Talk:Benjamin N. Cardozo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticism in first paragraph

message: 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)
thread_title: Photo added

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sites and buildings named after Cardozo 

message: The first thing it mentions is that he was a "Well-known lawyer". The fact that he was a Supreme Court justice is probably more important than that and merits earlier mention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More Intro Criticism

message: Cardoso was not Hispanic in any sense. This is streaching the definition in an enourmous number of ways! He was of Sephardi Jewish origin, from families that went to the US prior to independence, coming from the UK and the Nederlands. They probably had Jewish Portuguese origin, but that is not proven. Anyway, that would not make him Hispanic, since Portuguese are not Hispanic! In any of the modern senses of the word Hispanic refers to someone hailing from a Spanish speaking country which is not the case of Portugal. The Ogre (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How, then, about the Romans, whose presence in Spain is just a little older than that of the Jews?  Or the descendants of Germanic tribes, North African Berbers, Moslem Arabs, etc.?  All peoples living in the Iberian Peninsula, called Hispania throughout the middle ages, are Iberian, or Hispanic.  To use the expression "hispanic" only to refer to people from Spanish-speaking countries such as Mexico and most of South America, etc. is provincial and contemporary (and, dare I say it, not very educated or intelligent).  It has that meaning only for Americans.  And "Spanish-speaking" does not describe the people of medieval or contemporary Spain who speak other languages: Catalan, Galician, Leonese, Aragonese, Basque.  When things are really better in the US nobody will notice that a senator, president, or Supreme Court Justice is black or white, Hindu or Jew, woman or man.  Right now, the US seems still to be somewhat mired in its racisim and sexism.--Log37 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cardozo was a Sephardic Jew.  The very spelling of the name, with a "z" and not an "s", suggests that it is a Portuguese and not a Spanish name.  In Portuguese, an "s" between vowels became voiced, that is, became "z", whereas in Spanish, to this day, that "s" is unvoiced, that is, "silent."  Almost every one of the nearly ten surnames I have seen in his family tree are exclusively Portuguese surnames.  Nathan, a Hebrew name, would probably have been used originally as a patronymic, ibn Nathan or ben Nathan (son of Nathan), like many other Iberian surnames (not of Semitic origin), such as Rodrigues/Rodríguz, son of Rodrigo, etc.  The argument over this issue shows that most of the debaters know nothing whatsoever about Portugal, Portuguese, Medieval Iberia, let alone the history of Sephardic Jews, many or most of whom (assuming they survived) fled to places throughout the Mediterranean world and also to North and South America.  The Portugal to Holland to England route was not uncommon, and that seems to be the one taken by branches of Cardozo's family.--Log37 (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether his distant ancestors lived in Portugal or Spain for a few generations is really irrelevant. Lots of groups "pass through" lots of places without undergoing a change in ethnicity. The Moors conquered all of Iberia and were then driven out; does that make all of Muslim Northern Africa Hispanic? As a matter of identity, Cardozo was no more Hispanic than John McCain (who happened to be born in Panama), and no more than Obama is a Pacific Islander. bd2412 T 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I suggest that most of this treatment belongs in a footnote, with a pointer to something fuller at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States.  It's really a question of whether or not Sephardi Jews are considered Hispanic, a question which really should rather be covered at Hispanic and Latino Americans#Terminology rather than here.--Pharos (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree- this is information directly relevant to Cardozo- not from his own time, of course, but has been made relevant because of all the discussion now occurring (and I mean in major or established media outlets, not all the blogs).  However, it needn't be too lengthy, but instead refer readers to a fuller treatment over at Hispanic and Latino Americans#Terminology (which also needs more work).The Original Historygeek (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do tend to think that we could actually write several long paragraphs about the particular question of Cardozo's "Hispanic" status, but this anachronistic question at it applies to him would I think be more in the domain of scholars of demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States and whatever that represents about the social history of the US, than of actual Cardozo biographers.--Pharos (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text:  The question, however, is not merely whether Sephardim in general are Hispanic (some still live in Iberia, and many migrated to Central and South America with other colonizers from the peninsula), but whether this applies to someone whose family is eight or nine generations removed from that ancestry, and which lived in other parts of Europe before coming to the U.S. bd2412 T 22:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Edict of Expulsion was quite effective; there are basically no significant Jewish communities in the Iberian peninsula or Latin America that have been there continuously since the 15th century (though there are a number of people with known Jewish ancestors).  