS pages, so you'd notice NONE of them made any comments. Are you claiming you still weren't curious about what was going on? I just have a really, really hard time understanding why you, and the rest of the people keeping SCOTUS on your Watch lists, have been micro-managing every single edit...with the exception of this one. So why don't you explain just what went through your mind, and what you did, when you saw every single Justice pop up on your Watch list at the same time? It was only about a week ago, so you should be able to remember. Then I'll consider your request to not mention you again, and perhaps even discuss your definition of "full on asininity". I definitely have some thoughts on that latter point. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but there is no other way to explain it, but your comments are moronic. You highlight one edit I made (that kept your addition) a week after the TfD? I didn't edit the judgelinks TfD discussion, nor see it, nor care about it in the slightest. The page was added to my watchlist when I added information about these judges and about 10 more judges to a template on most living people. Go diff my edits and stop wasting everybody's time. I've made 3 edits to this page. One on 12/31/2013 (which added it to my watchlist and had nothing to do with your petty issue) and two related to your idiotic nonsense. Your accusations are silly and about the dumbest things I've read in a while. --DHeyward (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved to talk: Further reading

Given that this is a fairly well-referenced WP:BLP, I think it best to limit External links to content that cannot be incorporated in the article. Even then, we need to follow WP:BLP and keep an eye on proper neutrality.

Here's the list, in case some could be used to help verify or expand the article: --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Potier, Beth (September 16, 2004). "Big plans highlight Elena Kagan's 2L; HLS dean looks forward to a busy year". Harvard Gazette. Harvard News Office. Retrieved January 5, 2009.
  • Levine, Adina (September 30, 2004). "Kagan declares state of the law school is "very strong"; Plans more construction, reassessment of curriculum, and enlargement of faculty". Harvard Law Record. Harvard Law School Record Corporation. ISSN 0017-8101. Retrieved January 5, 2009.
  • "No Excuse Not to Work Out: Hemenway Opens". Harvard Law Record. Harvard Law School Record Corporation. September 29, 2005. ISSN 0017-8101. Retrieved January 5, 2009.
  • Brown, Kelly Lynn (September 30, 2004). "Editorial: Dean Kagan off to a promising start". Harvard Law Record. Harvard Law School Record Corporation. ISSN 0017-8101. Retrieved January 5, 2009.
  • Gerstein, Josh (March 10, 2006). "As Harvard Seeks a President, Dean Kagan's Star Is Rising". New York Sun. Retrieved January 5, 2009. Ms. Kagan, 45, is credited with overseeing a renaissance at the law school during her nearly three years as dean, and many of her fans believe she could achieve the same for the entire university if given the chance.
  • Bennett, Drake (October 19, 2008). "Crimson tide – Harvard Law School, long fractious and underachieving, is on the rise again – and shaking up the American legal world". Boston Globe. Retrieved January 5, 2009. [T]here is near unanimity that the school's dean, Elena Kagan, a scholar of administrative law and a former Clinton administration official, has galvanized the place with her ambition and adroit management style, knitting together the faculty, charming the students, and attracting top-flight talent to the school.
  • Leonard, Tom (April 24, 2009). "Barack Obama administration seeks to change police questioning law". The Daily Telegraph. UK. Retrieved April 24, 2009. The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meagre benefits".
  • Lichtblau, Eric (May 15, 2009) Potential Justice's Appeal May Be Too Bipartisan, New York Times
  • van Diggelen, Alison (April 10, 2010). "Jeffrey Toobin says Elena Kagan Likely Supreme Court Justice". Huffington Post. USA. Retrieved April 10, 2010. She's very much an Obama type person, a moderate Democrat, a consensus builder ...
  • Greenwald, Glenn (April 13, 2010) The case against Elena Kagan, Salon.com
  • The Progressive Case For Elena Kagan Thinkprogress.com (May 10, 2010)

