![]() | 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 |
The article seems to indicate both.
After Sotomayor, the numbers should be 6 currently sitting and 12 all time, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/sotomayor.catholic/
LedRush ( talk) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
James and I disagree about the addition of his two sentences criticizing Alito's participation at certain events (James characterizes them as fundraising events). So far, only he and I have been debating this issue, something I find surprising, so I'm seeking more comments from others.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
My addition of information on this subject has been criticized as allegedly coming from a blog, therefore not admissible, a charge that is clearly wrong. The discussion is at User talk:JamesMLane#BLP.
User Bbb23 raises the additional question of notability. A fine point of legal ethics isn't likely to attract much attention from the mainstream media, unless it's something like a conflict of interest by a judge who sentenced Lindsay Lohan or the like, but the subject was picked up on the websites of, among others, the American Bar Association ( [1]), People for the American Way ( [2]), and the Wall Street Journal ( [3]). (See the WSJ link for a list of some additional reports.) It's not the biggest event in Alito's life but giving it one sentence is not excessive. JamesMLane t c 07:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
He has been a featured speaker at fundraising dinners for the conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute[20] and The American Spectator, a conservative magazine[21]. Alito has been criticized for such fundraising activities, which the Code of Conduct for United States Judges prohibits for all federal judges other than members of the Supreme Court.[22]
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."
My personal preference would be to wait and see if this is covered by more high-profile, reputable media. Presumably the specter of Supreme Court justices engaging in partisan political activity is concerning enough that it might generate major-media coverage. If it doesn't, then I think we have to conclude that the issue isn't notable enough for inclusion in a Wikipedia biography. My second choice would be to include something, but source it to the ABA Journal rather than ThinkProgress or other such sites. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 18:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Are there no other sources discussing this? If no hard news source has picked up on it at all, it's hard to see how it should be considered notable. bd2412 T 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This is my last comment on this issue because, in my view, consensus on what to include was already reached, and now it's just you and me going in circles. It's not just a function of the notability of the organization but Alito's ties to that organization. Thus, membership in an organization is more notable than a single attendance at a dinner given by the organization as the former implies a continuing commitment. Thus, in your example, if Alito were a member of the Ku Klux Klan, that would be notable, and if he were a member of a white-only less notable organization (and it was well-sourced), that, too, would be notable. As for children, they are part of a subject's background information and there is a line (and not all editors agree) as to how much background information to include. However, facts such as the ones you want to include don't exist in the same neutral vacuum as the fact that he has children and have to be scrutinized more carefully lest our choices as to what to include indicate POV rather than just a more neutral, but subjective, judgment as to how much information about the subject to include.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
In the chart underneath his picture including all of the information, there is an error. It suggests that he was "Nominated by" George H. W. Bush, but it was actually George W. Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.200.136 ( talk) 05:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This article, which is a WP:BLP, gets only a month protection while Cars 2, gets a full year? I guess we know where are priorities are. The following comment was just a social observation.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 14:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The leade of the article says he has a libertarian streak. This source is from 2005, before he was on the court. I think we need a more up to date description of his idealogy Wargames83 ( talk) 07:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
There had been a section with the text,
During Obama's first State of the Union Address, Alito appeared to mouth the words "not true" when President Obama argued that allowing corporations, in particular foreign corporations, to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns would increase their influence in Washington. Traditionally, the Supreme Court watches the address, but does not applaud or make comments about it.
This struck me as having a couple of NPOV issues. Firstly, it presents as fact the claim that the decision would allow "foreign corporations... to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns", when this very point is open to dispute (as we saw). And secondly, the section notes that it's unusual for a supreme court justice to show disapproval of the president's remarks, but it didn't note that it's also unusual for a president to criticize the justices so directly in a SOTU address.
I rewrote the section to address these issues. I also bumped the section down a level (making it a subsection of "U.S. Supreme Court career")--if this issue is even sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned on this page, I don't think it's worthy of a top-level section heading. Frankly, I'd be fine with removing the reference entirely until we can see if it's got legs.
