Talk:Antonin Scalia/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Death details

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)

Numerous sources -- including Wash. Post and LA times -- have reported that family told officials they did not want an autopsy. They were sure, given his age and health problems, that the death was from natural causes. The names of the two funeral homes are not noteworthy.--Pechmerle (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
latimes notes that "Officials" said Scalia's family did not want an autopsy and washingtonpost notes that the manager (Chris Lujan) of the El Paso funeral home that handled Scalia's body said Scalia's family insisted on not having an autopsy done. While the family did not doubt local officials, that same washingtonpost article notes (cbs did as well) that former homicide commander of DC's Metropolitan Police Department William Ritchie considers the behavior of local officials to be quite unusual. nypost notes NYC detectives were also perplexed that local officials did not ask for an autopsy. Danny Dominguez has been challenged by former deputy Caesar Melendez before. Both Judge David Beebe and Judge Juanita Bishop were unwilling to pronounce Antonin Scalia dead. Cinderela Guevara was the 3rd judge called. Even though a hearse came from Alpine Funeral home Saturday afternoon, Scalia's body left late Sunday (just before midnight), arriving early Sunday to www.infowars.com/urgent-calls-begin-for-scalia-autopsy/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Chris Lujan]'s funeral home several hours away. An informal poll suggests as many as 50000 people question the lack of autopsy.. Optim.usprime (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed, Huffington Post, Vox & Daily Kos also all point out that Cibolo Creek Ranch owner John B. Poindexter & Presidio County, Texas Sheriff Danny Dominguez should have more clear information for the bizarre travels of Antonin Scalia's dead & unexamined body. Optim.usprime (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that the only people we should hear from are people with direct responsibility for the matter. Everyone else is just in the peanut gallery, though some have more elaborate T shirt designs than others. That is, to my mind, why the other Presidio County justice of the peace is worth hearing from. Everyone else is just kibitzing, and kibitzing in a way that gets their name in the papers whereas if they said "everything looks cool to me", they would not.
It's worth remembering as well that WP:BLP still applies to this article, though Scalia is dead, he has family, and we are careful in what we say accordingly. Demands for autopsy based on internet polling are not encyclopedic.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Wehwalt: Asking why the standard procedures were ignored is not just "kibitzing", and I doubt they're doing it for fame. Nor does your personal opinion about their motives trump Wikipedia's rules requiring the inclusion of alternative points of view. These are veteran police detectives, not Joe Blow on the street. They are making a perfectly reasonable argument - asking for standard procedures to be followed - rather than babbling about paranoid conspiracy theories. There is no justification for censoring this entire issue. TwilightCedars (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing about Sheriff Danny Dominguez's behavior here was remotely kosher, though I agree that Presidio County justice of the peace David Beebe is more noteworthy than commentary from law enforcement professionals from other parts of the country. That both Cinderela Guevara and Sunset Funeral Home director Chris Lujan have claimed Scalia's family insisted no autopsy be performed is entirely illogical. The prospect of family members calling these 2 officials demanding Scalia not be autopsied is, frankly, asinine. Chris Lujan's claims that the family called him to tell him not to perform an autopsy is not believable. Even Antonin's controversial politician son Eugene, who has insisted he trusts local officials, stops short of saying he demanded no autopsy be performed. That a hearse came from local Alpine Funeral home Saturday afternoon, but Scalia's body was transferred to Chris Lujan (manager of Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso) arriving just after midnight on Sunday several hundreds of miles away is further evidence that Chris Lujan's statements do not check out. Optim.usprime (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Also a little perplexed Alan Liptak's nytimess piece is the lead source for this section since it is one of the few that does not explicitly indicate that John B. Poindexter is the man who first discovered Scalia dead. Optim.usprime (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Until and unless there is some further investigation by high level authorities (that is, federal or top-level state on the order of a state bureau of investigation), I don't think we should devote more space to this than we already do. Because all they are, are theories about possible conspiracies. The press has turned to other things, and we are a tertiary source.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
AP & LA Times report today a letter from Scalia's physician detailing numerous health problems, stating death from natural causes quite likely, and indicating there was no need for an autopsy. Letter directed to Judge Guevara, Presidio County District Attorney reported he has a copy. Text not released yet, but apparently soon will be via request for official records from the media. So, 1) no basis for doubting that Guevara did - as she stated - speak with Admiral Monahan, the physician, before declaring Scalia dead, and 2) no remaining reasonable basis for the continuing attempt here to suggest possible foul play just because the man happened to die in an out of the way location.--Pechmerle (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
And yet the same AP story, with input from Stanford & Northwestern doctors, is only hypothesizing possible causes of death. Not one of them said they would have recommended no autopsy - only that an old person with some health issues could die. The way the new AP link is written is WP:Synth as none were able to elaborate on a clear cause of death. In fact that article has a judge not present for the proceedings making a determination that "significant medical conditions led to his death". We haven't even seen a copy of this letter so WP:Notability is also in play. 209.140.41.219 (talk) 20:16, 24 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:

I've made several edits to the article, based on the sheriff's report, here. I've also removed some quotes from the Washington Post which are either irrelevant, or are being used to imply possible impropriety and are inappropriate in the article of a newly deceased person without much stronger evidence than Mr. Poindexter once had a case before the Supreme Court and the duck hunting thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Really, the whole second paragraph is superfluous minutiae. Now that Monahan has confirmed the range of health issues that Scalia had, all that we really need is "he died at the Ranch of apparent natural causes," and move on to the Supreme Court mourning ritual, the memorial services, and his burial. I'm not proposing to cut that paragraph unless other editors join in the sentiment, but that's how I see the topic.--Pechmerle (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I join in your sentiment. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I also agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Pechmerle: @Wehwalt: @Vesuvius Dogg: @TwilightCedars: Are you OK with Pechmerle's recommendation about the death section? I believe that the current version of this section mentions so many unimportant details that it is implying that the circumstances of his death were suspicious, thus providing subtle support for fringe theories. I am very strongly in favor of Pechmerle's recommendation of "he died at the Ranch of apparent natural causes." Moreover, I would like to delete the statement that he was a guest of John Poindexter for two reasons. First, this isn't a relevant biographical detail. Second, it seems that Mr. Poindexter was included in this article at the insistence of a now-banned editor who is alleged to have had a COI with respect to Mr. Poindexter (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_B._Poindexter). Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Death section has been edited. Because there were no objections to my previous message, I went ahead and deleted many of the extraneous details from the death section. In my best judgment, this action is in agreement with the positions of @Pechmerle: @Wehwalt: and @Vesuvius Dogg:. If I am mistaken, I would be pleased to discuss the issue here. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Sorry, have been mostly offline the last 3 days. I may edit some around the edges, but really, dead of natural causes at a place is all that is needed. The circumstances matter naught to his career.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Party affiliation

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)

Where is the evidence that he was a Republican? Where did he declare himself to be one? Being appointed by republican president doesn't get you a membership in the Republican Party. Did he declare himself to be a Republican? I don't think so. And he lives in the state where you do not register by party. Someone calling him a Republican does not make him a Republican.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
These two sources say he was affiliated. You have no contrary sources. You have not provided them. You have ZERO proof. You may as well say that The moon is made of green cheese. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
What two sources? clpo13(talk) 19:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The ones cited in the article, which were removed by Wehwalt. To answer your question:
  • Nemacheck, Christine L. (May 21, 2008). Strategic Selection: Presidential Nomination of Supreme Court Justices from Herbert Hoover through George W. Bush. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. pp. 120–121. ISBN 0813927439. Retrieved February 21, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); More than one of |ISBN= and |isbn= specified (help)
  • Hakim, Christian (2 November 2015). "Democrat or Republican: The 2016 Election and The Supreme Court". Juris: Duquesne Law School Magazine. Duquesne Law School. Retrieved February 21, 2016. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Nemacheck makes the implicit claim that every Supreme Court justice since the world war was a member of one political party or the other, without, so far as I can tell, any supporting evidence. The other merely states which political party appointed the justices in question. Extraordinary claims, such as that justices of the Supreme Court are or were members of political parties, require extraordinary evidence. If you have a source that says Scalia was registered, while a justice, as a Republican, or declared himself a Republican, that would be evidence. This is not evidence. The material, which falls under WP:BLP, was badly sourced and I removed it, though you are blindly returning it. Where is the evidence he was a member of the Republican Party while a justice?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
You are saying the man was disembodied and transfigured into a political neutral (or a closet Democrat) when he became a justice? You have evidence for that> To be sure, there is nothing wrong with him having a party affiliation. Presumably he was to be neutral, not neutered. We should be able to agree that he was nominated by a Republican president, that he served in the administrations of two Republican administrations. And of course, you have ignored how he stood his 'analytical principles' on their head in Bush v Gore. But I am not here to argue (at this point) his being a wolf in sheeps' clothing, something that is well-documented, as he was no "judicial conservative" and was a radical in disguise. We will leave that for another day. Pretending that he was not a "Republican" is simply denying the obvious. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Being appointed by a Republican president doesn't make you a Republican. No more than it made, say, Edward Douglass White a Republican to be appointed by Taft ... But this isn't some mundane point for which we are glad to get what scanty sourcing we can, you are using it to show him as a partisan Republican in the infobox for a Supreme Court justice. We both feel that adding this says something about Scalia or we would not be arguing about it. You need stronger sourcing, material focused on Scalia that is a RS of WP:FA standards (because this is a FA) that says that he is a Republican.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