112th Associate Justice

GoodDay has removed the statement in the lead that Kagen is the 112th Associate Justice several times, stating that there is a consensus against it. I have asked GoodDay several times to link the discussion, but so far the link has not been provided. Sundayclose (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember which WikiProject the consensus was reached at or exactly what year. But, I do remember that it was agreed that numbering associate justices would be confusing for readers, because associate justices serve concurrently. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: If you aren't willing to back up your claim with a link, please restore your removal of content. It's a simple request to provide a link to the discussion. It was your responsibility to discuss here after I reverted your edit. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I already did so, as it was the version before you challenged my edit. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm open to discussion if someone can find the consensus discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm still looking for the consensus-in-question. It may takes hours to find it. In the meantime, I've requested input from WikiProject United States courts and judges, concerning this dispute. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A consensus was reached here, in 2012 for the removal of the numbering from the infoboxes. I thought it included removal from the article intro aswell, but I was wrong. Anyways, I've already asked for input from the related WikiProject, concerning article intros. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elena Kagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elena Kagan. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court Tenure

This New York Times editorial discusses a few of Kagan's early writings for the Court and her writing style. It may be helpful in trying to update the Supreme Court tenure section, if not directly as a source but as a starting point. Knope7 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This New York Magazine piece has some good insight into her first year on the Court and her personality. Knope7 (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence will eventually be added to this article, Cooper v. Harris would probably be a good case to include. Kagan wrote the majority opinion on a case that reviewed gerrymandering in the state of North Carolina. Knope7 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Elena Kagan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elena Kagan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Voting record

To the article on Elena Kagan, I plan to add a section on her Supreme Court jurisprudence and voting record. All the Supreme Court justices have sections on their voting records but Elena Kagan doesn't have this section on her Wikipedia page.

I am still looking for good sources on her voting records and I would love guidance on doing so. According to sources, Elena Kagan doesn't do interviews and her private judicial papers remain private. This is why there is very little record on her voting record.

Elena Kagan: A Biography by Meg Greene is a book I'm planning on using for this section.

Tamaracyoung (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Tamaracyoung:! Can you clarify which other articles you are looking at? I am aware of sections on jurisprudence but not articles with sections on a justice's voting record. A justice's personal papers are not necessary. Supreme Court justices issue opinions, including majority opinions, dissents, and concurrences. For a jurisprudence section, you'll want an introduction that talks about Kagan's general approach and her ideological place on the court (she's in the liberal block). You'll also want to discuss her approach to various issues, examples could include her approach to voting rights, free speech, the right to effective assistance of council, the confrontation clause, etc. I recommend looking for law review articles or news articles discussing Kagan's significant opinions. Finding reliable secondary sources will be key. The New Yorker article I previously linked on this page is a good place to start. Also, look for discussions of the Cooper case I also previously mentioned on this page. I hope that helps. Please feel free to ask questions here on the talk page. Knope7 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Tenure as Justice section neutrality

I just read through the section of "Tenure as Justice" and I noticed it only talks about the times she voted with the majority. None of the times she was overruled as the minority is listed. This seems very out of balance to me and I have tagged the section's neutrality until fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a neutrality problem. Lower court judges get overruled. Justices can be in the majority or the minority. It does make sense to focus on opinions where she makes law, that is where she writes for the majority. There is no shame for siding with the minority. The problem with the section on her tenure is that it needs to be developed. We don't need to list how often she votes with each of her colleagues in one term. I'm leaving it for now because the bigger problem with the section is that it is lacking a lot of information, and I think the attempts to add information so far are overall a good thing. I will probably go back and remove some extraneous details once the section is more filled out. Knope7 (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Good Article goal

I would like to see this article reach Good Article status. This article reflects a lot of nice work by several editors. I think we can build on that progress to push this article over the line. I'm working on a jurisprudence section. I also think we need to 1) add more about her actual work as Solicitor General, currently the section focuses on her confirmation and includes a line of criticism without really delving into what she did; 2) add to the recognition section, find where she has received awards or honors; 3) add a personal life section, I've already founds some good sources I can share with anyone interested in paining a picture of Kagan outside of her work. Knope7 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A worthy goal! More than happy to help out in anyway I can. I've mostly been involved with anti-vandalism and would like to help with some content creation for once. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

PASSES
This article (Elena Kagan) passes its GA review. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elena Kagan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Mine! I look forward to this review. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


