Talk:Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruth Bader Ginsburg article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1: 90 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 18, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 23, 2017	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
June 17, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 19, 2020.
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 15, 2017, and March 15, 2024.
Current status: Good article

Biography: Politics and Government / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as Low-importance).

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States courts and judges High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish Women Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, when it received 11,884,007 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Why isn't the "associate justice" text of articles for SCOTUS capitalized to "Associate Justice?"[edit]

Associate Justice is a proper phrase that should be capitalized with the A and the J. It is titled that way in most reliable sources as well.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/supreme-judicial-court-justices

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/

https://www.congress.gov/nomination/116th-congress/2252

DocZach (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:JOBTITLES for the explanation on when we capitalize and when we don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controvery[edit]

Alot of the things under the tab 'Popular Culture' could also be listed under a tab titled 'Controversies' or something along those lines. Technically there was alot of humans who spoke out against a Judge doing what she was. There was also humans in favor of it. Either stance a human has on it is there own, but it's starting to get disgusting the amount of articles on here that give a opinion, then only include one perspective. 2601:45:500:B850:3829:6EC7:3B28:5D4A (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative vs Right-wing vs Right of Center to describe Musk and Murdoch[edit]

In characterizing the politics of Musk and Murdoch Jessintime changed the text from "conservative" to "right-wing leaning". That description is somewhat loaded and doesn't necessarily apply here. Both people are anti-trump, and Musk is socially liberal. I reviewed online sources and "Right of center" seems fair to me, so I made that edit with rationale in comments. Jessintime reverted the text saying "they're right wing". To avoid churn, I just reverted all edits and am opening this talk page topic.

While I'm liberal and I'd guess at least 90% of wikipedia editors are, we shouldn't be using our opinions to characterize everyone to the right of us as "right-wing". Characterizing people requires thinking in terms of population averages. Now adays right wing is means being a trumpist or in favor of dictators like Putin, which these two are not to my knowledge.

We could just leave characterization of those two people out of it entirely if that's easiest. I agree Musk is not traditionally conservative. Thoughts on that approach? Other ideas for consensus? Efbrazil (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the controversial text as nobody replied. Seems the easiest way to fix this. Efbrazil (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change first reference to simply "Obama" in first paragraph to "President Barack Obama". Breisnshine (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done 〜 Askarion ✉ 20:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]