Talk:Ruth Bader Ginsburg/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 01:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Images - there are several clustered in one section, but long sections of text with no images. I think this could be improved.

I moved somethings around. The images are all from the 1990s or later, so I did not place any early in the article. Knope7 (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

1. In the Jurisprudence section - the gender equality cases are part of 14th amendment equal protection jurisprudence. "Gender discrimination" would be more a more neutral subheading and better match secondary sources.

Changed Knope7 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

1. In the litigation and advocacy section it should be clear where you are talking the fourteenth amendment. For example, "wherein the Supreme Court extended the protections of the Equal Protection Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] to women for the first time." Many of readers will not know what the Equal Protection Clause is, but they may know what the Fourteenth Amendment is (or at least what an Amendment is).

Added Fourteenth Amendment to the first mention of the Equal Protection Clause. Knope7 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Similarly "Ginsburg filed a brief for the case Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), challenging [whether] an Oklahoma statute imposing different minimum drinking ages for men and women [was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment]
2. The correct language for intermediate scrutiny is "substantially related" => The Court imposed [applied] what is known as "intermediate scrutiny" on laws discriminating based on gender, unless the government could show that a gender based classification was "substantially related" to an "important" government objective. You can't leave out substantially related here because that is what makes it "intermediate scrutiny" - for rational basis it is "rationally related" to a "legitimate legislative end" - if it was "rationally related" to an "important government objective" it would almost always pass.
3. Consider rewording "banning all gender discrimination" - there is no class against whom discrimination is "banned" entirely (see Korematsu and Adarand v. Pena)

The word "banned" is used in Toobin's New Yorker article, currently citation number 23. Knope7 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It is technically correct - but he says "banned gender discrimination on the same terms as race discrimination" - the entire sentence is important, because racial discrimination itself is not banned. The fact that this wording will be misleading for many readers is why I would suggest briefly adding a more specialized source like Eskridge to explain the statement. Is racial discrimination banned? More or less - the standard of review is strict scrutiny and only rarely has discrimination on the basis of race been allowed (Japanese internment in Korematsu and affirmative action in Adarand) - Gender has been acknowledged as a "quasisuspect classification" - You can read more about Carolene and "suspect classifications" here - Eskridge says Boren recognized gender as a quasi-suspect classification and neither accepted nor renounced the political representation analysis Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this a comment on the one sentence or on the whole paragraph? The sentence relies on Toobin in saying that Ginsburg did not win a seminal ruling banning gender discrimination. Having reviewed the source again, I believe the sentence is accurate as written. To me, whether any discrimination is banned or distinguishing gender and race are tangential. Knope7 (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

My explanation may have been a little complicated - there is no form of discrimination that is absolutely banned under the the Equal Protection clause, including race based discrimination. What Toobin says is that she never won a case where gender discrimination would be subject to strict scrutiny (which race is.) It is not accurate without including "on the same terms as race discrimination" - because Toobin is not saying "she did not win on an absolute ban" - he is saying they created an intermediate scrutiny, instead of applying the strict scrutiny that applies to race. Eskridge gives some background information, which may be helpful to you, but it is not necessary to include it. But we have to get Toobin's statement correct - it is not about a "ban" - it is that the Court created intermediate scrutiny, instead of applying strict scrutiny. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved in the content, since I am reviewing - I certainly don't want to suggest major revisions during a review - in my view, this is a minor error, and the intermediate/strict scrutiny issue is entirely non-controversial (and could be cited directly to the cases, though it is not necessary.) I don't think it is a reason to deny GA, when it can be easily fixed - but since I have studied law, I also know it is not tangential - the 14th amendment doesn't ban discrimination in practice, what the Court does is review discrimination claims under three different standards, depending on the "class" being discriminated against. So what is unconstitutional when the class is African-Americans, may be constitutional if the class is prisoners. It was an extraordinary and major win when the Court created an intermediate scrutiny for women, but some people (like Eskridge, who is a major law professor at Yale) have mused aloud that the Court never fully justified the reasons for creating "intermediate scrutiny" - this is what Toobin is discussing, but in very simple plain terms. (Unfortunately, his choice of the word "ban" is not very helpful to his target audience of lay persons) Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have also studied law and that informed my opinion that it is tangential. Whether other forms of discrimination are banned does not change the fact that there is no seminal ruling banning gender discrimination. Ginsburg received favorable rulings incrementally rolling back discrimination based on gender and that was her strategy. When taken together, those rulings changed the legal rights of women. The Toobin article cited is not a discussion of gender discrimination generally, he is writing a profile on Ginsburg and her role in changing laws.

I think reasonable people can disagree about the best way to present information. While sources like the New Yorker and The New York Times are not perfect, for an article like this they are very helpful as they are writing for a general audience, as we are here. I appreciate your concern about wanting the article to accurately explain complex legal ideas. I share that concern but I also don't want to obscure's Ginsburg's work or her role in events by placing the focus on a discussion of equal protection law more generally. Yesterday I made some small tweaks to the language in that section and I will look it over again after giving the source material another close look. Knope7 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

But that is not what the source says - it says "a ban ... on the same terms as race discrimination." I appreciate that it is difficult to accurately represent this without discussing legal technicalities. Maybe an attributed quote to Toobin? Either way I have asked for a second opinion also, I am still new to GA reviews. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think the criteria are GA are satisfied - but some of the legal sections need refinement. I've highlighted the issues I noticed. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Second Opinion

I am just waiting for a second opinion, this is my second GA review so I am still learning and it would be better to have a second pair of eyes go over it before I close. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Second opinion: @Seraphim System: Thank you for taking the time to review this. I hope you found GA reviews fun! It's a great way to get out of our areas of expertise/interest and appreciate what other editors do in other areas. @Knope7: Looks like a solid article! Here are a few things that caught my eye.