Review

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

General

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. Please try to improve the captions for the images. They should give context and be informative
    1.  Request withdrawn Kagan graduates from Harvard Law School in 1986. - graduated, or HLS, 1986
    2.  Request withdrawn Obama nominates Kagan.to be an Associate Justice for the United States Supreme Court he nominated her
    3.  Done Solicitor General Kagan meets with Obama in the Oval Office, April 2010. Obama would nominate Kagan to the Supreme Court the following month why have this after the video of her being nominated?
    4.  Done Kagan, Obama, and Roberts before her investiture ceremony - link investiture
    5.  Done Elena Kagan, as a nominee to the Supreme Court met with Senator Jeanne Shaheen - need a comma before met
    6.  Request withdrawn In October 2010, the four women to have served as justices on the United States Supreme Court: O'Connor, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan awkward phrasing
  2. "Greene, 2014" is cited repeatedly in footnotes, but not listed in "sources"
    1. Sources now includes Greene, 2013 - which year is it?
    2. Now sources only has 1 item, which looks odd...
  3.  Done There it some WP:CITEKILL in some places. I suggest limiting the number of sources used for any individual claim to 2, 3 at most. Thus, [78][79][80][81][82] and [136][137][138][139] should be trimmed, as well as some of the 6 cases where there are 3 refs.

Lede

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  1.  Done Elena Kagan (/ˈkeɪɡən/; born April 28, 1960) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, nominated by President Barack Obama on May 10, 2010, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 5, 2010. can we split this sentence up?
    1. Now reads President Barack Obama on in May 2010
    2. and the U.S. Senate on in August
  2.  Done After attending Princeton University, Worcester College, Oxford and Harvard Law School, she completed federal Court of Appeals and Supreme Court clerkships. - rephrase - I read this as Worcester College and Oxford being two different things, and also "completed clerkships" sounds weird
    1. she clerked for a federal Court of Appeals judge and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall - odd to say who the Justice was but not the Judge she clerked for
  3.  Done Then on May 10, 2010, President Barack Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court we don't need the date twice within the lede
  4.  Done Confirmed by the United States Senate by a vote of 63 to 37, Kagan was sworn into office on August 7, 2010. She is considered part of the Court's liberal wing, although she does tend to be one of the more moderate justices of that group. She wrote the majority opinion in Cooper v. Harris, a landmark case restricting the permissible uses of race in drawing congressional districts.
    1.  Request withdrawn Don't need the vote margin in the lede
    2.  Done Don't need both date of confirmation, and date of swearing in
    3.  Request withdrawn Why mention this one case?
    4.  Done now reads Confirmed by the United States Senate by a vote of 63 to 37. - needs a subject

Early life

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  1.  Done Kagan has two brothers who are public school teachers. unless they were teachers then its the wrong section
  2.  Request withdrawn bat mitzvah should be capitalized - entire section has repeated instances
  3.  Done "She had strong opinions about what a bat mitzvah should be like, which didn't parallel the wishes of the rabbi," said her father's colleague. need ref for this quote (and Bat Mitzvah)
  4.  Request withdrawn bar mitzvah - same issue
  5.  Done They negotiated a satisfactory solution. - who? Kagan, her father, the father's colleague, and the rabbi?
  6.  Done Kagan asked to read from the Torah on a Saturday morning but ultimately read on a Friday night, May 18, 1973, from the Book of Ruth. - read from the Torah vs read (should add [from it]); rephrase how the date is included
  7.  Done Today, she identifies with Conservative Judaism. - rephrase - as a Conservative Jew
    Now reads as a Conservative Judaism. - someone can't be a Judaism
  8.  Done Childhood friend Margaret Raymond recalled that Kagan was a teenage smoker but not a partier. rephrase, in part because next sentence has she and Kagan and its confusing who "she" is)
  9.  Done Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter - see WP:SOB

I'm going to stop here. This article needs a copy edit before I proceed. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Education

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  1.  Done attracted students from all over the city. - what city?
  2.  Done At 23, she entered Harvard Law School in 1983. - awkward phrasing
  3.  Done Her adjustment to the atmosphere of Harvard was rocky, she received the worst grades of her entire law school career in her first semester. 2 independent clauses - use ; instead of ,

Early career

all done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  1.  Done She also clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988 ending the clerkship at the end of the year. - what does this mean?
  2. As a junior associate, Kagan drafted briefs and conducted discovery, which meant looking at evidence in preparation for trial. don't explain what this "meant"
    You said this was removed, but my point was that we shouldn't explain what a junior associate does. Thus, the new sentence, As a junior associate, Kagan drafted briefs and conducted discovery., is also IMO not needed
  3.  Done It was during her time at the University of Chicago Law School that Kagan first met Barack Obama who became a lecturer at the school in 1992. - rephrase
  4.  Done When Clinton's term ended, her nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court lapsed, as did the nomination of fellow Clinton nominee Allen Snyder. - that's not when it lapsed. Both sources just say it lapsed, and nominations lapse when the senate's term ends, not the president's. See, eg, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31980.html