Sephardim are today divided among those whose ancestors moved to North Africa, Western Europe, and the Ottoman Empire, though many communities still maintained wide use of Judaeo-Spanish until recent times.--Pharos (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing the text to state that it has only recently been suggested that Cardozo might be considered Hispanic is incorrect, I believe.  We would need to qualify the word "recently"- how recent?  At least ten years ago, Hispanic magazine listed Cardozo in their timeline of Hispanic events as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.  Now, I don't for one moment consider that an expertedly rendered statment, but it does indicate that there are those who considered this possibility and in the public arena.  Also, changing "most experts dispute" this notion to simply "experts dipute" it is too sweeping.  Again, the trouble is, just who is an expert?  NALEO and HNBA both do not consider Cardozo Hispanic.  Kaufman hedges his statement and does not take a definitive stand.  Some prominent Portuguese-Americans consider themselves Hispanic- many others do not.  Just who is an expert in this case?  Better to leave it as "most experts."The Original Historygeek (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly it was never raised in his lifetime - there appear to be some Google Books hits from the 1970s which mention Cardozo and Hispanic or Latino in the same sentence, but I can not view the actual text of those sources. On the other hand, John Richard Schmidhauser, Judges and justices: the Federal Appellate Judiciary (1979), p. 60, writes of the Supreme Court Justices: "Those of central, eastern, or southern European derivation comprise a tiny group of six justices, five of whom were of Germanic background, which includes Austrian, German-Bohemian, and Swiss origins (John Catron, Samuel F. Miller, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Warren Burger), while one justice was of Iberian descent (Benjamin N. Cardozo). Among the large ethnic groupings of European origin which have never been represented upon the Supreme Court are the Italians, Southern Slavs, and Hispanic Americans." This was, of course, before Scalia and Alito took the bench, but well after Cardozo. bd2412 T 01:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting- I hadn't run across anything like that (re: the Google Books hits).  I'll try to dig something up on campus next week.The Original Historygeek (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Congratulations!  You've been trying to put this into the article for some time now- but this is a more appropriate venue to discuss it.  First, where do you find the information that Kaufman says Cordozo was Portuguese?  You need a cite- find it and it can go into the article.  As it is, the existing cites have Kaufman taking a specifically non-definitive stance. I strongly suggest that you re-read them.  Second, a definition of the term Hispanic goes in the article about Hispanics- not the biography of Cardozo.The Original Historygeek (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed! And even if we were to desconsider all of that, still, by most definitions, Portuguese are not considered Hispanic or Latino in any of the sense those categories have in the US. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, should be pointed out that Cardozo belonged to the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, a group that (for historical social reasons) consciously played up its Portuguese heritage over its Spanish heritage.  Though Cardozo did not speak Judeo-Spanish, he certainly was a part of the Sephardi Jewish community (involved in its community institutions), and a detailed genealogy and counting of "pure" bloodlines would be rather meaningless.  Whether Sephardi Jews are considered "Hispanic" is indeed a question, but I certainly would not say that the community was "highly transitory" (Judaism certainly predates Christianity in Iberia), and the modern Spanish government has for example recognized a right of return for Sephardim, showing that they consider them at least a kind of "lost Spaniards".--Pharos (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Partially, this is all about drawing lines.  This is complicated by the fact that Jews had a tough problem in the Iberian peninsula to begin with.  The Spanish Inquisition created a lot of converts at the point of a sword.  A lot of Christian converts had a dreidel and a Torah on the side.  Much of Europe has historically treated Jews (and Gypsies) (among other groups, as someone who 'isn't from here.'  This was true in Poland, Ukraine, Germany, Austria, France, Lithuania -- just to name a few.  The Diaspora sent vast population groups hither and yon.  Not to mention that many of the so-called 'national lines' of demarcation were incredibly fluid.  One country invaded another.  The Austro-Hungarian Empire grew and eventually withered.  People were Ukrainians one year and Austrians the next.  Poland was an empire; no Poland was divided amongst the "Great powers."  There is the stereotype of ethnic groups, even as they were highly integrated into the culture (e.g., the Rothchilds in France).  Not to mention the problem of 'miscegenation' across national, religious, social, racial and cultural lines.  Short of National Geographic DNA tests, we don't have very good or definitive evidence -- although plainly Cardozo at least considered himself to be a not particularly observant Jew. Regretfully, that's about all we (or anyone) has got.  The lines are largely man-made and artificial, although they are part of perceptions.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

