This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Per AP, Presidio County Sheriff Danny Dominguez and a U.S. marshal she identified as Ken Roberts were the law enforcement officials who actually saw Scalia's body & advised Cinderal Guevara that no autopsy was necessary. It is also worth mentioning that Scalia's body was transferred to an El Paso funeral home (Alpine Funeral Home) after being transferred to an Odessa funeral home (Sunset Memorial Gardens & Funeral Home). No family spokespeople have clarified that they specifically requested no autopsy or their connection with these funeral homes. Optim.usprime ( talk) 22:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
With regard to 1) we are in agreement. With regard to 2) we disagree strongly. There is no reasonable basis for the continuing attempt here to suggest the way Scalia's body was handled wouldn't raise further questions.
The cause of death is still just "natural causes", even though earlier reports still claimed it was a heart attack.
News sources covering his death all still regard the way his body was handled as quite unorthodox. Ignoring this issue as it was covered is a violation of WP:Syn. Saying that news sources today aren't covering an issue that happened weeks ago has no bearing on the fact that most mainstream news sources did cover this issue when it was still "new".
@ TwilightCedars: @ Pechmerle: @ Wehwalt:
It is well-sourced using
WP:RS (books actually) and duly
cited. He was appointed by Republicans, and served in two Republican administrations. His wayward opinion (deviating from his self-avowed method of analysis) in
Bush v Gore says a lot. See
Duck test.
In any event,
WP:Verifiability is the proper test, not
WP:Truth. This is not "alleged", but is verifiable. So his innermost feelings are irrelevant.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
12:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); More than one of |ISBN=
and |isbn=
specified (
help)The phrase "partisan Republican" is your own confabulated creation. I didn't say that.
Tellingly, you also have been using 'weasel words' to limit the wording of the infobox to "his time in office." It doesn't say that either.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
21:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
edit conflict
We need a source that says specifically that Scalia self-described as a Republican. No other argument holds water in a WP article but especially in a BLP- not what we surmise, or what we could safely assume. This is very simple.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
How many articles should cover these in the media for it to be worth including in the 'Death' section? For example:
nationally syndicated talk-radio host Michael Savage called for an investigation on the level of the presidentially appointed probe into President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)That it has drawn the attention of notable figures like Michael Savage makes it worth a mention.
This isn't so much the "murder conspiracy theory" aspect, just that enough people are concerned about the details of the death and the events surrounding it to request investigation, and this ought to be mentioned. 184.145.18.50 ( talk) 11:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hasn't there been a death certificate, or a gravestone or something that confirms whether the death date is officially Feb. 12 or Feb. 13? I suppose the Social Security Death Index might have something shortly. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
In the first paragraph is written "Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia was described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court's conservative wing.[9]"
This is true. He has been described that way.
The description is, however, complete nonsense.
Scalia was a happy-go-lucky frat-boy dogmatist, and his Constitutional opinions were the sort of thing you'd hear (and I have heard) at a Knights of Columbus dinner in Elkhart, Indiana, from some guy who'd had a couple of beers too many.
He was part of an unprincipled, partisan, aggressive, dogmatic, and cheerfully destructive majority on the Court for several years. I.e. he delivered exactly what General Electric paid Ronald Reagan to deliver.
Whoever wrote this Wikipedia entry, and the Wiki editors who let it stand, ought to be ashamed of themselves. Scalia was a historic figure -- in the same sort of way as, say, Salmon P. Chase. History deserves better of Wikipedia than this saccharine silliness on him.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 14:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The source linked to for the statement that Justice Scalia "died of natural causes" actually says "apparently," because this hasn't been officially determined by a medical examination—or rather, if it has, that information has not been made public. This story offers more details about the unusual way in which the cause of death was declared: by a County Judge over the phone. So some qualifying modifier needs to be added even on the basis of the source cited (the New York Post), which mentions this only in passing and isn't the best and fullest account currently available. The Washington Post is now saying it may've been a heart attack, but it's uncertain whether an autopsy will be performed. Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Not heart attack (or at least not determined to be heart attack). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-tv-station-scalia-died-of-a-heart-attack/2016/02/14/938e2170-d332-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html
"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head.