(I also added a news cite, though there may certainly be better ones to use.) -- Narsil ( talk) 22:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be titled something other than 'Criticism of President Obama,' but Alito has not returned to the State of the Union since the 2010 incident. [8] There are also reports that he displays annoyance with his colleagues from the bench. From the Washington Post: "At the various oral arguments I’ve watched over the past few years, Alito’s eye-rolling, head-shaking and other expressions of exasperation are a fairly common occurrence, most often when Sotomayor has the floor." [9] Knope7 ( talk) 02:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Samuel Alito. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=16003{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=16018When 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) 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Samuel Alito. 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) 04:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
"Alito avoided the eating clubs at Princeton University and instead joined Stevenson Hall."
I suggest the value of this sentence would be greater if it explained what Stevenson Hall actually is. Harfarhs ( talk) 16:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Just posted today: (source was filtered by Wikipedia) alito-religious-liberty-is-in-danger-of-becoming-a-second-class-right/ Charles Juvon ( talk) 20:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Samuel Alito has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in the Samuel_Alito#Personal_life section Change
To
![]() | This
edit request to
Samuel Alito has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove this sentence:
Kennedy did not reach the question whether the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart were valid, and instead said that the challenged statute is consistent with those prior decisions whether or not they were valid.
and replace it with:
Kennedy said that the challenged statute was consistent with the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart, without saying whether or not they were valid.
"reach the question" sounds weird, and the first and last parts of the sentence sound redundant. Also, there's an inappropriate present tense "is". 49.198.51.54 ( talk) 20:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Samuel Alito has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the current headshot of Samuel Alito to this file:
OR https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ugly_sam_alito.jpg Needmoorecaleb ( talk) 22:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.
-- Charlesreid1 ( talk) 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges.
Endwise (
talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't doubt that Alito is one of the most conservative justices, but the source justifying the sentence is from 2013, which is before being joined by three new conservatives. A newer source would solve this problem, and perhaps also be a bit more specific. With only six conservatives, "one of the most conservative" does not convey a lot of information. 2A02:A467:F771:1:7D28:3CDA:D8BC:18F8 ( talk) 09:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@ GuardianH: In my judgment, ethical issues are professional issues, especially for the US Supreme Court. The court's only enforcement mechanism is the willingness of the body politic to support its decisions. I therefore support reverting your move.
If you still believe this should belong under "personal", please explain. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
However, the particulars of those and other charges went far beyond that" and "
However, that plane ride would have cost $100,000 had Alito chartered the plane by himself." is primetime editorializing, and will need to be rewritten. Take a look at MOS:EDITORIALIZING, which prohibits such writing.
He’s trying to move away from the plain language of the statute and the regulation." is her opinion, and there's no reason we should give a WP:SOAPBOX to her particular comment. GuardianH ( talk) 19:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
"who had also hosted Justice Anthony Scalia on an similar junket in 2005". It's spelled Antonin Scalia; you wrote a misspelling. I previously corrected the term, but you reverted that correction. GuardianH ( talk) 19:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@ GuardianH: I'm confused. On 2023-06-30T16:04:40, you deleted the following:
The CEO and President of Elliott Investment Management, Singer was involved in the 2014 Supreme Court case Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., about a default on Argentinian government debt, purchased by NML Capital, Ltd., a division of Elliott Investment Management; the court ruled 7–1 in favor of NML Capital. [1] Legal ethics experts quoted in ProPublica called Alito's behavior "unacceptable". [2]
You justified this saying, "non-primary source needed; WP:NOR". That rule says we should avoid "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Both of the sources cited, Justia and The Guardian, seem to be quite reliable and respectable sources.
Are you whitewashing? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 17:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
References
DavidMCEddy ( talk) 17:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
"He has called himself a 'practical originalist' and applies originalism flexibly, reliably arriving at conservative outcomes."
Applies flexibly, arriving reliably... These are subjective evaluations, not facts and we are not informed whose evaluations these are. The statement sounds a bit like a characterization of a used car by its seller.
Are these kind of subjective opinions really necessary in a Wikipedia entry? Many would without a doubt disagree with these characterizations. A Wikipedia entry is not an opinion text. Kukkis75 ( talk) 22:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
References
Should we mention in the article Alito’s unique judicial philosophy in relation to constitutional rights? Alito uses the “deeply rooted” doctrines found in Timbs v. Indiana and Washington v. Glucksberg. They can be found in both his majorities (such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and dissents (such as Obergefell v. Hodges). Dancingtudorqueen ( talk) 17:14, 2 July 2023 (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 |
The article seems to indicate both.