text: No one is ignoring his Sephardic identity, but Sephardic does not equal Hispanic. Sephardim have roots in Iberia, but also in Italy, Northern Africa, and the Middle East (and no one has sought to label Cardozo as the first Italian, African, or Middle-Eastern Justice). Cardozo himself did not know for sure where his ancestors came from (prior to England and the Netherlands, that is), and maintained no aspect of Spanish culture. bd2412 T 01:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardoso and the Hispanic thing 

message: The section about his ethnicity while providing a comical relief does not in any way support the statment 
It has also been asserted that Cardozo himself "confessed in 1937 that his family preserved neither the Spanish language nor Iberian cultural traditions".[19] Both the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Hispanic National Bar Association consider Sonia Sotomayor to be the first unequivocally Hispanic justice.[15][18]
None of the refences state anything close to what the statment attributes them to as it being anywhere close to "the first unequivocally". None of the articles even state a position and neither of them even bring up the Association of Latino's or the Hispanic Bar Assoc. Due to this I have no choice but to reword and entirely remove this statment from the article as it is not supported by refrences or even stated anywhere else.--Jab843 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link to the reference which is directly quoted as stating that Cardozo "confessed in 1937 that his family preserved neither the Spanish language nor Iberian cultural traditions". The source is directly quoted, and the quote is accurate. bd2412 T 15:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes it is accurate to the book which doesn't refrence its source, but it is published and it thus is correct for all intents and purposes for wikipedia.  I am not disputing the fact that he might not have upheld any hispanic traditions.--Jab843 (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Your above incorrect declaration about the content of the source cited demonstrates that you are not really investigating this question, but simply trying to push a personal POV without bothering to do the substantive research necessary to support it. Therefore, your edits will be reverted. bd2412 T 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The particular edits in question only quoted sources who "claim" Sotomayor to be Hispanic.  That they said it seems indisputable.  Whether their claim is factually correct is irrelevant on the question of whether they made the claim.  It was reliably reported that they made he claim.  In Wikipedia out standard is said to be verifiability, not truth.  This is verifiable, and even truthful as to the report that someone made the claim.  In this particiular context, only the fact of the claim is at issue, not the more esoteric question of whether the claim is true.  So why again are we disputing this?  7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before I do anything else, I did review the sources that were provided thouroghly and they do not state what is in the wikipedia article.  My POV aside I am simpily trying to enforce wikipedia policy. I did not say that the statment should not be there I am mearly pointing out that the referenced source does not support the conclusion put forth in the article attributing a source that did not infact provide what is stated. Furthermore, removing that section does not in anyway help with my POV, I am not saying that Sotomayor is not hispanic, I am not saying that Cardozo is hispanic.  I am mearly pointing out that the lack of direct refrence to the point is not included. Additionaly, I have to bring in why the section is relevent under Cardozo's page and not under Sotomayor's.  If I am studying Cardozo in a Law class it is not relevent whether Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.  Cardozo's ethnic history is pertinent but not some random point about Sotomayor. That is the major reason why I believe the section is not only in the incorrect article, but needs to follow through with its sources, that is why I believe it should not be included.  Do you believe it is relevent to a justice that practiced almost 70 years earlier? Or even relevent to the article.  It is a great piece of information that should be included in Sotomayor's article not Cardozo's that is my position. --Jab843 (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  I will be more than happy to work with you on included this information in Cardozo's article if you realy think it is pertinent, but in its current presentation it seems out of placed, almost like a random coment to dispute a claim not even presented in the article. Does this seem more agreeable?--Jab843 (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point of mentioning Sotomayor at all is that she has universally been reported upon as the first Hispanic Justice, which by process of elimination means that Cardozo was not, because there can only be one "first". The situation would be no different if a Mormon were appointed to the Court, and were reported as the first Mormon, and someone were to make the argument that the appointee was not the first Mormon because George Sutherland was a lapsed Mormon. It would then be appropriate to mention in the George Sutherland article that this issue had been raised and resolved in favor of the new appointee. bd2412 T 06:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: He was really the first and so far only member of the U.S. Supreme Court to have been an agnostic ? Just curious to know. If so, this fact should be mencioned.85.240.20.160 (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that statement justify the claim that he was (or is considered) the "first" or "so far only" agnostic member of the Court? Even granting that he self-described himself that way, on what grounds are you claiming his primacy or his uniqueness? Where is the source for that claim? You do recongize the distinction between "He was x" and "He was the only x" and "He was the first x", right? Magidin (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Precisely: no info; so the claim should not be added. This is particularly important given that we are talking about Cardozo's adult beliefs and practice, as opposed to the religion he grew up with. For all we know, other members of the Court may have been agnostic in their adulthood or old age, just didn't go out of their way to say so, just like many of the "Founding Fathers" were in fact Deists rather than whatever religion they were born into. So, at best, you would be able to say that Cardozo seems to be the first member of the Supreme Court to describe himself as an agnostic; but even that assertion would constitute original research in the absence of a reliable source that makes that assertion. That's why it is mentioned that Cardozo described himself as an agnostic, but no claims about his primacy or uniqueness were in the article, and that is why I've been removing such claims in the last few days. It's not enough to not find any sources disputing the claim, in this instance you need a source to assert it, lest you run afoul the Original Research policy. Magidin (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Agnostic