Return to academia

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  1.  Done Thus, she needed to be rehired, and the school chose not to do so; reportedly due to doubts about her commitment to academia. - rephrase
  2.  Done While there, she authored a law review article on United States administrative law, including the role of aiding the President of the United States in formulating and influencing federal administrative and regulatory law, which was honored as the year's top scholarly article by the American Bar Association's Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, and is being developed into a book to be published by Harvard University Press. - that's a really long sentence, and should be broken up
    The new version (While there, she authored a law review article on United States administrative law, focusing on the role of the President in formulating and influencing federal administrative law, which was honored as the year's top scholarly article by the American Bar Association's Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice.), is still too long (imo). Can we split it into 2? (While there...administrative law. The article was honored...)
  3.  Done she was named a full professor - where? its not clear, even though the rest of the sentence is based at harvard, she could have been the professor at chicago
  4.  Request withdrawn The focus of her tenure was on improving student satisfaction. Efforts included constructing new facilities and reforming the first-year curriculum as well as aesthetic changes and creature comforts, such as free morning coffee. - unneeded details
  5.  Done Kagan made a number of prominent new hires, increasing the size of the faculty considerably. Her coups included hiring legal scholar Cass Sunstein away from the University of Chicago and Lawrence Lessig away from Stanford. She also broke a logjam on conservative hires by bringing in scholars such as Jack Goldsmith, who had served in the Bush administration. - need to rephrase first part; why "coups"?; need evidence for the previous existence of a logjam
  6.  Done In October 2003, Kagan sent an e-mail to students and faculty deploring that military recruiters had shown up on campus in violation of the school's anti-discrimination policy. It read, "This action causes me deep distress. I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy". She also wrote that it was "a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order".[61] - need a ref for the first sentence; rephrase (in the second sentence, "it" refers to the email, but later, "it" refers to the email's subject, which is confusing)
  7.  Request withdrawn From 2005 through 2008, Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute. She received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008. - not part of academia
  8.  Done By early 2007, Kagan was a finalist for the presidency of Harvard University as a whole after Lawrence Summers' resignation the previous year but lost to Drew Gilpin Faust. She was reportedly disappointed not to be chosen, and supportive law school students threw her a party to express their appreciation for her leadership. - rephrase

Solicitor General

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  1.  Done Before this appointment she had never argued a case before any court. At least two previous solicitors general, Robert Bork and Kenneth Starr, had no previous Supreme Court appearances, though Starr was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit before becoming Solicitor General. - rephrase sentence 1, clause 2 of sentence 2 is unneeded detail (not about Kagan)
  2.  Request withdrawn Kagan was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 19, 2009, by a vote of 61 to 31,[70] becoming the first woman to hold the position.[71] - the cite in the middle disrupts the flow; can this be split into 2 sentences? Also, woman -> female?
  3.  I'm probably just being stupid Upon taking office, Kagan pledged to defend any statute as long as there is a colorable (plausible) argument to be made, even though she might not personally agree with the policy she was obligated to defend. - why use "colorable" if its not a direct quote? Rephrase, this is confusing; did she pledge to do this before she was confirmed, or afterwards? The second clause repeats the first (will defend it), and she isn't "obliged" to defend anything; if she were, there would be no need for her to pledge anything
  4.  Request withdrawn As Solicitor General, Kagan's job was to act as the lawyer for the United States and defend legislation and executive actions in appeals before the Supreme Court.[71][44] Thus, the arguments Kagan made as Solicitor General were not necessarily indicative of her personal beliefs. - shouldn't explain the job, a link to Solicitor General of the United States, which is already included, is enough
  5.  Done in the re-argument of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,558 U.S. 310 (2010) - need a space
  6. During argument, Kagan asked the Supreme Court to uphold a 1990 precedent that the government could restrict corporations from using their treasuries to campaign for or against political candidates, or in the alternative, for the Court to keep its ruling narrowly focused on corporations that resembled Citizens United instead of reconsidering prior cases which allowed for restrictions on some corporate campaign finance. The Supreme Court reversed laws on how much corporations could spend on elections, a major defeat for the Obama administration. - rewrite; some issues are
    1.  Request withdrawn What was the precedent?
    2.  Done "or in the alternative" - too technical
    3.  Done What was the decision? If you're going to highlight citizens united, explain it clearly
    4.  Request withdrawn NEW: In the alternative, Kagan argued that if the Court would not uphold precedent, for the Court to keep its ruling in Citizen's United narrowly focused on corporations that resembled the petitioning organization, Citizens United, instead of reconsidering broader restrictions on corporate campaign finance. - in addition to my above (minor) point regarding "in the alternative," this sentence is really long. Can it be split or shortened? (Suggestion: Kagan argued that, if the Court would not uphold precedent, it should keep its ruling focused only on corporations similar to the petitioner, Citizens United)
  7.  Done During her 15 months as solicitor general, Kagan argued only six cases before the Supreme Court. She helped win four cases: Salazar v. Buono, 59 U.S. 700 (2010) United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010). Another case she argued as solicitor general was Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson, 560 U.S. 272 (2010) which was decided by a per curiam opinion. The Washington Post described her style during argument as "confident" and "conversational". - rewrite; some issues are
    1.  Done numbers: 15, six, four - standardize format
    2.  Done for the cases, you have 1, 2, and 3, 4. The "and" is in the wrong place
    3.  Done solicitor general - capitalize
    4.  Done Why is a per curiam opinion significant enough to mention?
    5.  Done Integrate describe her style better
  8.  Done NEW: Fix ref 76 - Greene, 2014, p. =136.

