Talk:Benjamin N. Cardozo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Columbia University WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Columbia University, her schools, environs, and people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Cardozo's ancestors

The article reads: «Cardozo's ancestors were Sephardic Jews who immigrated to the United States in the 1740s and 1750s from Portugal via the Netherlands and England.» Well, we're talking about ancestors 6 generations before Cardozo. That is, 64 people. Were they all Jews coming from Portugal via something?! «Cardoso» is a Portuguese name, but «Nathan» is not. And many names were forgotten behind. Don't women count?... Velho 14:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


It's a bit awkward, but I added a few words about his prowress as a writer--I don't think Cardozo can be fairly characterized without mentioning his writing style.Saltyseaweed 03:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we fix the section on Palsgraff? I think Cardozo framed the issue in terms of duty, not proximate cause. That was Andrew's dissent. Anybody concur? Saltyseaweed 20:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: ancestors If I am not mistaken, his ancestors were all IBERIAN Jews at least, if not only Protugues. Women certainly counted back then, as you will notice by the fact that his mother's name (Nathan) was his middle name. In addition, the name Nathan may have been anglized in America. For example, the Henriques, a sephardic family from Spain, became the Hendricks family in America.

[edit] Chronology

"Early Years" says that his father, Albert, died in 1885, but the next section says that "From 1891 to 1914, Benjamin ... began under his father Albert.

[edit] Criticism in first paragraph

Hey everybody. I don't feel like a criticism of a person is appropriate in their opening introduction. I would like to take that out and move it somewhere else on the page. Criticism of a person is not an introduction to who they are, but what others think of them. Opinions? --DavidShankBone 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

By that token, they should not be praised either... I don't find the opening paragraph troublesome myself; but if you want to cut the "Critics say..." sentence, I think you would have to rework the entire thing. Magidin 05:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Photo added

I added a photo. There are also a couple of other photos out there. Judge_cardozo.jpg and Cardozo2.jpg Master shepherd 06:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sites and buildings named after Cardozo

I deleted the U Street/Cardozo/African-American Civil War Memorial listing here. It is named for Francis Cardozo, a prominent 19th century African-American educator, not Benjamin Cardozo. Tracymmo 11:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)tracymmo

Thanks for that information; I was not aware of that. We don't seem to have an article on Francis Cardozo, though he is briefly discussed in Cardozo High School (Washington, D.C.), which is also named after Francis Cardozo, not Benjamin Cardozo. Newyorkbrad 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal life section

What rationale is there for including the assertion/suggestion that Cardozo was gay? There was never any evidence of this, and I think it is a bit unfair to start casting aspersions on the man simply because he never married. (And for those of you who are going to whine and call me "homophobic", I have nothing against gay people; I simply think it is unfair to make baseless innuendos about people who are long dead, and therefore cannot defend themselves.) --Eastlaw (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) If you don't want people to point out that your remarks are homophobic, then please modify your language; specifically, avoid describing homosexuality in negative terms ("unfair", "aspersions", "baseless innuendos", "defend" themselves). I might also add that an editor who up-front describes other editors' commentary with the word "whine" does not incline one towards charity, an interesting position for one who is effectively attempting to preempt discussion with a disclaimer. (2) On to the substantive point. As with everything else in a biographical article, or any other article for that matter, Wikipedia is driven by the scholarship. As the article makes clear, some biographers have raised the issue; as the article also makes clear, he was likely celibate and there is little evidence to make assertions about his sexuality. Your opinion that this is not relevant or is somehow "unfair" is irrelevant, since Wikipedia relies on published sources, and, unsurprisingly, published biographies have considered this aspect of Cardozo's life. See WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BIO. --Lquilter (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not interested in your opinion of me, Lquilter, I am interested in the quality of this article. The reason I included such a "disclaimer" as you call it, is that I am aware of the constant use of ad hominem attacks both on Wikipedia and other internet sites in order to discredit an opponent's position. In many circles in the U.S. and elsewhere, homosexuality is still considered a form of sexual misconduct--again, not my opinion, but the opinion of a large number of people. And as a lawyer (which you claim to be), you should know that accusing someone of being a homosexual is still considered defamatory in many U.S. jurisdictions, which is why I don't feel it necessary to "modify" my language. Now of course, there is no action for defamation against a party who is dead, but making such suggestions about people who are long dead is verging on historical revisionism.
And if you are going to condescendingly quote policy at me, I will remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I recognize that you and many others think that outing people, whether living or dead, is socially or politically beneficial to the gay rights movement, but there is not reason for Wikipedia to be a vehicle for such conduct. Were this a case such as J. Edgar Hoover, where a large amount of circumstantial evidence existed, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you, but in this case there is nothing - no evidence whatsoever to endorse the position that Cardozo was gay. Again, while I have no problem with gay rights, gay marriage, or anything else, engaging in revisionist history makes you just as bad as the Christian Right and their conservative allies.--Eastlaw (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't said a word about you or my opinion of you; you used a lot of language that you apparently knew was likely to sound homophobic, when you could have made this point without using any of that language. Since you brought up whether you sound homophobic or not, I responded to it. As for your opinions on gay marriage, etc., neither this article nor your language have anything to do with that topic. Nobody is accusing you of homophobia, except, perhaps, yourself in your initial comment; so please relax. ... And this has nothing to do with the politics of outing people; that's an issue to be raised with, perhaps, the original biographers. --Lquilter (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, there really is no more evidence of Cardozo's sexuality than of Cardozo being a walnut lover. It would be irresponsible to have a section in the article examining whether he in fact loved walnuts based on his never being seen with peanuts or cashews. bd2412 T 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
But it doesn't matter what our assessment of his life is; it's what is sourced & verifiable. Biographers have been discussing it; therefore it needs to be covered in the article. I have opinions on it, too, but my opinions are no more relevant than anyone else's, unless I get them published in a reliable source. If biographers had repeatedly discussed Cardozo's strange predilection for walnuts then it should be covered whatever we think of the politics of loving walnuts. ... Frankly, it doesn't matter what any of us think about the politics of outing, whether or not calling someone gay should be defamatory, and so on. All that matters is whether information is reliable, sourced, not undue, etc. A relatively brief discussion in the article, described as his personal life, does not seem in any way undue to me; most biographical articles include some mention of the subject's romantic attachments/family life. --Lquilter (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is fine as it is (and that Eastlaw was correct to remove the "but if" speculation. That sort of language is so meaningless that it should not be in an encyclopedia article. Anyone can make the claim that biographical article subject "X" has characteristic "Y", and then dismiss the lack of evidence of "X" having characteristic "Y" in that subject by speculating as to (equally unevidenced) motive "Z". bd2412 T 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - that was just pure wikipedia-editor speculation. --Lquilter (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Eastlaw said something on my talk page which led me to believe that he was just unhappy with the material which he then removed (diff). If so, then we all seem to be in agreement -- that was speculative musings that should not have been in the article. --Lquilter (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conan O'Brien

This guy seriously looks like an old Conan O'Brien. Maybe this should be mentioned in the article somewhere. Xizer (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)