After Sotomayor, the numbers should be 6 currently sitting and 12 all time, right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/sotomayor.catholic/
LedRush ( talk) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
James and I disagree about the addition of his two sentences criticizing Alito's participation at certain events (James characterizes them as fundraising events). So far, only he and I have been debating this issue, something I find surprising, so I'm seeking more comments from others.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
My addition of information on this subject has been criticized as allegedly coming from a blog, therefore not admissible, a charge that is clearly wrong. The discussion is at User talk:JamesMLane#BLP.
User Bbb23 raises the additional question of notability. A fine point of legal ethics isn't likely to attract much attention from the mainstream media, unless it's something like a conflict of interest by a judge who sentenced Lindsay Lohan or the like, but the subject was picked up on the websites of, among others, the American Bar Association ( [1]), People for the American Way ( [2]), and the Wall Street Journal ( [3]). (See the WSJ link for a list of some additional reports.) It's not the biggest event in Alito's life but giving it one sentence is not excessive. JamesMLane t c 07:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
He has been a featured speaker at fundraising dinners for the conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute[20] and The American Spectator, a conservative magazine[21]. Alito has been criticized for such fundraising activities, which the Code of Conduct for United States Judges prohibits for all federal judges other than members of the Supreme Court.[22]
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."
My personal preference would be to wait and see if this is covered by more high-profile, reputable media. Presumably the specter of Supreme Court justices engaging in partisan political activity is concerning enough that it might generate major-media coverage. If it doesn't, then I think we have to conclude that the issue isn't notable enough for inclusion in a Wikipedia biography. My second choice would be to include something, but source it to the ABA Journal rather than ThinkProgress or other such sites. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 18:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Are there no other sources discussing this? If no hard news source has picked up on it at all, it's hard to see how it should be considered notable. bd2412 T 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This is my last comment on this issue because, in my view, consensus on what to include was already reached, and now it's just you and me going in circles. It's not just a function of the notability of the organization but Alito's ties to that organization. Thus, membership in an organization is more notable than a single attendance at a dinner given by the organization as the former implies a continuing commitment. Thus, in your example, if Alito were a member of the Ku Klux Klan, that would be notable, and if he were a member of a white-only less notable organization (and it was well-sourced), that, too, would be notable. As for children, they are part of a subject's background information and there is a line (and not all editors agree) as to how much background information to include. However, facts such as the ones you want to include don't exist in the same neutral vacuum as the fact that he has children and have to be scrutinized more carefully lest our choices as to what to include indicate POV rather than just a more neutral, but subjective, judgment as to how much information about the subject to include.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
In the chart underneath his picture including all of the information, there is an error. It suggests that he was "Nominated by" George H. W. Bush, but it was actually George W. Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.200.136 ( talk) 05:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This article, which is a WP:BLP, gets only a month protection while Cars 2, gets a full year? I guess we know where are priorities are. The following comment was just a social observation.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 14:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The leade of the article says he has a libertarian streak. This source is from 2005, before he was on the court. I think we need a more up to date description of his idealogy Wargames83 ( talk) 07:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
There had been a section with the text,
During Obama's first State of the Union Address, Alito appeared to mouth the words "not true" when President Obama argued that allowing corporations, in particular foreign corporations, to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns would increase their influence in Washington. Traditionally, the Supreme Court watches the address, but does not applaud or make comments about it.
This struck me as having a couple of NPOV issues. Firstly, it presents as fact the claim that the decision would allow "foreign corporations... to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns", when this very point is open to dispute (as we saw). And secondly, the section notes that it's unusual for a supreme court justice to show disapproval of the president's remarks, but it didn't note that it's also unusual for a president to criticize the justices so directly in a SOTU address.
I rewrote the section to address these issues. I also bumped the section down a level (making it a subsection of "U.S. Supreme Court career")--if this issue is even sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned on this page, I don't think it's worthy of a top-level section heading. Frankly, I'd be fine with removing the reference entirely until we can see if it's got legs.