Supreme Court

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  1.  Done I don't think the For the Senate's roll call vote on confirmation... is necessary; its just a section of the article linked directly above
  2.  Done Some of the details in the nomination section should be left to the main nomination article, imo. EG, the second-to-last sentence is unneeded
  3.  Done The confirmation hearings - what confirmation hearings? explain
  4.  Done doing so without taking notes - what does taking notes have to do with answering the questions? It may be relevant if she was answering them without referring to notes. Also, this specific claim should have a ref
     Already done The new and doing so without taking notes on the Senator's questions - Senator's suggestions that it was only 1 specific senator. Did you mean Senators'?
  5.  Done For Specter, that evasiveness obscured the way justices actually ruled once on the Court, and he noted that Kagan published an article in the Chicago Law Review in 1995 in which she criticized the evasiveness she came to practice. - rephrase the first part
  6.  Done Kagan is the first justice appointed without any prior experience as a judge since William Rehnquist in 1972. She is the fourth female justice in the Court's history (and, for the first time, part of a Court with three female justices) and the eighth Jewish justice, making three of the then-nine justices Jewish. - rephrase and trim
     Request withdrawn Good, but She is the fourth female justice in the Court's history and the eighth ever Jewish justice. - why use ever for Jewish but not for female?
  7.  Done Tenure as Justice - shouldn't this be "Tenure as a Justice" (or just "Tenure")?
  8.  Done Tenure as Justice section - rewrite; issues include
    1.  Request withdrawn Multiple WP:SOB issues (not just in this section)
      Thanks for pointing out the templates
    2.  Done Mechanics issues (missing spaces, : instead of ;, etc)
    3.  Done Unclear pronoun usage (During that term - which?)
      The year (2018) is only given a few sentences prior: In 2018, Slate observed Kagan had crossed ideological lines on multiple cases during the proceeding term, and considered her to be part of a centrist block along with Justice Steven Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts. Still, FiveThirtyEight observed that Kagan voted with her more liberal peers, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, over 90% of the time. During that term, Kagan most commonly agreed with Justice Stephen Breyer, voting together in 93% of cases, and agreed with Justice Samuel Alito least often, voting together 58.82% of the time. (bolding added)
  9.  Done Kagan's first opinion as a justice, Ransom v. FIA Card Services, involved the issue of what income a debtor was allowed to shield from creditors in bankruptcy. - rephrase
  10.  Done failed to treat all Americans the same - unless this is a direct quote, it should be fixed - nothing was suggested to show that all Americans have to be treated the same
  11.  Done Kagan noted the board in Greece was forum for ordinary citizens. - was a forum
  12.  Done First Amendment Rights - why capitalize rights?
  13.  Done Sixth amendment section - rewrite; issues include
    1.  Request withdrawn More WP:SOB
    2.  Done where the five justice majority held that the freezing of untainted assets, those not traced back to criminal activity, pre-trial was a violation of a defendant's sixth amendment right to counsel where those assets were needed to retain counsel of the defendant's choosing. - rephrase
      Now where the five-justice majority held that the pre-trial freezing of untainted assets, those not traced back to criminal activity, was a violation of a defendant's sixth amendment right to counsel when those assets are needed to retain counsel of the defendant's choosing. - can I suggest removing ", those" to result in "untainted assets not traced...". Also, tense: was a violation; are needed
    3.  Done through the alleged sale of drugs, pretrial even where those - make pretrial vs pre-trial uniform
    4.  Done with a showing of probable cause that the property will ultimately be subject to forfeiture. - makes no sense in context. Was this meant to be without a showing...?
  14.  Done Gerrymandering section - rewrite; issues include
    1.  Done Kagan wrote for the majority in Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 15-1262 (2017), striking down two of North Carolina's congressional districts. The Court held the districts were unconstitutional because they relied on race and did not pass the strict scrutiny standard of review. - striking down the map; relying on race isn't unconstitutional in-and-of itself
      The four sources for this claim, in order and with bolding added, say: "relied too heavily on race...excessive use of race..."; "violated the Constitution by relying too heavily on race in drawing them...predominant factor"; "if legislators use race as their predominant districting criterion", ""A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason,"". Relying on race does trigger strict scrutiny, but it did not lead to the maps being unconstitutional; rather, the extent of and purpose for the use of race were unconstitutional, meaning the map was struck down (having the districts exist is constitutional, but their configuration wasn't).
    2.  Done In a footnote, Kagan sets forth a new principle, that is congressional districts where race is the predominant factor may be found to be an unlawful racial gerrymander, even if they have another ultimate goal, such as sorting voters by political affiliation. - What does this even mean?
  15.  Request withdrawn Writing style section - really unclear, some of the details not needed
  16.  Request withdrawn Time magazine named Kagan one of its Time 100 most influential people for 2013 - need source for specific quote
  17.  Done That same year, a painting featuring the four women to have served as justices on the United States Supreme Court, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and O'Connor, was unveiled at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. According to the Smithsonian at the time, the painting was on loan to the museum for three years. - rephrase