message: I reverted two additions today, by new editor Relatador. Here they are: First addition (with the following edit summary: Describe the Sephardi origein of Cardozo as Hispanic, since Sephardi, came from the Hebrew word "S'farad" meaning Spain, therefore make him "Hispanic" ):
: But the issue in question is about Cardozo "ethnicity", no about Cardozo "cultural" identification. Even if Spanish language, or cultural Hispanic traditions were no hold in his family, that do not diminish the ethnic Jewish-Hispanic roots of his family or himself.Since is recognized by all parties, that his ancestry goes back to Spain and Portugal, making his ancestry a true "Sephardi Jew" is only logical to say the indeed he was Hispanic.
:Despite the opinion of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, and the Hispanic National Bar Association, both groups are making a historical mistake. First, because the important role that Cardozo play as member of the American Supreme Court, he should be claimed, with pride, as part of the Hispanic community.Secondly, because is impossible to have ethnic roots to the Iberian peninsula and do not be Hispanic. Will be complete innacourate to say that somebody who ethnic ancestry is in Africa, is not African in esence, that is way we use the term "African American" as a black person born in the USA, since science show that all black people originated in Africa. Since Hispanic is not the same as Spaniard, this indeed is not based in the ethnicity of the person, but in its nationality. The issue of Cardozo ethnicity, should be not confused with his cultural, religious or national background.If he identified himself as a Sephardi Jew, then he righfully is 'Hispanic'. Probably the above mentioned organizations ignore, that the name "sephardi" is derived from the Hebrew word "S'farad" meaning "Spain".Therefore as Cardozo been born in the United States,that make him a American Sephardi Jew, or an American Hispanic Jew, despite the confusion that some have about those terms.Those who wanted to erase Cardozo's Hispanity, for whatever reason they have, must to learn, that the first Jews who ever inmigrate to the United States, were Sephardi Jews,23 persons in the historical record, from both Spain and Portugal, arriving in New York, after departing Brazil, due to the Inquisition persecution there.They founded Shearit Israel in 1654, the first Synagoge in American soil, and that Spanish was the language used by the first Jews in North America.
And edit two:
: Both the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Hispanic National Bar Association, make a grave historical mistake. The reason of that, is that they confuse Cardozo's ethnicity, with Cardozo's cultural identity.Culture can be adopted, ethnicity remain forever. Even his biographer Kauffman make a serious mistaske. Kauffman admite that Cardozo is a "Sephardi Jew".
: What all them ignore, is that the word 'sefardi', derivate from the Hebrew word 'S'farad' meaning "Spain". Therefore is impossible to be a Sephardi, and not be Hispanic. Even if Cardozo do not identify with the Hispanic culture, that do not erase his Hispanic=sefardi ethinicity. The organizations mentioned above, should be proud to claim Cardozo as part of the Hispanic community, due to his role in the Suprem Court.Probably, those that for whatever reason, wanted to erase Cardozo hispanity, ignore that facts, that the first Jewish community in North America, was formed by Spanish and Portuguese Jews, founding in 1654 the first Synagoge in the USA, and that Spanish was the first language used by Jews in this country.
I left a note in the User's talk page after the second revert, pointing out to him that these are unsourced, and appear to be original research and his personal conclusions (the second one is particularly opinionated); I pointed him to the pages on the core policies for inclusion. I also invited him to use the Talk page to discuss additions if he is unsure if they meet the policies. I believe this was pretty clear-cut, but if somebody disagrees with the reverts, we can discuss them here. Magidin (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted two additions today 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Benjamin N. Cardozo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090821223222/http://abcnews.go.com:80/Politics/wireStory?id=7682271 to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7682271
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Benjamin N. Cardozo. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c20_e.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090826222955/http://www.michaelariens.com:80/ConLaw/justices/cardozo.htm to http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/cardozo.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606195022/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_history/02_c11.html to http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_history/02_c11.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Benjamin N. Cardozo. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514015146/http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=374 to http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=374
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/cardozo.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_history/02_c11.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the language that says, "When Cardozo entered Columbia Law School, the program was only two years long; in the midst of his studies, however, the faculty voted to extend the program to three years. Cardozo declined to stay for an extra year, and thus left law school without a law degree." This implies that Czrdozo left law school because the program was extended to three years. However, I have cited another source, which suggests that Cardozo's reason for leaving Columbia Law School was because he protested the schools decision to begin using the case method. 
Because the supposed reasons for Cardozo leaving Columbia are nothing more than speculation, I thought that I'd remove all of this, because it is not in link with Wikipedia's policies. CVasil (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed speculation