BeVeryCareful ( talk) 04:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't add anything to the readers understanding. And please don't edit war to put it back in. Multiple other editors have removed it. Discuss and try to gain consensus. — Strongjam ( talk) 14:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Scalia had a pillow over his head. That was removed from Wikipedia. That serves only to make Wikipedia look either stupid or participating in a cover up. Cover up theories are documented many places, including the BBC ...See http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35588937
Wikipedia should mention that he was found with a pillow over his head (fact) but not go into conspiracy theories, except to cite that they have been cited.
To do otherwise would be bad for Wikipedia because it suggests a wiki conspiracy, which is not true.
SCALIA HAD A PILLOW OVER HIS HEAD. Farewell Scalia ( talk) 01:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Following a large deletion by Astro, whose user has less than 250 edits but who has clearly used Wikipedia from other usernames before, the article was suppressed 6 times. User:71.121.136.149 ( talk) was suppressed (unsourced comment deleted by User:Eman235) and User:174.22.57.123 ( talk) was suppressed twice ( User:Lazylaces felt "it didn't appear constructive", User:Coffee blocked ip). User:Respondant2016 ( talk) was suppressed 3 times (deleted by User:Cluebot NG, User:Meters, User:Gogo Dodo & blocked by User:Smalljim). Can an oversight admin clarify the necessity for suppression? 108.58.65.92 ( talk) 15:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC) @ Farewell Scalia:
I do like the phrase "tin-foily" somebody has used here. On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that the article is a rather sugary PR gloss on Scalia's life. It entirely obscures his role as the cheerful front man for an unprincipled generation-long, reactionary assault on the Constitution. In this sense, he is a fairly major figure among American politicians, at least the equal of, say, Orval Faubus, George Wallace or George Lincoln Rockwell.
Could everyone perhaps come back in a year, by which time we shall have seen even more of the Federalist Society in action on the current SCOTUS/Obama situation? Once the body is cold, I think the writer of the article will be wry, if not ashamed, at the tone of wide-eyed childish awe, and slick PR rush, in which it is written. Then it might be time to replace it with something serious.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 22:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
GMU's lawschool being renamed for Scalia has been reported by the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the ABA, Above the Law, The Hill, and others. It is even on the law school's website. Knope7 ( talk) 00:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Antonin Scalia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Antonin Scalia's birth date is March 11, 1936. not 1986 = [1]
2602:306:3B8F:CB0:6433:FD18:790E:E79A ( talk) 01:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Xiidos
References
Sheepythemouse has reverted me to add Garland's name as successor with the parenthetical (nominated). I do not think it should be there as Garland is not presently the successor. However the community wants it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
As long as its mentioned somewhere, because I believe the current stance as "vacant" kind of indicates that nobody has been nominated, while someone is; anyone looking for sourcing about Scalia's successor in his article will not find anything, as of now. Sheepythemouse ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Edit: I meant information, not sourcing, sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepythemouse ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
For the information to be in the body of the article is good enough for me :) Sheepythemouse ( talk) 13:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw ( talk · contribs) : Color blindness (race) in the United States is wikilinked from the lead of Affirmative action. It would seem to me that presenting Scalia's actual opinion (color-blindness) along with the status quo opinion (affirmative action), which is opposed to his, would be the most neutral approach. Right now, only the opinion opposing Scalia's (affirmative action) is presented. That just serves to confuse the description of Scalia -- all it says is "this is what he's not". Please explain how including only affirmative action (the view opposite to Scalia's) instead of both affirmative action and color-blindness is more WP:NPOV. Michaelmalak ( talk) 14:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This night be worth noting. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/02/24/scalia-may-have-forgotten-to-hook-himself-up-to-sleep-apnea-machine-why-that-can-be-dangerous/ with a link to /info/en/?search=Sleep_apnea Thanks for a great read, rumjal 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal ( talk • contribs)
My edits were reversed by user Wehwalt, who said, "while findagrave is usually reliable, I would like to see a little more here". Sir/Madam, do you click the link to the find-a-grave website? If so, you can see photographs of Justice Scalia's burial plot. I would ask that my edit be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehannette ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm hoping more people will opine.Since you asked. I haven't piped up, but just because I mostly agree with you. Technically WP:BLP may still apply, so better sourcing (news/magazine article, etc...) would be great. But I won't be removing it if it does get added in. — Strongjam ( talk) 15:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Up to now, this discussion has been about the propriety of using Find a Grave. Since Find a Grave is well-established as non-RS, it seemed unnecessary to contribute to this discussion once that was reiterated. Now one editor is indeed using Find a Grave as a basis to change the status quo death date in the article, despite the multitudinous citations contradicting Find a Grave. Something as significant as a death date requires thorough consensus discussion, with an RfC or otherwise. With all due respect, it's not one editor's unilateral decision to make. --15:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)15:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)-- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The gesture of brushing the fingertips under your chin, with the hand facing away from the target, means "I do not care" and can be accompained by exactly that phrase in Italian. http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/flicking-your-hand-under-your-chin.123399/?hl=it
It might be that in some other countries (France) it is more strong and vulgar, but in Italy it is perceived as such only when addressed at authority figures (like teachers or policemen) or during strong altercations, otherwise it's just part of the language. It all depends on context.