Personal life

 Request withdrawn --DannyS712 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Rewrite - issues include
  1. Early on in her tenure as a justice, Kagan began socializing with several of her new Court colleagues. She attended the Opera with Ginsburg, dinner with Sotomayor, attending legal events with Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, and hunting with Scalia. The hunting trips with Scalia stemmed from a promise Kagan made to the Senator during a meeting prior to her confirmation to the Supreme Court. Senator James Risch of Idaho expressed concern that New York City native Kagan did not understand the importance of hunting to his constituents. Kagan offered to go hunting with the Senator before promising instead to go hunting with Scalia if confirmed. According to Kagan, Scalia later laughed when she told him of the promise and he took her to his hunting club for the first of several hunting trips. - how is this personal and not part of her time on the Supreme Court?
  2. Kagan is known to spend time with longtime friends from law school and from her stint working in the Clinton Administration rather than DC social events she is invited to as a justice. - rephrase; repeated "time" is awkward; why does this matter?

Discussion

  • Please do not change the notes or the review itself. Post here (the discussion section) and I'll look over the changes. Thanks! --DannyS712 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

General

  1. I changed several captions.
    1. Note done. See WP:CAPLENGTH which uses a caption for Maya Angelou written in present tense as its example.
    2. Same as above
    3. Done
    4. Done, made present tense for consistency.
    5. I had added the date for specificity. Otherwise, the caption is almost identical to the one used for Sotomayor. Again, this feels well beyond what is expected of a good article nominee.
  2. Added Greene to "Sources"
    1. I keep going back to the scope of a good article review.
    update, I removed Greene from "sources". The first usage of Greene has a full citation. I had thought that was the case.
  3. I will take a look at the citations later when I have more time
update, I looked at the citations. CITEKILL is guidance. For the two sets of citaitons you pointed to, I bundled the citations. For the first set of citations pointed out, I removed one source, but the point being cited is about her name being mentioned as a supreme court contender, I think that it is better to show multiple sources talking about her in that way. For the second set, each citation supports a different year's statistics. They are all necessary. I looked over some of the sentences supported by 3 citations, and I am comfortable with the citations. I don't see a hard rule that 3 citations is the maximum allowed, and if such a rule exists, than I see no reason to trim down 3 citations. If you want to point to individual sentences, I am happy to reconsider, but overall I am satisfied that I made reasonable judgement calls.