(I also added a news cite, though there may certainly be better ones to use.) -- Narsil ( talk) 22:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be titled something other than 'Criticism of President Obama,' but Alito has not returned to the State of the Union since the 2010 incident. [8] There are also reports that he displays annoyance with his colleagues from the bench. From the Washington Post: "At the various oral arguments I’ve watched over the past few years, Alito’s eye-rolling, head-shaking and other expressions of exasperation are a fairly common occurrence, most often when Sotomayor has the floor." [9] Knope7 ( talk) 02:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Samuel Alito. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=16003{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=16018When 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) 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Samuel Alito. 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) 04:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
"Alito avoided the eating clubs at Princeton University and instead joined Stevenson Hall."
I suggest the value of this sentence would be greater if it explained what Stevenson Hall actually is. Harfarhs ( talk) 16:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Just posted today: (source was filtered by Wikipedia) alito-religious-liberty-is-in-danger-of-becoming-a-second-class-right/ Charles Juvon ( talk) 20:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Samuel Alito has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in the Samuel_Alito#Personal_life section Change
To
![]() | This
edit request to
Samuel Alito has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove this sentence:
Kennedy did not reach the question whether the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart were valid, and instead said that the challenged statute is consistent with those prior decisions whether or not they were valid.
and replace it with:
Kennedy said that the challenged statute was consistent with the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart, without saying whether or not they were valid.
"reach the question" sounds weird, and the first and last parts of the sentence sound redundant. Also, there's an inappropriate present tense "is". 49.198.51.54 ( talk) 20:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Samuel Alito has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the current headshot of Samuel Alito to this file:
OR https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ugly_sam_alito.jpg Needmoorecaleb ( talk) 22:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.
-- Charlesreid1 ( talk) 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges.
Endwise (
talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't doubt that Alito is one of the most conservative justices, but the source justifying the sentence is from 2013, which is before being joined by three new conservatives. A newer source would solve this problem, and perhaps also be a bit more specific. With only six conservatives, "one of the most conservative" does not convey a lot of information. 2A02:A467:F771:1:7D28:3CDA:D8BC:18F8 ( talk) 09:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@ GuardianH: In my judgment, ethical issues are professional issues, especially for the US Supreme Court. The court's only enforcement mechanism is the willingness of the body politic to support its decisions. I therefore support reverting your move.
If you still believe this should belong under "personal", please explain. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
However, the particulars of those and other charges went far beyond that" and "
However, that plane ride would have cost $100,000 had Alito chartered the plane by himself." is primetime editorializing, and will need to be rewritten. Take a look at MOS:EDITORIALIZING, which prohibits such writing.
He’s trying to move away from the plain language of the statute and the regulation." is her opinion, and there's no reason we should give a WP:SOAPBOX to her particular comment. GuardianH ( talk) 19:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
"who had also hosted Justice Anthony Scalia on an similar junket in 2005". It's spelled Antonin Scalia; you wrote a misspelling. I previously corrected the term, but you reverted that correction. GuardianH ( talk) 19:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@ GuardianH: I'm confused. On 2023-06-30T16:04:40, you deleted the following:
The CEO and President of Elliott Investment Management, Singer was involved in the 2014 Supreme Court case Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., about a default on Argentinian government debt, purchased by NML Capital, Ltd., a division of Elliott Investment Management; the court ruled 7–1 in favor of NML Capital. [1] Legal ethics experts quoted in ProPublica called Alito's behavior "unacceptable". [2]
You justified this saying, "non-primary source needed; WP:NOR". That rule says we should avoid "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Both of the sources cited, Justia and The Guardian, seem to be quite reliable and respectable sources.
Are you whitewashing? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 17:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
References
DavidMCEddy ( talk) 17:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
"He has called himself a 'practical originalist' and applies originalism flexibly, reliably arriving at conservative outcomes."
Applies flexibly, arriving reliably... These are subjective evaluations, not facts and we are not informed whose evaluations these are. The statement sounds a bit like a characterization of a used car by its seller.
Are these kind of subjective opinions really necessary in a Wikipedia entry? Many would without a doubt disagree with these characterizations. A Wikipedia entry is not an opinion text. Kukkis75 ( talk) 22:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
References
Should we mention in the article Alito’s unique judicial philosophy in relation to constitutional rights? Alito uses the “deeply rooted” doctrines found in Timbs v. Indiana and Washington v. Glucksberg. They can be found in both his majorities (such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and dissents (such as Obergefell v. Hodges). Dancingtudorqueen ( talk) 17:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)