When was he a Republican? Provably.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 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))

Requests for inquiry into death

How many articles should cover these in the media for it to be worth including in the 'Death' section? For example:

[http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/michael-savage-was-scalia-murdered/ "Michael Savage 'Was Scalia murdered'"]. WorldNetDaily. 15 February 2016. 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)

We have discussed this above. The consensus was not to include such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Death date

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)

That would be WP:OR. I think if nothing has been conclusively reported elsewhere, Wikipedia should not be the place to publish it as an initial matter. If there's uncertainty out in the published world, Wikipedia should reflect that uncertainty. TJRC (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. I'm just flabbergasted that a definitive date from such sources hasn't shown up yet in an article or something!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI, Justice Scalia's official SCOTUS biography says he died on February 13, 2016, and the Oyez Project's bio also says he died on the 13th. I'm not sure if those sources are definitive enough, though I think the SCOTUS bio is reliable enough. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Fake "Originalist" Claim

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)

"Natural causes"

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)

If the official declaration is natural causes, as far as I am concerned, that is the end of it. If there aren't any suspicious circumstances to justify an autopsy, there is nothing to justify putting an "apparently" in front of it. I very much doubt they will cut the body of a Justice of the Supreme Court open in the absence of suspicious circumstances. A county judge carries official weight in states like Texas and Missouri. That's probably going to be it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
He died only 15 miles away from the Mexico–United States border. But it was probably a natural death.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Why are we mentioning the distance from the border, by the way?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Because USA Today does. However, they make it sound like a very safe area of the Chihuahuan Desert. Not sure if there is a wall.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The only valid reason would be to guide the reader, and it's my thought the link does that adequately. Not sure what the wall has to do with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
We keep hearing on the news that the border isn't safe. But this is one safe spot. Good news. He was 79--he probably died of "old age".Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • For anyone who is not aware, USA Today has published that according to Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara, the official cause of death is a myocardial infarction (heart attack). source — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:21, 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

  • "Guevara also rebutted a report by a Dallas TV station that quoted her as saying that Scalia had died of “myocardial infarction.” In an interview with The Washington Post, she said she meant only that his heart had stopped. “It wasn’t a heart attack,” Guevara said. “He died of natural causes.”"
  • but also
  • Meanwhile, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara acknowledged that she pronounced Scalia dead by phone, without seeing his body. Instead, she spoke to law enforcement officials at the scene — who assured her “there were no signs of foul play” Gaijin42 (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Be very careful and don't put in the article that he died of a heart attack. The San Antonio newspapers are saying that he died with a pillow over his head. That could be murder made to look like natural causes. Look here.... http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php
"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head.

