Samuel Alito flag display controversy was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 2 June 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Samuel Alito. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
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 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Samuel Alito article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
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 C-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 |
@ GuardianH: Are you saying that members of the US Supreme Court cannot be impeached or only that Alito's statement to that effect should not be labeled as controversial?
The Wikipedia article on " List of impeachment investigations of United States federal judges" says, "As of December 2019, there have been 66 federal judges or Supreme Court Justices investigated for impeachment." In 1969 Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas resigned under allegations similar to those currently against Alito. The Wikipedia article on Fortas says that then US President "Nixon was unsure if an investigation or prosecution was legal, but was convinced by then-Assistant Attorney General and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist that it would be." In 1970 then-House Minority Leader and future President Gerald R. Ford tried to initiate similar proceedings against Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. In 1841 US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was officially impeached by the US House but acquitted in the Senate the following year.
In my judgment, it's POV editing to cite without rebuttal Alito's claim that "No provision in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period." The Wikipedia article on " Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields" says, "Having a strong POV is fine and you can report it from a source, but also other POVs may be reported from sourcing." That's particularly true for anything as controversial as Alito's denial of the authority of the US Congress to regulate the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, I'm reverting your edit. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia:Prime objective to create "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." DavidMCEddy ( talk) 16:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
It's POV editing to cite without rebuttal Alito's claim— Ironically, you have it backwards. In this case, it's actually POV editing to input rebuttals to every one of Alito's claims, per WP:UNDUE. The constitutional aspect of whether or not Congress has the authority to regulate the Supreme Court is open to debate, and were focusing on Alito's espousals on the subject, so WP:ASPECT applies. By the way, none of the first paragraph you wrote in Ethical Questions has any of this kind of "
rebuttals" on his view. I removed the sentence also because it made the lackluster mistake of directly citing Wikipedia articles as a source, which is prohibited per WP:CIRCULAR. GuardianH ( talk) 19:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The opening sentence of the 'Personal life' section is odd. Is says the subject married "Martha-Ann Alito", which makes it sound like he married his cousin. It should read he read "the former Martha-Ann Bomgardner", or "Martha-Ann Alito (nee Bomgardner)". -- 164.64.118.102 ( talk) 17:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The last paragraphs of two sections are on the same topic and cover the same info. The last paragraph in the 'Ethical issues' section and the 'Personal life' section are basically the same and therefore redundant. -- 164.64.118.102 ( talk) 17:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Plan B is levonorgestrel. Its ingredient is not mifepristone as stated in the article. 69.115.90.113 ( talk) 17:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Added text/ref (5/29/2024) to main article [1] - then reverted - seemed relevant - Worth considering adding after all - or Not? - Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Stay Safe amd Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 10:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 10:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that Justice Alito is a military veteran. Serving in the reserve component does not confer veteran status unless that person is deployed to foreign soil or activated for a national emergency. Typically, reservists are not veterans and do not enjoy veteran benefits. 184.74.29.158 ( talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The letter is in the public domain, as it's both from Alito's SCOTUS chambers and sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the most relevant quotes is: "My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not." The information on the incidents relating to the flag have been covered in various news articles, but Alito's claim that he is not fond of flying flags should be added per NPOV.
I added the letter in the "Related documents" section. I also added the Pine Tree Flag originated during the American Revolution, and has been used in recent years by pro-Trump, Christian nationalist, and far-right movements.
Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Letter_from_Justice_Alito_to_Senators_Durbin_and_Whitehouse.pdf JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 04:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The flag controversy article was merged here per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Alito flag display controversy. It may be edited, but should not be removed in bulk as it is here by WP:CONSENSUS. One editor already unilaterally removed most of it, under the mistaken belief that the "details are in the respective article" - but per the AfD decision, there is no longer a "respective article". As other editors did not notice or revert this mass deletion of material, I am bringing up the topic here so that y'all are aware - this is where AfD decided the material belongs. Skyerise ( talk) 10:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In a recent AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Alito flag display controversy), the outcome was to merge that article into this article. I performed the merge, only to have another editor, unaware of the AFD decision, revert the entire merge. This material has been restored per the AfD decision. Since its inclusion may be controversial, I've opened this RFC to determine:
Should the merged material be abridged, and if so, how much? Skyerise ( talk) 10:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag, and an RfC is an open invitation for anybody to comment. You cannot debar anybody, except on the grounds of
WP:BAN. So far from being "unsolicited", I was very much solicited, as was everybody else. If you don't want people like me to come here, you should think very carefully before reaching for RfC. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
15:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
You are editing a controversial topic, and if you reverse an AFD-required merge again, I will pursue admin action to enforce the merge as decided." [2]. It goes without saying that the assumptions you made were wrong, and your enforcing the merge "as decided" has been anything but that. You beginning an RfC without giving any attention to WP:RFCBEFORE and edit-warring your preferred interpretation has made things more complicated. GuardianH ( talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
That would only be the case if the opinion were irrelevant.— Not at all. Every editor knows that relevance does not equal inclusion. There are thousands of opinions "relevant," but only a few can we include and be due. This copy/paste mentality has never been accepted, especially when there was a consensus to merge the material. GuardianH ( talk) 23:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
There was never a consensus at this page to merge all of the content in. Per BRD, it should be removed and proposed. Arguments like "there's an RfC" and "there's no consensus" are absurd when there was no consensus to include the material to begin with. (And before you say "there was at afd", no, that's a consensus to merge. Merge can be a single sentence if need be -- not a full copy paste. There have been two objections, one "include but trim" and Skyerise alone wanting to include the whole lump. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Being married to a SCOTUS justice... Okay, no. And we have a policy forbidding that at WP:INVALIDBIO. Relationships do not confer notability.
I think it would be more productive if you started discussing rather than repeatedly Wikilawyering— You've been the only one wikilawyering here. You have literally threatened administrator action if the copy and paste was not kept: [6]. The WP:THREATEN personal attack is plainly unacceptable.
All those sections are relevant." [7] I don't know how you expect us to continue to make "
some specific statement" (we have, already) when you are not only in favor of a blanket protection of the section, but also have vague, contradictory views on the material that you just change at will. You said every section was relevant, but then proceeded to remove some select "
less relevant details" [8] and some out of "
tentatively thinking" [9] — no editor can follow those. GuardianH ( talk) 20:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Around half the editors responding believe that most of the material should be kept" — This is misleading. This RfC was on trimming the section, and a majority of editors believe in trimming, despite your view that everything should be kept on the basis of relevance. Aircorn is giving a contribution to the RfC and is right to say:
Trim and trim hard. GuardianH ( talk) 03:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Why is the neutrality of the entire article being disputed?
What is non-neutral about including information regarding the numerous flag incidents that have involved the Alitos? And shouldn't just that specific section be flagged? 72.14.126.22 ( talk) 23:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This section is very repetitive, I think because it was a standalone page, and now it should be trimmed. Seananony ( talk) 02:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
The article refers to Mr Alito as an Italian-American yet he was born in Trenton, New Jersey. How does that make him an Italian-anything? I have ancestry in Denmark, UK, Canada and Germany - what does that make me? 2607:FEA8:6CA0:4100:7177:866A:A75F:6E90 ( talk) 02:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
As I type this, this article contains the text "after psychiatrists found she may have suffered from schizophrenia, with up to four distinct personalities". Ummm, did she have schizophrenia, or did she have multiple personalities? These are two entirely different mental illnesses. Read YOUR OWN ARTICLE on Shizophrenia", Wikipedia, and then read YOUR OWN disambiguation-page for "Multiple Personality". 2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 ( talk) 12:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
@ Skyerise: Too much space was devoted to and too much detailing afforded to the flag happenings. I have restored User:Aircorn's trim, as a temporary solution, since the encyclopedia can't tolerate an ongoing WP:BLPBALANCE problem while editors sort out which exact words and how many to use to work something out. There are probably various improvements to be made to this section, but I would probably oppose any suggestions to significantly expand the section. Improvements can be made without expanding it much. — Alalch E. 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the letter from Alito should be added back into the article, because it is his response to calls for recusal.
