This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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 |
So this guy held a government position in the Bush administration which is not notable enough to have it's own wikipedia article and he argued on the winning side in a case that is not notable enough to have it's own WP article ("on the winning side" is very vague, how involved was he?). The main notable thing about him appears to be that he is Justice Scalia's son. The only source cited is his employer bio, not a secondary or independent source and definitely not enough to constitute "significant coverage" under the general guidelines at WP:NOTE. Also only 3 pages link to this page, Justice Scalia's, Gibson Dunn's (which includes him in Notable attorneys with not justification of why he is notable), and a Harvard Journal which lists him under "notable authors" again with no explanation of why he is notable.
Disclaimer: I know nothing about this guy and have no opinion about whether he is notable or not, only about whether the article and its sources establish his notability. -- InspectorTiger ( talk) 16:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The most notable thing about him seems to be his father. -- richjenkins ( talk) 03:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. Was going to tell original author Crzrussian, but apparently he banned himself.. @ InspectorTiger: @ Richjenkins:
According to the article, "Scalia argued the winning side in Wal-Mart v. Maryland in July 2006." The "Official law firm biography" does NOT say that. It does say that he argued "Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2007) – Successful ERISA preemption challenge to controversial Maryland law that required increased expenditures on employee health care."
First, why is it even important/significant?
Second, can we fix it to "Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder (AKA Wal-Mart v. Maryland)"?
Any other suggestions? Pinnygold ( talk) 05:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the last sentence of this biography. The sentence states, "His initiatives are said to be not meant to protect workers, but instead to safeguard the industries favorable to the Republican Party. [1]" The citation is from Jacobin (magazine), which is a partisan far left leaning magazine. Wikipedia's article on Jacobin magazine notes that the magazine has been described as Marxist and Socialist. The article shows its lack of neutrality in its title, "Trump's Labor Secretary is Reaching Cartoonist Levels of Supervillianry (sic)". An Encyclopedia should not be citing articles whose author talks about their political opponents as cartoon supervillains.
Wikipedia's ' Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view' policy requires that authors " Avoid stating opinions as facts and Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" The deleted sentence violates the Wikipedia policy because stating that 'Scalia's initiatives are not meant to protect workers, but help the Republican Party' is an opinion without factual content. Additionally, the Wikipedia policy is violated because numerous Americans would seriously contest the assertion that Scalia's policy is based on partisanship and not a genuine belief.
The cited NPR Article expressly contradicts the Jacobin Magazine's assertion that Scalia is acting out of partisanship rather than a genuine held belief [2] "Secretary Scalia has said over and over again - that I don't think they really believe that government has a role here. They believe in real limited government." Id.
Although Wikipedia's ' Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view' policy generally allows for biased sources for content,"[t]his does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." According to Wikipedia's 'Venerability Policy',
I hereby dispute the content. This places the burden to include the disputed content on those who wish to include the sentence. I am disputing the value of the sentence even with a further clarity and edits.
I am also adding "According to a former Senior OSHA Advisor" to the previous sentence. Wikipedia's 'Neutral Point of View' policy on Avoid stating opinions as facts states, "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources". Accordingly, the new language reflects the opinion of the author instead of using Wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.135.128 ( talk) 05:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The section you speak of is sourced. Perhaps you should write a counterpoint and make sure its sourced as well. -- evrik ( talk) 05:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I am formally requesting assistance for Edit Warring. This is a very clear cut violation of Wikipedia Policy. Please see reasoning above and Independent Editor agreeing the sentence is inappropriate. I am removing the sentence again. There has yet to be any rebuttal on why the sentence is permitted under Wikipedia Policy just the user repeating a political opinion from a biased website as an objective truth in Wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6082:a200:d956:1ed5:a2dc:7c1a ( talk • contribs) 03:17, August 26, 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring# User: Evrik reported by
User:68.231.135.128. Thank you. —
2600:8800:6082:A200:D956:1ED5:A2DC:7C1A (
talk) 07:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Both in his career prior to heading the Department of Labor and during. There is no dispute in RS about this. It's clearly pertinent information to readers to understand the man, his career, and his impact. In many ways, it is more important to clarify this given that he was Secretary of Labor, which may give some readers the mistaken impression that he was distinctly pro-labor unless it is specified otherwise. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The caption under his photo identifies him as Secy of Labor. He's no longer that. I'd change it by adding his dates, maybe the word "former." Btw, I read the other Talk items, including those re whether to delete the article. I'm for keeping it. Big Law likes to operate out of sight - can't tell you how many newspaper articles I've read re important cases that didn't even mention the law firms or lawyers. I say bring on the daylight! 2600:1017:B81D:CA3D:0:51:421F:5F01 ( talk) 06:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The deletion discussion was from 2012-2016, before he became Labor Secretary. Given that he served as a Cabinet Secy, he is notable and therefore the article stands. JLo-Watson ( talk) 22:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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 |
So this guy held a government position in the Bush administration which is not notable enough to have it's own wikipedia article and he argued on the winning side in a case that is not notable enough to have it's own WP article ("on the winning side" is very vague, how involved was he?). The main notable thing about him appears to be that he is Justice Scalia's son. The only source cited is his employer bio, not a secondary or independent source and definitely not enough to constitute "significant coverage" under the general guidelines at WP:NOTE. Also only 3 pages link to this page, Justice Scalia's, Gibson Dunn's (which includes him in Notable attorneys with not justification of why he is notable), and a Harvard Journal which lists him under "notable authors" again with no explanation of why he is notable.