BeVeryCareful (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, pillow could be above his head but where does this support the murder theory as stated by you? --Muzammil (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it is detail we should not have. Remember that Scalia is now one with the ages, and we need, in due course, to put this article to fully read like that of any other historical figure. We wouldn't have a pillow over his head for Brandeis or Warren.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It's one detail (of several details) from the only eyewitness account we currently have, but some of you guys want to censor all mention of this quote? That's frankly astounding. The article currently quotes umpteen numbers of purely speculative statements about the cause - before any autopsy has been conducted to determine the cause - but you want to remove the only actual eyewitness statement we have? TwilightCedars (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Either it's a mundane detail about how his pillows were arranged, or it's attempting to imply something that our sources do not. Either way, its not suitable for an encyclopedia. — Strongjam (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed the quote about the pillow over his head again. Here's the section from the source article:
"'We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled,' said Poindexter.'He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap,' he said."
IMO, the eyewitness is suggesting Scalia died peacefully in his sleep. To put in only half the description to suggest foul play is not in fitting with an encyclopedia. Knope7 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
An eyewitness account is precisely the type of information that an encyclopedia IS supposed to use. Some of you are fixating on the pillow detail and anxiously complaining that readers might possibly conclude that it was a homicide, but the quote I've included doesn't say it was a homicide, the rest of the article already contradicts that assumption, and it isn't your right to censor sourced information just because you think readers might come to a conclusion that you don't agree with. If you really think the full quote explains the context better, then let's include the full quote rather than deleting the entire thing. But I suspect if I put in the entire quote, you'd claim it's too long for inclusion, or some similar excuse. The bottom line: this is the only eyewitness account we currently have, and it's from a reliable source. It's curious that none of you have any objections to the endless citations of purely speculative claims about the cause of death before any autopsy has been conducted to determine the cause of death. Why is speculation perfectly fine but not an eyewitness account? Until an autopsy is conducted, the closest thing we have to hard evidence is the eyewitness account which you guys keep systematically purging from the article. There's no excuse for that. TwilightCedars (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm ok with leaving the full quote for now as I think the full quote is not misleading. I do still think there is room for a debate as to whether including the quote at all adds to the page. I am not convinced that an eyewitness account of finding a person's body is necessary for that person's Wikipedia article.Knope7 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I've cut the quote. I don't see that it adds anything to our understanding of Scalia. I'm OK with leaving the autopsy digression in there from now, but I think it should go once interest in Scalia's death itself subsides.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the point of removing the quote. I think including the account of the first person(s) that discovered that he was dead is pertinent to this article and should be included. Prcc27💋 (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Would it be included for Brandeis? Or Warren? Or Rehnquist? How does it help the reader understand Scalia?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Why wouldn't we include eyewitness accounts of anyone else's death? That's common practice. And it's far better than the vague, speculative information which this article cites for most of the other stuff about Scalia's death ("maybe it was a heart attack that killed him peacefully in his sleep despite the severe pain caused by a heart attack; no, now they're speculating that his heart just spluttered out quietly", etc). At least the eyewitness account is based on more than just speculation and no one has yet put forward a justifiable reason for completely purging the article of every last mention of it, so I'm going to put it back in. TwilightCedars (talk) 14:32, 16 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)

Media sources are now reporting that veteran police detectives are beginning to ask whether Scalia was deliberately smothered by the pillow over his face, and are bluntly criticizing the lack of any medical examination and the profound violations of procedure. One detective said he "almost fell out of my chair" when he saw the way the case was handled because it violates standard procedure at such a basic level. Here are two news articles:
http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/detectives-question-lack-of-autopsy-in-scalia-death/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/15/conspiracy-theories-swirl-around-the-death-of-antonin-scalia/?postshare=3721455631405321&tid=ss_tw-bottom
But if I add quotes from these detectives, they are certain to be removed as an "irrelevant detail". One of the latest edits even removed the mention of his death entirely from the lede, in the zeal to purge the information I added. But the article gives exhaustive detail about the exact type of drapery that has now been placed over his empty chair at the Supreme Court. Maybe I should add a paragraph about black crepe drapery and it would be gratefully accepted as an important addition.
I would add that the quotes about "natural causes" or "heart attack" (or whatever the current claim is) are badly misleading, because the judge who issued the statement has said that she merely meant his heart stopped beating. Of course, whenever someone dies from any cause their heart stops beating, so that statement is utterly meaningless. How do you determine the cause of death without a doctor examining the body? That's just astounding, as well as ridiculous. So is the persistent attempt to censor anything that might possibly run counter to that narrative.
Am I allowed to add quotes from police detectives, or not? TwilightCedars (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
My view is that until some official action is taken as regards them, they should not be added. If they are added, and no action is taken, but we go forward to a funeral, then i do not think they should stay beyond that time. To some extent this is recentism. Will it be relevant in ten year's time? But this is how Wikipedia is edited, when there are disagreements, we talk them out.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
So we can't include something unless we can predict that it'll be relevant a decade from now? That depends on whether there is ever an investigation to determine the cause of death, and what that investigation determines. We have no way of predicting that, but that doesn't justify excluding sourced criticisms from veteran detectives. Will the details about the black crepe drapery be relevant a decade from now? No one has the slightest objection to including that detail, but there is strident opposition to including an eyewitness account and criticism by veteran police detectives. Amazing. This article is running the risk of becoming a fluff piece that focuses on trivialities while avoiding valid controversies. TwilightCedars (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia should not participate in a cover up