Lead

  1. Done
  2. Changed to Oxford University and added Oxford comma, changed clerkship
  3. Removed the second occurrence of the date
  4. Vote margins are in the lead for other Justices and I don't think the lead is so long that it needs to be trimmed; removed swearing in date; the case is probably the most significant and high profile majority opinion she has written.

Knope7 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Early life

  1. I moved it to the footnote. Some articles mention future occupations or even dates of death that occur later under "Early life." I also added a couple of other sentences to this opening paragraph.
  2. It's lowercase in the source. It's consistent throughout.
  3. Added ref.
  4. Again, it's consistent.
  5. Changed to Kagan and the Rabbi.
  6. From is already included, but I changed the order. Removed the date.
  7. Done.
  8. Done.
  9. Done.

Knope7 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Education

  1. Changed to New York City
  2. Moved 1983 to the beginning of the sentence.
  3. Done

Early career

  1. Good question. Removed the end of the sentence.
  2. Removed. Not everyone knows what a junior associate does. It's a very brief description.
  3. Rephrased.
  4. Changed.

Knope7 (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Return to academia

  1. Done
  2. Done.
    1. Changed.
  3. Done
  4. They are examples of her approach to leadership. I reread the source material and I don't see the problem with the details included.
  5. Coups because they were high profile hires from other institutions. I'll go back to the logjam part.
    1. Changed wording and added second source for hiring more conservatives.
  6. All sentences here are sourced from the same reference. There does not need to be a citation for consecutive sentences unless there is a direct quote. I'm not sure what you want rephrased here.
    1. Changed the first it.
  7. It's the best place to fit this in the article chronologically. Its something she did while she was in academia.
  8. Done

Solicitor General

  1. Done
  2. Citations are allowed, and even encouraged, mid-sentence where appropriate. Woman or female would fit grammatically, I chose woman.
  3. Changed. Update: I'm not sure what is still a problem here.
  4. Wikilink's are not supposed to be used in place of providing appropriate explanations of terms. A lot of Americans do not know what the Solicitor General does, let alone international readers. I think the explanation is appropriate.
  5. Done
  6. Changed. I explain the precedent but I do not cite it. Citizen's United is a very complex case, but I simplified it based on the secondary sources that explain Kagan's involvement. Update: I actually added a few words to try and clarify. I think that it's important to say why she wanted to focus on companies like Citizen's United. She wanted to avoid broad implications for corporate finance. The original sentence was already chopped into two parts.
    1. Done
    2. Done
    3. Done
    4. She argued six opinions, all others are mentioned. I moved this to a footnote.
    5. Moved
  8. Done.

Supreme Court

  1. Removed
  2. I removed one paragraph of minor criticism. I don't think the section is excessively long.
  3. Added detail
  4. Added a few words, but the gist is she didn't need to write down anything and could respond to complex questions without taking notes. The claim does have a ref. It's hidden because it is the same ref as the next sentence and therefore a references is not needed.
    1. Someone else changed Senator's to their
  5. Done
  6. Moved some detail to footnotes
    1. Because in writing a long article and in depth article, I made a lot of choices. I chose to use ever in one place but not the other.
  7. I think it's fine but I changed to Tenure
  8. Not done
    1. I see one SOB, and SOB does not say you can never have two wikilinks back to back. I don't think SOB is part of the GA style guide. I also wonder if you are counting some of the templates for Supreme Court decisions as SOB?
    2. I saw one spacing issue, which has been fixed. Feel free to change a : to a ; if that is important to you. I don't see the issue.
    3. Changed.
  9. Changed.
  10. This reflects what is in the source. It's treating all Americans the same regardless of religion.
  11. Changed.
  12. Changed.
  13. See below
    1. Template, not changed.
    2. Changed.
    3. Changed.
    4. Added "mere" to show probable cause is a low bar for seizing assets.
  14. See below.
    1. Not changed. Relying on race triggers strict scrutiny. The failure to pass strict scrutiny is what makes the districts unconstitutional. This is supported by the sources cited. Update: I checked the opinion itself. It upholds the lower court opinion which struck down the districts. It is accurate to say it struck down the districts, not the map. Triggering strict scrutiny was necessary for the districts being struck down because the way the districts were drawn did not pass the test applied under strict scrutiny.
    2. Adjusted, but it's a complicated concept.
  15. I reread this section and did not make any significant changes. This section explains that she tends to write on behalf of a group and she writes on her own so infrequently that this tendency is notable. The second paragraph explains that she writes towards a broader audience. This is also unusual and something that is notable. It's relevant and well-sourced.
  16. Two quotes are in the same sentence. The sentence is cited.
  17. Changed.