• Political party Democratic[1] - Remove the citation in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXREF (make sure it is already cited elsewhere, as a rule of thumb).

I recently mentioned on the article talk page that I would like to remove this parameter from the infobox. The political affiliation of justices is a touchy subject. The source cited refers to Ginsburg's voter registration. While I am sure it is accurate and a matter of public record, it does not seem like something worth adding to the body of the article. Knope7 (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia is FA and also does not have political affiliation in the infobox, so if you want to remove it entirely, I think that would be fine. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have removed it. Knope7 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• David Tatel - He is mentioned in the infobox but not mentioned anywhere else in the text. Please add him somewhere with a source attached to it and stating he was the successor.

Done. Knope7 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Notable cases section - Completely unsourced.

It is sourced using legal citations which would verify she authored the opinions. Is there a type of source you have in mind for this? How to present the section has been a topic of conversation in the past with no better solution being apparent. Knope7 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the issue notability of the case or simply verifying authorship? Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Verifying authorship. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The legal citation would verify authorship, but I can see why an inline citation might be helpful. If you would like a more traditional inline citation, I can use the Legal Information Institute. Would you like a citation after each case in the list or would using the citation at the end of the list be sufficient? Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is any rule that the citations need to be linked, only verifiable. The long form legal citation (using USSC template, which is fine) is enough for verification, I don't think it needs a second citation. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• New York Times - Change to The New York Times for all mentions

Done. Knope7 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Italicized publishers - I saw that sometimes you italicized a publisher, like you did here with Los Angeles Times, but then did not do it here. Make sure this is consistent throughout all sources.
• Note b - Needs a period after the sentence.

Done. Knope7 (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• some progressives called for Ginsburg to retire - Whom exactly? Are they notable enough to state such a thing?

I have added a the words "lawyers and activists." The sources I chose for citations include prominent commentators or refer back to the larger conversation happening on the issue of Ginsburg retiring. I am not quite sure what you mean by are they notable to state such a thing. The individuals in the pieces cited are certainly notable although I refrained from naming individuals because it was more widespread than just a few people saying she should resign for the good of progressive causes. I didn't want to characterize it as Erwin Chemerinsky saying she should resign because as the source material indicates it was bigger than that. Knope7 (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how I feel about this, part of me thinks Chemerinsky is extremely notable and should be included, like "lawyers and activists, including Erwin Chemerinsky..." Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Sources in the intro - I generally think articles without references in the introduction are better for GA (see WP:LEADCITE). This helps keep the introduction more general and summarizes the article. Just make sure that the info is already cited elsewhere in the article.

I generally agree with this approach, although the guideline allows for some flexibility. I have added a source to the discussion of a Smithsonian portrait featuring all 4 female justices and so I removed that citation from the lead. The other citation is for Ginsburg's birth name. There has been some confusion on that issue in the past, which is why I think having the citation right there is helpful to maintaining the stability of the article. Knope7 (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Bennard, Kristina Silja (August 2005), The Confirmation Hearings of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Answering Questions While Maintaining Judicial Impartiality (PDF), Washington, D.C.: American Constitution Society, retrieved May 11, 2010[dead link][dead link] - Replace dead URL with this one. Just make sure to add the page.

Changed. Knope7 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Remarks by Ruth Bader Ginsburg – United States Holocaust Memorial Museum". Ushmm.org. Retrieved November 4, 2015. - Change publisher to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Done. I added the source date as well. I moved Ushmm.org to the website parameter and added United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as publisher. Please note that the template italicized the website and not the publisher. Knope7 (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Mears, Bill (February 23, 2009). "Ginsburg rejoins Supreme Court weeks after cancer surgery". www.cnn.com. Retrieved September 10, 2016. - CNN instead

Changed. Knope7 (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• DLC: Judge Not by William A. Galston Archived March 9, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. - Needs publisher.

Replaced with source with more complete quote. Knope7 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Project Vote Smart". Retrieved December 19, 2010. - Same here

Just realized that this leads to a general search engine for Project Vote Smart. I guess a full citation is not required for this.

Everything else looks great and I think this is ripe for promotion. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comments @Seraphim System: What do you think? I think the article is nearly ready. My concerns were mostly minor. As far as the Notable cases section, I think using the Template:Cite court would be ideal. I did another GA review a few days ago where we used it. Let me know what you think. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe Template:Ussc is essentially a more specific version of Cite court. Knope7 (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is it possible to include a link for readers to go in case they need to verify authorship? ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The default rule for the template is not to include external links and the description of the template refers to Wikipedia:External links. It is possible to add external links to the template to any of four different websites that publish SCOTUS opinions. Knope7 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The EL policy does mention rare exceptions, including templates. I think USSC template may be one of those — it does limit where you can link internally I believe? So you can only the link the cited case to some pre-selected databases like Justia. Bibleref is similar, and it is often used without ref tags. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@ComputerJA: @Knope7: If you guys have settled the EL question, let me know so I can close the review. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I went through and removed 'el=no' from the the notable cases list so now the pin cites link to the opinions on Justia. Knope7 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're good to go, I will close the review. Congrats, and thank you for your patience with the long review. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)