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)

It also can not be overlooked that the area in which he was staying was known Bigfoot country, and Bigfoots are known to smother judges. bd2412 T 01:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
BD2412, wow those are some pretty tin-foily statements there.. So SW Texas is "known Bigfoot country?" Can you provide any references? Your hyperbole although amusing, hardly challenges Farewell Scalia's contention that this article is covering up a very important detail of Scalia's death, one that was covered in a myriad of reputable references. Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not participating in any coverup here. Poindexter clarified that "pillow over his head" didn't mean pillow over his face. Just pillow lying between his head and the head board of the bed, as if he had laid down for a nap and just peacefully never woke up. It is not appropriate to suggest a coverup may have occurred when there is no actual evidence for one. It amounts to a "have you stopped beating your wife" type of unsound mode of argument.--Pechmerle (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
You keep ignoring the criticisms by veteran police detectives on issues of procedure which have nothing to do with the pillow issue. You're addressing only a strawman version of your opponents' argument, which makes it increasingly difficult to assume good faith here. TwilightCedars (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oiudfgogsdf:, since you asked: "Does Big Foot live in Bexar County??": "According to cryptozoologists, it roams the forests of the great Northwest to the brush land of Southwest Texas, it is known to the world as Bigfoot". Cheers! bd2412 T 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
BD2412, that is some impactful fieldwork on your behalf - I am impressed! Can you also provide a reputable reference to your second statement that, "..Bigfoots are known to smother judges?" That doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me, is probably undue, and likely WP:COI ☺ Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
That is common knowledge, per Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. bd2412 T 12:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Article Suppression

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:

Not that it's terribly important, but three edits to the article were suppressed. The others were deleted. It's highly unlikely that an OS will "clarify" the basis for suppression. Why do you even care? I haven't been following the ins and outs of this article as assiduously as some, but I thought the change you just made to the article had been rejected earlier. Perhaps things have changed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
amid a Pulitzer Prize nominated journalist declaring Scalia murdered and many questions remaining unanswered, it is very strange that the article is being suppressed. Why is an article typically suppressed Bbb23? The general complaint before was that details droned on, but David Beebe, Juanita Bishop and especially mortician Chris Lujan have more information on the condition of Scalia's body than Monahan who hadn't seen Scalia in weeks. More details would be appropriate imo..209.140.44.209 (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Based on the article log, Coffee deleted revisions under WP:RD2 and WP:RD3. WP:BLP violations are taken very seriously and its not unusual for defamatory or extremely disruptive content to be removed entirely from an article (see WP:REVDEL). Like Bbb23 said, this is distinct from suppression (see WP:OSFAQ). The policy pages explain why information might be suppressed. In any case, I highly doubt either revision deletion or suppression is being used to cover-up pertinent information. clpo13(talk) 17:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Since it was later revdel'ed I'm not going to say what it was I deleted, only that it has absolutely nothing to do with any possible coverup of pertinent information. Meters (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment on alleged abusive editing. @108.58.65.92: Your accusations against me are totally without merit, but if you genuinely believe that I have "clearly used Wikipedia from other usernames before," then you have an obligation to open a sockpuppet investigation. It will only reveal (1) a series of careful, good-faith edits made in the spirit of constructive collaboration and (2) that I have never edited Wikipedia under a different username, as you have claimed. If you are unwilling to pursue such an investigation, then you should not make unsubstantiated (and in this case, entirely false) allegations against another editor. WP:GOODFAITH requires (in part) that we not engage in such uncivil behavior. Sincerely, Astro4686 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Very Professional Piece of PR Writing

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)

George Mason renamed

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)

See this explanation for Wikipedia not yet including this.-gadfium 01:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 March 2016

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

The article lists his birth date as 1936. The 1986 dates in the article are when he became a Supreme Court judge. Unless I'm missing a place in the article where there was a mixup. — Strongjam (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=antonin%20scalia
Not done: Editors requested issue is not apparent in article. Maybe the editor is looking at the "In office" date Mlpearc (open channel) 13:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Garland in infobox

