Talk:Sri Srinivasan

blank or no blanks please
this article is blank esp about much of needed info for the recently (today) announced likelihood that 'sri' would be an Obama44 nominee for the US Supreme Court; that info needed being what is his religion, what are his court decisions views on subjects of importance to a a supreme court judge; this is esp because many online articles describe 'sri' as a 'blank' that no one knows what his views are ... can a blank be a surepeme court judge nominee... it is clear as O44 himself is still a 'blank' after 7 years in office that we do not yet understand at all his views on many many things; we do see that 'sri' played basketball in high school-an O44 canoodling joint view and that he is smart another O44 canoolding similar view - but we see the ongoing o44 national security counsel appointments of professors that  many feel have been wanting ... 24.44.215.132 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)noblankspleasewillysr


 * It is important that we respect Wikipedia's polices and not speculate on rumors. Let's also at least bury Scalia before we start talking about his replacement, too? WTF? (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The cited commentary reported about his SCOTUS prospects pre-dates Scalia's death. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not speculate or comment ourselves (as the IP above is doing), but that doesn't mean we can't report on others' published speculation. This article would not be the only one to do so. Also, individuals listed on Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates (as this person is) commonly link back to it as a "see also" item. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Under these rules, shouldn't include speculation about SCOTUS nomination. Furorimpius (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between saying "this is going to happen" (what WP:CRYSTAL is about) and "people are predicting that this could happen". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. OK, I'm convinced. Furorimpius (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protection?
Due to increased talk about his possible nomination to the Supreme Court in the wake of Antonin Scalia's death, I recommend that this page be protected per WP:CRYSTAL. WTF? (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court nomination rumors
(The following was removed by another editor per WP:CRYSTAL. Discuss and resolve here before adding back. My own view is that the twitter part is unreliable but that the Toobin and Serwer pieces may be appropriate for inclusion. sourced discussion of presidential shortlists is different than mere speculation. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC))


 * In April 2013, Mother Jones suggested that Srinivasan ultimately might be nominated by Obama for the Supreme Court of the United States; during the same month, Jeffrey Toobin also speculated that should he be confirmed for the D.C. Circuit, he would be President Obama's next nominee to the Supreme Court. 


 * On February 13, 2016, after the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, rumors began to circulate that Srinivasan tops the list of potential replacement nominees President Barack Obama will put forward to replace Scalia. On Twitter, Jeffrey Toobin reiterated his belief that Srinivasan is the most likely choice. 

Wikipedia does indeed allow projections and prediction as long as they are for the near future and come from a respected source. here's what the policy says: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." The New York Times is one of the most respected sources around. VanEman (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Toobin writes for The New Yorker, not The New York Times. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * have now removed the section. This matter in an early speculative stage. Prefer we wait until senate opens and there is an official announcement. Prodigyhk (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is general support here (see the section above too) for sourced reporting of speculation. We don't have to wait for government action involving the subject to report what third parties are saying about him. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Jason A. Quest at this point it is in the realm of speculative political gossip. Not encyclopedic material. Also, do not see any consensus to keep the material in article. Request you to remove the section, until we reach consensus. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol partial support vote.svgWeakly support for inclusion of sourced speculation Furorimpius (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * His name is showing up in headlines on mainstream new sites (Politico, Wall Street Journal, National Law Journal) as well as being mentioned in lists of likely nominees. The international media are doing stories specifically about him. NPR just singled him out by name to bring up in an interview with Senator Orrin Hatch about the nomination process. He's in the news, and it's about this. Suppressing this aspect of his notability would just make Wikipedia look bad when people come here looking to find more info about him. Without it, they might wonder if they found the right article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clear, I meant I weakly supported your opinion, not that your support was weak. Changed to an adverb/adjective and added an image for clarity. Furorimpius (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * support keeping the 2013 pieces (Toobin, Serwer) that predate current events. I'm less sure about including any current pieces. If they are reliably sourced and add value to our readers beyond the older references, I do not see a policy basis for excluding them. I think the brief mention in the lede, as of this writing, is just about right for the current pieces. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal life
Is there a source for him being divorced? This recent article still has him as married. http://fusion.net/story/269055/sri-srinivasan-scalia-supreme-court/ Furorimpius (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)