I realise that english language sources are confused on this topic, and that my testimony is just original research, or primary source, at most. But really, Italian hand gestures and swearwords can be perceived very differently in terms of offensiveness and acceptability depending on context, company and addressees. This hand gestures is a very mild one most of the time. 81.154.114.159 ( talk) 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Antonin Scalia. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Should he be added as Scalia's successor? Snakeskinsam 01:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Someone has added him. Should his name be removed?Snakeskinsam 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeskinsam ( talk • contribs)
I'd like to propose we go to the February 13 death date alone. Biographies seem to be taking this view, for example this and this. I don't see any reason for the 12/13 anymore. We are a tertiary source and need to follow the sources, and I don't think the sources are using the 12 anymore.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died over the night of February 12-13, 2016. No autopsy was preformed, and the medical information did not find whether he died on the 12th or 13th. The sources following his death so stated, and his death date was placed in his article's infobox as "February 12/13, 2016".
There have since been several efforts to change the infobox date of death to February 13, 2016. Proponents point to the fact that secondary sources, including Scalia's Supreme Court biography, say he died on the 13th (as does his gravestone) and that we are a tertiary source and should follow those sources, since many people have died in their sleep overnight and few are given an uncertain date of death. Opponents argue that no new information is available, that Scalia's date of death is just as uncertain as it was, accordingly we should keep the infobox as it is.
With repeated discussions deadlocked, an RfC was proposed to seek wider community opinion on the matter, and it has not been opposed. The community is asked whether Scalia's date of death should say February 12/13, 2016, as at present, or be changed to read February 13, 2016. Other options, such as use of a footnote, are also possible.
How on earth is there no section on Scalia's book Reading Law? Costatitanica ( talk) 20:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Antonin Scalia. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Normally I would not have restored a revert of an edit, but the edit summary by my valued colleague User:Bbb23 indicated he was unaware that the date change had been made without discussion by an anon IP without explanation or consensus, and had gone unnoticed till now. This was at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=779596204&oldid=778513538. Something that important should not have been changed without discussion or consensus, so protocol is to restore the status quo version. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This page has a very superficial treatment of Scalia's methodology. He wrote 2 books on interpreting law. A Matter Of Interpretation has his constitutional philosophy, along with critiques by constitutional liberals such as Dworkin and Tribe, along with Scalia's responses to those critiques. The new edition has an added critical intro by Amar and a more or less Pro Scalia afterword by Steven Calabresi. Scalia also co wrote Reading Law which is a list of his rules for interpreting legal texts. This book is mostly about statutory interpretation (although Scalia and Garner argue that the same ground rules apply to interpreting constitutions.) This book was blasted by Richard Posner and defended by Scalia's coauthor Brian Garner as well as by his former clerk Ed Whelan. It's a pity that this page seems to be more interested in whether Scalia did or didn't give someone the equivalent of the middle finger than actually presenting his philosophy, which has a had a massive impact ( for better or for worse),.
