Talk:Antonin Scalia

Add Gorsuch?

Should he be added as Scalia's successor? Snakeskinsam 01:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

We did not do so for Judge Garland and we repeatedly removed it when people did. I see no reason to treat Judge Gorsuch differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 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 don't own the page, if people feel strongly about stuff, and it's defensible, it's likely to stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it because it is not accurate. Gorsuch is not the successor unless and until the Senate acts. At least two (three?) of DJT's nominees for various high positions have withdrawn or resigned. Gorsuch will probably be confirmed, but until then --- I've left in the references to Gorsuch as the current nominee, which is his status. --Pechmerle (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Pechmerle. Otherwise, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Closet Homosexual

isn't it important reference the reports that Scalia was an 'inside gay'

Death date

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)

I propose the removing of February 12, as well. It's been a year since he died, and everyone seems to be sticking with "February 13" now (in addition to the sources noted above, his official SCOTUS biography and the man's own gravestone go with February 13, as well). Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 03:53, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The tombstone has to give a single date so one was arbitrarily chosen. But all the contemporaneous news accounts distinctly show that back in February, no one knew precisely when he died. No autopsy was done, so we'll never know precisely when he died.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made my argument, and we seem deadlocked. Would it be wise to start an RFC?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Won't be until Monday at least, my internet's limited right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll work up a draft statement for the RfC for discussion, and when we agree it's neutral in phrasing, we'll start an RfC. Or anyone else can, if they feel like it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft statement

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.

Tenebrae, I'd be grateful if you'd certify the RfC with me. Comments, proposals, all welcome, from whoever.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Glad to help in any way I can.

The first thing I'd have to note is that an RfC should "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" (see WP:RFC#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues, so I would skip all the background and just say something like, "Should the date of death given for Antonin Scalia be kept as February 12/13, 2016, or changed to February 13, 2016?" Where the template asks for a category, I would suggest Biographies ("{{rfc|bio}}") and "Politics, government, and law" ("{{rfc|pol}}") at the least.

Then, once it's posted, add your own, separate comment below, which will begin a list of comments from other editors. You would preface it "*Change" and then give your reasons, including any background reasons if you think they would be important for framing the issue.

While my own feeling would be "Keep," I am a huge believer in compromise and consensus, and an RfC is a very valuable tool for that. I'm here if you need me. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading Law

How on earth is there no section on Scalia's book Reading Law? Costatitanica (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Are there any references to his involvement in writing the book, or to its popularity? Power~enwiki (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This article was mostly written in 2010. The updating that's been done has mostly been about his death.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

For starters, it's been cited in some supreme court decisions. From Scotusblog: "The opinion [is] ...the fifth citation already this term for the treatise on “Reading Law” that Scalia wrote with Bryan Garner (up from two citations during Scalia’s last term on the bench)." Costatitanica (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160217091924/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCALIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-15-18-55-27 to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCALIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-15-18-55-27

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Death date again

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/w/index.php?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)

@Wehwalt: Actually, all the sources there are secondary sources. And those very sources indicate the date was either Feb. 12 or Feb. 13. The two-month version you restored is not only at odds with the more than year-long status-quo version, but it's not an accurate reflection of what the sources say. It's simply inaccurate, and I hope you can see your way to restoring the long accepted and actually accurate version. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I also support referring to the death date as February 13 in the lede. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

May I ask why, since it's not what the cited sources say? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

AFAICT, you're simply claiming that, since he "died overnight", it might have been on the 12th. That's trivial nonsense in the lede sentence; there's no actual dispute as to the time of his death. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Procedurally, this has been accepted by many other editors for two months. Only you seem to disagree with it. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

And it was accepted by all editors for over a year previously. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I also support February 13. It's what the Supreme Court bio says. We can if necessary add it as a source, and I think it's time to accept their ruling and move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

If the official Supreme Court bio has been updated, as I see it has been, then yes. We do still need to note the secondary sources saying there is disagreement among independent journalistic sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)