/info/en/?search=File:Letter_from_Justice_Alito_to_Senators_Durbin_and_Whitehouse.pdf
It is relevant to include, I'm not sure why this was cut. 72.14.126.22 ( talk) 03:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Samuel Alito flag display controversy was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 2 June 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Samuel Alito. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
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 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Samuel Alito article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
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 C-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 |
@ GuardianH: Are you saying that members of the US Supreme Court cannot be impeached or only that Alito's statement to that effect should not be labeled as controversial?
The Wikipedia article on " List of impeachment investigations of United States federal judges" says, "As of December 2019, there have been 66 federal judges or Supreme Court Justices investigated for impeachment." In 1969 Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas resigned under allegations similar to those currently against Alito. The Wikipedia article on Fortas says that then US President "Nixon was unsure if an investigation or prosecution was legal, but was convinced by then-Assistant Attorney General and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist that it would be." In 1970 then-House Minority Leader and future President Gerald R. Ford tried to initiate similar proceedings against Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. In 1841 US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was officially impeached by the US House but acquitted in the Senate the following year.
In my judgment, it's POV editing to cite without rebuttal Alito's claim that "No provision in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period." The Wikipedia article on " Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields" says, "Having a strong POV is fine and you can report it from a source, but also other POVs may be reported from sourcing." That's particularly true for anything as controversial as Alito's denial of the authority of the US Congress to regulate the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, I'm reverting your edit. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia:Prime objective to create "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." DavidMCEddy ( talk) 16:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
It's POV editing to cite without rebuttal Alito's claim— Ironically, you have it backwards. In this case, it's actually POV editing to input rebuttals to every one of Alito's claims, per WP:UNDUE. The constitutional aspect of whether or not Congress has the authority to regulate the Supreme Court is open to debate, and were focusing on Alito's espousals on the subject, so WP:ASPECT applies. By the way, none of the first paragraph you wrote in Ethical Questions has any of this kind of "
rebuttals" on his view. I removed the sentence also because it made the lackluster mistake of directly citing Wikipedia articles as a source, which is prohibited per WP:CIRCULAR. GuardianH ( talk) 19:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The opening sentence of the 'Personal life' section is odd. Is says the subject married "Martha-Ann Alito", which makes it sound like he married his cousin. It should read he read "the former Martha-Ann Bomgardner", or "Martha-Ann Alito (nee Bomgardner)". -- 164.64.118.102 ( talk) 17:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The last paragraphs of two sections are on the same topic and cover the same info. The last paragraph in the 'Ethical issues' section and the 'Personal life' section are basically the same and therefore redundant. -- 164.64.118.102 ( talk) 17:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Plan B is levonorgestrel. Its ingredient is not mifepristone as stated in the article. 69.115.90.113 ( talk) 17:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Added text/ref (5/29/2024) to main article [1] - then reverted - seemed relevant - Worth considering adding after all - or Not? - Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Stay Safe amd Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 10:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 10:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that Justice Alito is a military veteran. Serving in the reserve component does not confer veteran status unless that person is deployed to foreign soil or activated for a national emergency. Typically, reservists are not veterans and do not enjoy veteran benefits. 184.74.29.158 ( talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The letter is in the public domain, as it's both from Alito's SCOTUS chambers and sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the most relevant quotes is: "My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not." The information on the incidents relating to the flag have been covered in various news articles, but Alito's claim that he is not fond of flying flags should be added per NPOV.
I added the letter in the "Related documents" section. I also added the Pine Tree Flag originated during the American Revolution, and has been used in recent years by pro-Trump, Christian nationalist, and far-right movements.
Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Letter_from_Justice_Alito_to_Senators_Durbin_and_Whitehouse.pdf JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 04:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The flag controversy article was merged here per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Alito flag display controversy. It may be edited, but should not be removed in bulk as it is here by WP:CONSENSUS. One editor already unilaterally removed most of it, under the mistaken belief that the "details are in the respective article" - but per the AfD decision, there is no longer a "respective article". As other editors did not notice or revert this mass deletion of material, I am bringing up the topic here so that y'all are aware - this is where AfD decided the material belongs. Skyerise ( talk) 10:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In a recent AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Alito flag display controversy), the outcome was to merge that article into this article. I performed the merge, only to have another editor, unaware of the AFD decision, revert the entire merge. This material has been restored per the AfD decision. Since its inclusion may be controversial, I've opened this RFC to determine:
Should the merged material be abridged, and if so, how much? Skyerise ( talk) 10:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag, and an RfC is an open invitation for anybody to comment. You cannot debar anybody, except on the grounds of
WP:BAN. So far from being "unsolicited", I was very much solicited, as was everybody else. If you don't want people like me to come here, you should think very carefully before reaching for RfC. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
15:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
You are editing a controversial topic, and if you reverse an AFD-required merge again, I will pursue admin action to enforce the merge as decided." [2]. It goes without saying that the assumptions you made were wrong, and your enforcing the merge "as decided" has been anything but that. You beginning an RfC without giving any attention to WP:RFCBEFORE and edit-warring your preferred interpretation has made things more complicated. GuardianH ( talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
That would only be the case if the opinion were irrelevant.— Not at all. Every editor knows that relevance does not equal inclusion. There are thousands of opinions "relevant," but only a few can we include and be due. This copy/paste mentality has never been accepted, especially when there was a consensus to merge the material. GuardianH ( talk) 23:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
There was never a consensus at this page to merge all of the content in. Per BRD, it should be removed and proposed. Arguments like "there's an RfC" and "there's no consensus" are absurd when there was no consensus to include the material to begin with. (And before you say "there was at afd", no, that's a consensus to merge. Merge can be a single sentence if need be -- not a full copy paste. There have been two objections, one "include but trim" and Skyerise alone wanting to include the whole lump. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Being married to a SCOTUS justice... Okay, no. And we have a policy forbidding that at WP:INVALIDBIO. Relationships do not confer notability.
I think it would be more productive if you started discussing rather than repeatedly Wikilawyering— You've been the only one wikilawyering here. You have literally threatened administrator action if the copy and paste was not kept: [6]. The WP:THREATEN personal attack is plainly unacceptable.
All those sections are relevant." [7] I don't know how you expect us to continue to make "
some specific statement" (we have, already) when you are not only in favor of a blanket protection of the section, but also have vague, contradictory views on the material that you just change at will. You said every section was relevant, but then proceeded to remove some select "
less relevant details" [8] and some out of "
tentatively thinking" [9] — no editor can follow those. GuardianH ( talk) 20:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Around half the editors responding believe that most of the material should be kept" — This is misleading. This RfC was on trimming the section, and a majority of editors believe in trimming, despite your view that everything should be kept on the basis of relevance. Aircorn is giving a contribution to the RfC and is right to say:
Trim and trim hard. GuardianH ( talk) 03:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Why is the neutrality of the entire article being disputed?
What is non-neutral about including information regarding the numerous flag incidents that have involved the Alitos? And shouldn't just that specific section be flagged? 72.14.126.22 ( talk) 23:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This section is very repetitive, I think because it was a standalone page, and now it should be trimmed. Seananony ( talk) 02:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
The article refers to Mr Alito as an Italian-American yet he was born in Trenton, New Jersey. How does that make him an Italian-anything? I have ancestry in Denmark, UK, Canada and Germany - what does that make me? 2607:FEA8:6CA0:4100:7177:866A:A75F:6E90 ( talk) 02:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
As I type this, this article contains the text "after psychiatrists found she may have suffered from schizophrenia, with up to four distinct personalities". Ummm, did she have schizophrenia, or did she have multiple personalities? These are two entirely different mental illnesses. Read YOUR OWN ARTICLE on Shizophrenia", Wikipedia, and then read YOUR OWN disambiguation-page for "Multiple Personality". 2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 ( talk) 12:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
@ Skyerise: Too much space was devoted to and too much detailing afforded to the flag happenings. I have restored User:Aircorn's trim, as a temporary solution, since the encyclopedia can't tolerate an ongoing WP:BLPBALANCE problem while editors sort out which exact words and how many to use to work something out. There are probably various improvements to be made to this section, but I would probably oppose any suggestions to significantly expand the section. Improvements can be made without expanding it much. — Alalch E. 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the letter from Alito should be added back into the article, because it is his response to calls for recusal.
/info/en/?search=File:Letter_from_Justice_Alito_to_Senators_Durbin_and_Whitehouse.pdf
It is relevant to include, I'm not sure why this was cut. 72.14.126.22 ( talk) 03:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)