Also, the relationship between Textualism and Originalism was explained by Scalia as follows: Textualism is the basic doctrine. Originalism is just a "gloss" on top of it which specificies that you apply textualism based on how the language would have been understood at the time of enactment. See Bryan Garner Nino And Me Page 193. Best -- Costatitanica ( talk) 19:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Per AP, Presidio County Sheriff Danny Dominguez and a U.S. marshal she identified as Ken Roberts were the law enforcement officials who actually saw Scalia's body & advised Cinderal Guevara that no autopsy was necessary. It is also worth mentioning that Scalia's body was transferred to an El Paso funeral home (Alpine Funeral Home) after being transferred to an Odessa funeral home (Sunset Memorial Gardens & Funeral Home). No family spokespeople have clarified that they specifically requested no autopsy or their connection with these funeral homes. Optim.usprime ( talk) 22:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
With regard to 1) we are in agreement. With regard to 2) we disagree strongly. There is no reasonable basis for the continuing attempt here to suggest the way Scalia's body was handled wouldn't raise further questions.
The cause of death is still just "natural causes", even though earlier reports still claimed it was a heart attack.
News sources covering his death all still regard the way his body was handled as quite unorthodox. Ignoring this issue as it was covered is a violation of WP:Syn. Saying that news sources today aren't covering an issue that happened weeks ago has no bearing on the fact that most mainstream news sources did cover this issue when it was still "new".
@ TwilightCedars: @ Pechmerle: @ Wehwalt:
It is well-sourced using
WP:RS (books actually) and duly
cited. He was appointed by Republicans, and served in two Republican administrations. His wayward opinion (deviating from his self-avowed method of analysis) in
Bush v Gore says a lot. See
Duck test.
In any event,
WP:Verifiability is the proper test, not
WP:Truth. This is not "alleged", but is verifiable. So his innermost feelings are irrelevant.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
12:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); More than one of |ISBN=
and |isbn=
specified (
help)The phrase "partisan Republican" is your own confabulated creation. I didn't say that.
Tellingly, you also have been using 'weasel words' to limit the wording of the infobox to "his time in office." It doesn't say that either.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
21:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
edit conflict
We need a source that says specifically that Scalia self-described as a Republican. No other argument holds water in a WP article but especially in a BLP- not what we surmise, or what we could safely assume. This is very simple.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
How many articles should cover these in the media for it to be worth including in the 'Death' section? For example:
nationally syndicated talk-radio host Michael Savage called for an investigation on the level of the presidentially appointed probe into President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)That it has drawn the attention of notable figures like Michael Savage makes it worth a mention.
This isn't so much the "murder conspiracy theory" aspect, just that enough people are concerned about the details of the death and the events surrounding it to request investigation, and this ought to be mentioned. 184.145.18.50 ( talk) 11:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hasn't there been a death certificate, or a gravestone or something that confirms whether the death date is officially Feb. 12 or Feb. 13? I suppose the Social Security Death Index might have something shortly. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
In the first paragraph is written "Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia was described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court's conservative wing.[9]"
This is true. He has been described that way.
The description is, however, complete nonsense.
Scalia was a happy-go-lucky frat-boy dogmatist, and his Constitutional opinions were the sort of thing you'd hear (and I have heard) at a Knights of Columbus dinner in Elkhart, Indiana, from some guy who'd had a couple of beers too many.
He was part of an unprincipled, partisan, aggressive, dogmatic, and cheerfully destructive majority on the Court for several years. I.e. he delivered exactly what General Electric paid Ronald Reagan to deliver.
Whoever wrote this Wikipedia entry, and the Wiki editors who let it stand, ought to be ashamed of themselves. Scalia was a historic figure -- in the same sort of way as, say, Salmon P. Chase. History deserves better of Wikipedia than this saccharine silliness on him.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 14:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The source linked to for the statement that Justice Scalia "died of natural causes" actually says "apparently," because this hasn't been officially determined by a medical examination—or rather, if it has, that information has not been made public. This story offers more details about the unusual way in which the cause of death was declared: by a County Judge over the phone. So some qualifying modifier needs to be added even on the basis of the source cited (the New York Post), which mentions this only in passing and isn't the best and fullest account currently available. The Washington Post is now saying it may've been a heart attack, but it's uncertain whether an autopsy will be performed. Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Not heart attack (or at least not determined to be heart attack). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-tv-station-scalia-died-of-a-heart-attack/2016/02/14/938e2170-d332-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html
"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head.