Personal life

  1. These are all personal interactions with her colleagues outside of work. I could see an argument for including them in Supreme Court, but there isn't always a right and wrong answer. I chose to include them in personal life and I think they are appropriate here.
  2. Not changed. I don't see a problem with using time and longtime in the same sentence. If you would like to suggest different wording, that's fine. This is again insight into her personal life and how Kagan spends her time outside the court.
@Knope7: See updated review --DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This article has been copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors just prior to nomination. I am happy to make changes, but please note that some differences maybe a matter of preference. Knope7 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Knope7: Please do. I'm sorry, but there are a lot of things I see that I don't want to spend the time pointing out in a GAR. If you copyedit it, I'll then assume that any minor issues remaining are a matter of preference. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I have gone through the article again, but as I pointed out before,the article was copy edited before nomination. There can be more than one way to express an idea. I am happy to make changes at your request, but sounds like reworking every sentence is not something either of us would like to do. I assure you, significant work has gone into this article. 21:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Knope7: Please see the updated review (and watchlist this page if you haven't) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Knope7: Can you please see the last few edits I made to this page for how I would prefer if posted? Specifically, making notes corresponding to different notes above is much easier using #, and it is also easier for me to refer back to while in edit mode. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Knope7: Please see continued review --DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Knope7: Please see continued review, and add this page to your watchlist --DannyS712 (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I saw the continued review. Is there a reason why I can't wait until the review is complete? Knope7 (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Knope7: No, not really, I didn't realize you were going to wait. I'll finish it in the next few days. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Knope7:  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think maybe we should discuss some of the comments for the Tenure, Jurisprudence, and other sections towards the end of the article. The constant "rewrite" comments are an issue for me. Are you requesting I rewrite entire chunks of the article? I don't think that is necessary. I would also ask if you have consulted WP:GACN. You and I may have very different styles. The question isn't whether the article meets your preferences, but does the article meet the GA criteria. I do not believe the article needs to be re-written to meet GA criteria. Knope7 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Knope7: What I meant by "rewrite" is that there were either multiple problems with the phrasing, and thus, IMO, it would be better to "WP:TNT" that specific paragraph/section, etc, not that it needs to be rewritten completely. Sorry. I'll reread the comments I left, along with the changes you made, and get back to you. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think WP:TNT is at all appropriate here. From that essay: "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over.
Copyright violations and extensive cases of advocacy and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. Anyone can start over as long as their version isn't itself a copyright or WP:PAID violation, or a total copy of the deleted content."
I do not see any allegations close to the seriousness copyright violations, advocacy, or sock farms. I am not rewriting the Sixth Amendment and Gerrymandering subsections nor the Personal life section from scratch and I do not believe that is a fair request as part of a GA review. We maybe be at an impasse. Knope7 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Knope7: It that case, please just address the specific concerns listed, and if I see any more I'll add them. Sorry for the misunderstanding --DannyS712 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I will go through the remaining comments in the coming days. Thanks. Knope7 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I've addressed the remaining comments. Knope7 (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could you please state the fact that Elena Kagan is a Jewish lesbian, and therefore, has no interest in representing and supporting US citizens, unless they happen to be jews.

She does not represent normative Torah Jews. Believe that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.83.145 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC) 

122.110.12.48 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. aboideautalk 13:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Where was her swearing in ceremony?

The article says that she was sworn in at the White House, but the two references (100, 101) say it was at the court itself:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/Oath/oath_kagan.aspx https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna38591634

Should this be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.91.143 (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Progressivism

She agreed with Justice Breyer in his dissent and in favor of allowing executive power to override a First Amendment Right in the face of scientific/medical uncertainty. Effectively, she favors science over law (but she's not a scientist; she'a a lawyer). See Roman Catholic Diocease of New York vs. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.198.123 (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

Justice Kagan has never said she practices conservative Judaism. 24.15.227.151 (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It is well sourced, to the New York Times. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tamaracyoung.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lbmchenry.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elena_Kagan/Archive_2&oldid=1172440703"