Talk:Sonia Sotomayor

woman of colour

I removed her being a woman or colour as she is quite clearly a white woman, Hispanic/Latino is not a race and woman of colour refers to a non white person or someone of European descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famaja (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Good question. Why is she considered a person of color and the 1st Latino appointed to the Supreme Court? Wouldn’t that be Benjamin Cardozo who had Portuguese ancestry? According to Wikipedia he would fall into the category as Hispanic/Latino. Hispanic and Latino (ethnic categories)#:~:text=Since the 2000 Census, the,in their definition of Hispanic. What is this criteria for falling into a “person of color” category? 217.180.214.91 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as Cardozo goes, the article goes into details about it in Footnote a. Did you read it? The edit in question was reverted almost immediately without controversy. Are there reliable sources that identify her as "white"? Magidin (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2023 (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)

Footnotes need fixing

Currently, footnotes [a] and [b] are identical; I'm not sure how to tag footnotes so that they can be cited in two different places in the text, and don't really have the time to find out. If someone knows how to it, could they fix it to avoid the unnecessary repetition? The second instance is properly cited, so that should go to the lede and just a repeated reference to that footnote later on. Magidin (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)