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)

  • My view is that the position is vacant and the infobox needs to say that. Even if the nomination gets a vote, Garland may or may not be confirmed. I think WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Potential successors are not successors. The infobox can say "vacant" until there's a successful confirmation hearing. Garland's nomination as a potential successor can be mentioned in the prose, instead. clpo13(talk) 22:19, 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)

  • Comment: The seat is vacant until someone is there who can actually vote. Status of nomination is for the article, maybe even the lead, but not the infobox. Montanabw(talk) 03:49, 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)

Affirmative action / color-blindness

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)

"Color-blind" policies don't include issues of gender or human sexuality; some of Scalia's most noted opinions were on issues related to the broader field of human rights, which is broadly (but not exclusively) fought out in the realm of affirmative action policies. That is a neutral term for a known legal concept. "Color-blind" in this context is a political term, and frankly, those who use it as a descriptor are more likely to lean conservative, thus the word contains a POV connotation. Montanabw(talk) 23:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
If affirmative action and color-blind are opposites, how can one be a neutral term and the other be POV? Again, I contend including both POV terms creates NPOV. Michaelmalak (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

sleep apnea

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_apnea Thanks for a great read, rumjal 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Find A Grave

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)

Wehwalt was mistaken. Find-a-grave is not a reliable source (see WP:FINDAGRAVE). Also as of right now the link you added is dead. When I go to http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid= I get an 'Memorial not found. error. — Strongjam (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean it in the RS sense, but rather in whether or not they're usually right. In this case, I think we would need an official confirmation. I'm also wary of us becoming a school for vandal.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's the link: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Scalia&GSbyrel=all&GSdy=2016&GSdyrel=in&GSob=n&GRid=158137009&df=all& I am not sure what happened to my original edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehannette (talk • contribs) 23:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the link and I looked at the pictures. My view is it should come in, with proper sourcing. Although the interment was private, they don't seem to be making any secret of the burial site, so it's not our problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Would you please add it? Honestly, I do not know what constitutes "proper sourcing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehannette (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm hoping more people will opine. If no one else does, likely I will add it back. Regardless of WP:FINDAGRAVE, there are pictures and everything and I would say IAR applies. My only concern was family privacy if they feared vandalism, but his name is there and everything. By the way, it goes with the February 13 date, which would seem sensible and we may wish to do the same. Scalia is not the first man to die in his sleep and I'd take the gravestone as meaning the family accepts that date of death. It's close by my ophthalmologist, I'll get some pix next time I see him in Falls Church (this fall?) Anyone have opinions on adding it back?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 29 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)

No, I was being bold, based on information in front of me. I will not stand in the way of what people want, either way. What do you think we should do?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I've always been in favor of a single date based on a formal government report or on the Social Security Death Index or something that confirms time of death — and even the latter might not provide more than simply the bureaucratic date for when Social Security payments stop — this might be something history might never know. Man, an autopsy would have been a good idea. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
We have what we have. I find the pictures on the findagrave site convincing evidence that the family regard the date of death as the 13th. No recent source that I have seen has gone with the 12th. As for findagrave itself, I've said in the discussion above why I feel it should be allowed, and I would feel comfortable defending it at FAC, or an analogous situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I would love to see the day of death nailed down, but all the cited reliable sources say evening of the 12 or morning of the 13. Find a Grave is not RS per multiple discussions, including at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_149#findagrave.com_redux. The family's desire for a single date on a grave marker notwithstanding, the concrete fact of the matter is that no one knows precisely when he died, and an encyclopedia needs to reflect that.
There still appears to be nothing under his name and various forms of searching at the Social Security Death Index, which I find odd.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Scalia's not the first person to die in his sleep, and yet the pedia is not plagued with uncertain dates of death. Does the SSDI include former high government officials? Are Reagan and Ford in there?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Biographers can't make assumptions the way a funeral director might. This is an encyclopedia, and if the concrete fact is that his exact date of death is not known, we really can't mislead and suggest that it is known. And actually, yeah, Ronald Reagan's listed here — it's public information, after all. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

for what it's worth... (about that gesture)

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)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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). Canuck89 (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)

Scalia's Philosophy, As Explained By Scalia And His Interlocutors

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antonin_Scalia/Archive_4&oldid=1136525186"