BeVeryCareful ( talk) 04:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't add anything to the readers understanding. And please don't edit war to put it back in. Multiple other editors have removed it. Discuss and try to gain consensus. — Strongjam ( talk) 14:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Scalia had a pillow over his head. That was removed from Wikipedia. That serves only to make Wikipedia look either stupid or participating in a cover up. Cover up theories are documented many places, including the BBC ...See http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35588937
Wikipedia should mention that he was found with a pillow over his head (fact) but not go into conspiracy theories, except to cite that they have been cited.
To do otherwise would be bad for Wikipedia because it suggests a wiki conspiracy, which is not true.
SCALIA HAD A PILLOW OVER HIS HEAD. Farewell Scalia ( talk) 01:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Following a large deletion by Astro, whose user has less than 250 edits but who has clearly used Wikipedia from other usernames before, the article was suppressed 6 times. User:71.121.136.149 ( talk) was suppressed (unsourced comment deleted by User:Eman235) and User:174.22.57.123 ( talk) was suppressed twice ( User:Lazylaces felt "it didn't appear constructive", User:Coffee blocked ip). User:Respondant2016 ( talk) was suppressed 3 times (deleted by User:Cluebot NG, User:Meters, User:Gogo Dodo & blocked by User:Smalljim). Can an oversight admin clarify the necessity for suppression? 108.58.65.92 ( talk) 15:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC) @ Farewell Scalia:
I do like the phrase "tin-foily" somebody has used here. On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that the article is a rather sugary PR gloss on Scalia's life. It entirely obscures his role as the cheerful front man for an unprincipled generation-long, reactionary assault on the Constitution. In this sense, he is a fairly major figure among American politicians, at least the equal of, say, Orval Faubus, George Wallace or George Lincoln Rockwell.
Could everyone perhaps come back in a year, by which time we shall have seen even more of the Federalist Society in action on the current SCOTUS/Obama situation? Once the body is cold, I think the writer of the article will be wry, if not ashamed, at the tone of wide-eyed childish awe, and slick PR rush, in which it is written. Then it might be time to replace it with something serious.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 22:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
GMU's lawschool being renamed for Scalia has been reported by the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the ABA, Above the Law, The Hill, and others. It is even on the law school's website. Knope7 ( talk) 00:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Antonin Scalia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Antonin Scalia's birth date is March 11, 1936. not 1986 = [1]
2602:306:3B8F:CB0:6433:FD18:790E:E79A ( talk) 01:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Xiidos
References
Sheepythemouse has reverted me to add Garland's name as successor with the parenthetical (nominated). I do not think it should be there as Garland is not presently the successor. However the community wants it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
As long as its mentioned somewhere, because I believe the current stance as "vacant" kind of indicates that nobody has been nominated, while someone is; anyone looking for sourcing about Scalia's successor in his article will not find anything, as of now. Sheepythemouse ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Edit: I meant information, not sourcing, sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepythemouse ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
For the information to be in the body of the article is good enough for me :) Sheepythemouse ( talk) 13:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw ( talk · contribs) : Color blindness (race) in the United States is wikilinked from the lead of Affirmative action. It would seem to me that presenting Scalia's actual opinion (color-blindness) along with the status quo opinion (affirmative action), which is opposed to his, would be the most neutral approach. Right now, only the opinion opposing Scalia's (affirmative action) is presented. That just serves to confuse the description of Scalia -- all it says is "this is what he's not". Please explain how including only affirmative action (the view opposite to Scalia's) instead of both affirmative action and color-blindness is more WP:NPOV. Michaelmalak ( talk) 14:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This night be worth noting. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/02/24/scalia-may-have-forgotten-to-hook-himself-up-to-sleep-apnea-machine-why-that-can-be-dangerous/ with a link to /info/en/?search=Sleep_apnea Thanks for a great read, rumjal 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal ( talk • contribs)
My edits were reversed by user Wehwalt, who said, "while findagrave is usually reliable, I would like to see a little more here". Sir/Madam, do you click the link to the find-a-grave website? If so, you can see photographs of Justice Scalia's burial plot. I would ask that my edit be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehannette ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm hoping more people will opine.Since you asked. I haven't piped up, but just because I mostly agree with you. Technically WP:BLP may still apply, so better sourcing (news/magazine article, etc...) would be great. But I won't be removing it if it does get added in. — Strongjam ( talk) 15:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Up to now, this discussion has been about the propriety of using Find a Grave. Since Find a Grave is well-established as non-RS, it seemed unnecessary to contribute to this discussion once that was reiterated. Now one editor is indeed using Find a Grave as a basis to change the status quo death date in the article, despite the multitudinous citations contradicting Find a Grave. Something as significant as a death date requires thorough consensus discussion, with an RfC or otherwise. With all due respect, it's not one editor's unilateral decision to make. --15:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)15:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)-- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The gesture of brushing the fingertips under your chin, with the hand facing away from the target, means "I do not care" and can be accompained by exactly that phrase in Italian. http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/flicking-your-hand-under-your-chin.123399/?hl=it
It might be that in some other countries (France) it is more strong and vulgar, but in Italy it is perceived as such only when addressed at authority figures (like teachers or policemen) or during strong altercations, otherwise it's just part of the language. It all depends on context.