Disclaimer: I know nothing about this guy and have no opinion about whether he is notable or not, only about whether the article and its sources establish his notability. -- InspectorTiger ( talk) 16:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The most notable thing about him seems to be his father. -- richjenkins ( talk) 03:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. Was going to tell original author Crzrussian, but apparently he banned himself.. @ InspectorTiger: @ Richjenkins:
According to the article, "Scalia argued the winning side in Wal-Mart v. Maryland in July 2006." The "Official law firm biography" does NOT say that. It does say that he argued "Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2007) – Successful ERISA preemption challenge to controversial Maryland law that required increased expenditures on employee health care."
First, why is it even important/significant?
Second, can we fix it to "Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder (AKA Wal-Mart v. Maryland)"?
Any other suggestions? Pinnygold ( talk) 05:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the last sentence of this biography. The sentence states, "His initiatives are said to be not meant to protect workers, but instead to safeguard the industries favorable to the Republican Party. [1]" The citation is from Jacobin (magazine), which is a partisan far left leaning magazine. Wikipedia's article on Jacobin magazine notes that the magazine has been described as Marxist and Socialist. The article shows its lack of neutrality in its title, "Trump's Labor Secretary is Reaching Cartoonist Levels of Supervillianry (sic)". An Encyclopedia should not be citing articles whose author talks about their political opponents as cartoon supervillains.
Wikipedia's ' Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view' policy requires that authors " Avoid stating opinions as facts and Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" The deleted sentence violates the Wikipedia policy because stating that 'Scalia's initiatives are not meant to protect workers, but help the Republican Party' is an opinion without factual content. Additionally, the Wikipedia policy is violated because numerous Americans would seriously contest the assertion that Scalia's policy is based on partisanship and not a genuine belief.
The cited NPR Article expressly contradicts the Jacobin Magazine's assertion that Scalia is acting out of partisanship rather than a genuine held belief [2] "Secretary Scalia has said over and over again - that I don't think they really believe that government has a role here. They believe in real limited government." Id.
Although Wikipedia's ' Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view' policy generally allows for biased sources for content,"[t]his does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." According to Wikipedia's 'Venerability Policy',
I hereby dispute the content. This places the burden to include the disputed content on those who wish to include the sentence. I am disputing the value of the sentence even with a further clarity and edits.
I am also adding "According to a former Senior OSHA Advisor" to the previous sentence. Wikipedia's 'Neutral Point of View' policy on Avoid stating opinions as facts states, "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources". Accordingly, the new language reflects the opinion of the author instead of using Wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.135.128 ( talk) 05:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The section you speak of is sourced. Perhaps you should write a counterpoint and make sure its sourced as well. -- evrik ( talk) 05:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I am formally requesting assistance for Edit Warring. This is a very clear cut violation of Wikipedia Policy. Please see reasoning above and Independent Editor agreeing the sentence is inappropriate. I am removing the sentence again. There has yet to be any rebuttal on why the sentence is permitted under Wikipedia Policy just the user repeating a political opinion from a biased website as an objective truth in Wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6082:a200:d956:1ed5:a2dc:7c1a ( talk • contribs) 03:17, August 26, 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring# User: Evrik reported by
User:68.231.135.128. Thank you. —
2600:8800:6082:A200:D956:1ED5:A2DC:7C1A (
talk) 07:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Both in his career prior to heading the Department of Labor and during. There is no dispute in RS about this. It's clearly pertinent information to readers to understand the man, his career, and his impact. In many ways, it is more important to clarify this given that he was Secretary of Labor, which may give some readers the mistaken impression that he was distinctly pro-labor unless it is specified otherwise. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The caption under his photo identifies him as Secy of Labor. He's no longer that. I'd change it by adding his dates, maybe the word "former." Btw, I read the other Talk items, including those re whether to delete the article. I'm for keeping it. Big Law likes to operate out of sight - can't tell you how many newspaper articles I've read re important cases that didn't even mention the law firms or lawyers. I say bring on the daylight! 2600:1017:B81D:CA3D:0:51:421F:5F01 ( talk) 06:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The deletion discussion was from 2012-2016, before he became Labor Secretary. Given that he served as a Cabinet Secy, he is notable and therefore the article stands. JLo-Watson ( talk) 22:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)