I realise that english language sources are confused on this topic, and that my testimony is just original research, or primary source, at most. But really, Italian hand gestures and swearwords can be perceived very differently in terms of offensiveness and acceptability depending on context, company and addressees. This hand gestures is a very mild one most of the time. 81.154.114.159 ( talk) 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Antonin Scalia. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Should he be added as Scalia's successor? Snakeskinsam 01:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Someone has added him. Should his name be removed?Snakeskinsam 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeskinsam ( talk • contribs)
I'd like to propose we go to the February 13 death date alone. Biographies seem to be taking this view, for example this and this. I don't see any reason for the 12/13 anymore. We are a tertiary source and need to follow the sources, and I don't think the sources are using the 12 anymore.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died over the night of February 12-13, 2016. No autopsy was preformed, and the medical information did not find whether he died on the 12th or 13th. The sources following his death so stated, and his death date was placed in his article's infobox as "February 12/13, 2016".
There have since been several efforts to change the infobox date of death to February 13, 2016. Proponents point to the fact that secondary sources, including Scalia's Supreme Court biography, say he died on the 13th (as does his gravestone) and that we are a tertiary source and should follow those sources, since many people have died in their sleep overnight and few are given an uncertain date of death. Opponents argue that no new information is available, that Scalia's date of death is just as uncertain as it was, accordingly we should keep the infobox as it is.
With repeated discussions deadlocked, an RfC was proposed to seek wider community opinion on the matter, and it has not been opposed. The community is asked whether Scalia's date of death should say February 12/13, 2016, as at present, or be changed to read February 13, 2016. Other options, such as use of a footnote, are also possible.
How on earth is there no section on Scalia's book Reading Law? Costatitanica ( talk) 20:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Antonin Scalia. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Normally I would not have restored a revert of an edit, but the edit summary by my valued colleague User:Bbb23 indicated he was unaware that the date change had been made without discussion by an anon IP without explanation or consensus, and had gone unnoticed till now. This was at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=779596204&oldid=778513538. Something that important should not have been changed without discussion or consensus, so protocol is to restore the status quo version. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This page has a very superficial treatment of Scalia's methodology. He wrote 2 books on interpreting law. A Matter Of Interpretation has his constitutional philosophy, along with critiques by constitutional liberals such as Dworkin and Tribe, along with Scalia's responses to those critiques. The new edition has an added critical intro by Amar and a more or less Pro Scalia afterword by Steven Calabresi. Scalia also co wrote Reading Law which is a list of his rules for interpreting legal texts. This book is mostly about statutory interpretation (although Scalia and Garner argue that the same ground rules apply to interpreting constitutions.) This book was blasted by Richard Posner and defended by Scalia's coauthor Brian Garner as well as by his former clerk Ed Whelan. It's a pity that this page seems to be more interested in whether Scalia did or didn't give someone the equivalent of the middle finger than actually presenting his philosophy, which has a had a massive impact ( for better or for worse),.
Also, the relationship between Textualism and Originalism was explained by Scalia as follows: Textualism is the basic doctrine. Originalism is just a "gloss" on top of it which specificies that you apply textualism based on how the language would have been understood at the time of enactment. See Bryan Garner Nino And Me Page 193. Best -- Costatitanica ( talk) 19:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)