Talk:Samuel Alito

Ethical questions
Are you saying that members of the US Supreme Court cannot be impeached or only that Alito's statement to that effect should not be labeled as controversial?

The Wikipedia article on "List of impeachment investigations of United States federal judges" says, "As of December 2019, there have been 66 federal judges or Supreme Court Justices investigated for impeachment." In 1969 Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas resigned under allegations similar to those currently against Alito. The Wikipedia article on Fortas says that then US President "Nixon was unsure if an investigation or prosecution was legal, but was convinced by then-Assistant Attorney General and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist that it would be." In 1970 then-House Minority Leader and future President Gerald R. Ford tried to initiate similar proceedings against Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. In 1841 US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was officially impeached by the US House but acquitted in the Senate the following year.

In my judgment, it's POV editing to cite without rebuttal Alito's claim that "No provision in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period." The Wikipedia article on "POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields" says, "Having a strong POV is fine and you can report it from a source, but also other POVs may be reported from sourcing." That's particularly true for anything as controversial as Alito's denial of the authority of the US Congress to regulate the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, I'm reverting your edit. Thanks for your contributions to Prime objective to create "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @DavidMCEddy It's POV editing to cite without rebuttal Alito's claim — Ironically, you have it backwards. In this case, it's actually POV editing to input rebuttals to every one of Alito's claims, per WP:UNDUE. The constitutional aspect of whether or not Congress has the authority to regulate the Supreme Court is open to debate, and were focusing on Alito's espousals on the subject, so WP:ASPECT applies. By the way, none of the first paragraph you wrote in Ethical Questions has any of this kind of "rebuttals" on his view. I removed the sentence also because it made the lackluster mistake of directly citing Wikipedia articles as a source, which is prohibited per WP:CIRCULAR. GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrong name for wife
The opening sentence of the 'Personal life' section is odd. Is says the subject married "Martha-Ann Alito", which makes it sound like he married his cousin. It should read he read "the former Martha-Ann Bomgardner", or "Martha-Ann Alito (nee Bomgardner)". --164.64.118.102 (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Repeated sections on flag
The last paragraphs of two sections are on the same topic and cover the same info. The last paragraph in the 'Ethical issues' section and the 'Personal life' section are basically the same and therefore redundant. --164.64.118.102 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Description of drug in Plan B is inaccurate
Plan B is levonorgestrel. Its ingredient is not mifepristone as stated in the article. 69.115.90.113 (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Removed reference to Plan B for reason stated. Random fixer upper (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Add NYT article re Recusal of Judges - or Not?
Added text/ref (5/29/2024) to main article - then reverted - seemed relevant - Worth considering adding after all - or Not? - Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Stay Safe amd Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Military veteran
It is very unlikely that Justice Alito is a military veteran. Serving in the reserve component does not confer veteran status unless that person is deployed to foreign soil or activated for a national emergency. Typically, reservists are not veterans and do not enjoy veteran benefits. 184.74.29.158 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

In the flag controversy article, I uploaded and attached Alito's letter to Durbin and Whitehouse.
The letter is in the public domain, as it's both from Alito's SCOTUS chambers and sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the most relevant quotes is: "My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not." The information on the incidents relating to the flag have been covered in various news articles, but Alito's claim that he is not fond of flying flags should be added per NPOV.

I added the letter in the "Related documents" section. I also added the Pine Tree Flag originated during the American Revolution, and has been used in recent years by pro-Trump, Christian nationalist, and far-right movements.

Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Letter_from_Justice_Alito_to_Senators_Durbin_and_Whitehouse.pdf JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Flag controversy article merged per AFD
The flag controversy article was merged here per Articles for deletion/Samuel Alito flag display controversy. It may be edited, but should not be removed in bulk as it is here by WP:CONSENSUS. One editor already unilaterally removed most of it, under the mistaken belief that the "details are in the respective article" - but per the AfD decision, there is no longer a "respective article". As other editors did not notice or revert this mass deletion of material, I am bringing up the topic here so that y'all are aware - this is where AfD decided the material belongs. Skyerise (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC about abridgement of material merged from Flag display controversy article per AfD
In a recent AfD (Articles for deletion/Samuel Alito flag display controversy), the outcome was to merge that article into this article. I performed the merge, only to have another editor, unaware of the AFD decision, revert the entire merge. This material has been restored per the AfD decision. Since its inclusion may be controversial, I've opened this RFC to determine:

Should the merged material be abridged, and if so, how much? Skyerise (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge discussions are not an RfC matter. I also see no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been exhausted. Please do not jump straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC unless you can justify it - RfC is a process of last resort. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your unsolicited advice. Obviously, I believe the RfC is justified, but I don't have to prove that to you. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I object to that remark. the  tag, and an RfC is an open invitation for anybody to comment. You cannot debar anybody, except on the grounds of WP:BAN. So far from being "unsolicited", I was very much solicited, as was everybody else. If you don't want people like me to come here, you should think very carefully before reaching for RfC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are of course perfectly right. Thanks for noting your position. Skyerise (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would remove most redundant content (i.e. sentences stated multiple times), but otherwise include all the information. Samuel Alito is a highly notable subject, and his wife (at the center of the controversy) doesn't have her own article. I support including three photos: the upside-down flag, the Pine Tree flag, and the letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
 * I would support creating an article and adding a photo for Martha-Ann Alito, as the flag display controversy and being married to Samuel Alito meets WP:GNG. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Skyerise, you are edit warring to include content as though a consensus to merge at AfD means "the whole article must be copy/pasted". That's not what it means. It means "instead of having a stand-alone article, we will cover the subject as part of this other article". In what way the merge target should incorporate the merged content is outside the scope of AfD and down to standard editorial process. We don't need an RfC for that. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * please don't make false accusations. I merged the material and reverted once. That is not edit warring. I thought the issue needed input from the broader community, which is my judgement call which I have every right to make. I haven't edited either article prior to the merge, and as you can see, I have not voted myself. So please assume good faith and don't accuse another editor of misbehavior without evidence. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When you make a big change, someone undoes it, and you just go ahead and do it again, that's edit warring. Doesn't mean you violated 3RR; it just means you should've opened a discussion section instead of reverting (WP:BRD). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * BRD is an essay. It is not binding. Even controversial articles allow 1RR. Skyerise (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Skyerise, if any one has been casting aspersions, its been you. You misrepresented both my original comment in your reversion, assumed I was against consensus and didn't read the original AfD, and you threatened to petition admins for any view otherwise: "You are editing a controversial topic, and if you reverse an AFD-required merge again, I will pursue admin action to enforce the merge as decided." . It goes without saying that the assumptions you made were wrong, and your enforcing the merge "as decided" has been anything but that. You beginning an RfC without giving any attention to WP:RFCBEFORE and edit-warring your preferred interpretation has made things more complicated. GuardianH (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * if you think a single revert justifies calling another editor an edit warrior, then please report me. Skyerise (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting a comment, not assuming good-faith, being passive-aggressive, prematurely calling an obviously faulty RfC on those wrong assumptions, then threatening to call admins when a view genuinely contradicts your own?
 * News flash: you don't need to cross 3RR to edit combatively and in bad-faith. It's hard to believe that after all that you've decided to warn everyone not to cast aspersions when you've been doing it plenty. GuardianH (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh my. You really should assume good faith. You're veering into personal attack. Have I attacked you? Skyerise (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What we've all been saying is that you have jumped the gun in this RfC. You could help spot-check the sources to contribute to condensing the import, and there is quite a bit of that still to do — condensing. GuardianH (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great. Perhaps work on that in your sandbox and make a proposal? Skyerise (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My sandbox is chock-full. If you would still like to know, yes, your comments did come across as rude and belittling... and I did read the AfD! I haven't gotten to explaining my comment after your swift revert and the subsequent rigamarole yet. GuardianH (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure that the responses to the RfC from editors who aren't here just to shoot the messenger will get it sorted out over time. No need to bother yourself over it. The controversy tags at the top of the page says "be bold, but not reckless". I thought your edit was reckless. It's six to one, half a dozen to the other whether your removal or my revert was the more reckless of the two edits. Skyerise (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Faulty RfC. For the reasons laid out already by Redrose in this thread, namely the lack of RFCBEFORE taken in doing it. Having to need to condense material from the original article as opposed to wholly pasting it in — as is — is already a given in a section of this length. GuardianH (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So what is your specific suggestion then? What should be condensed? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Each of the subsections — Alexandria residence, Long Beach Island residence, Alito's response, Democratic response, Republican response, and Legal response — should be condensed into Flag display controversy. There isn't much solid ground for keeping the bulk of any of the Democratic response, Republican response, or Legal response sections, since a lot of it just catalogs quotes or very individual opinions. WP:RECENTISM lays out what should be kept and omitted for a long-term purpose. GuardianH (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. All those sections are relevant. The media responses weren't, but they have already been removed. Opinions of current members of Congress and legal experts are definitely relevant. Skyerise (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Relevance has a limit. [X] senator opined, [X] professor opined, [X] political commentator opined — these all need to have demonstrated, crucial importance to the subject, rather than being just something said by a political advocacy group or by a political commentator. Responses do not stretch from here to infinity. GuardianH (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're on about: there are of course a finite number of responses. Skyerise (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The opinions are excessive. We have a multitude of individual opinions by a myriad of senators, congressmen, political advocacy groups — these need to be condensed. We don't catalog opinions, and we don't catalog political advertisements, both of which are in the section. GuardianH (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would only be the case if the opinion were irrelevant. I'm happy to entertain the possibility that one or another opinion lacks relevance and could be omitted. Which ones specifically would you say lack relevance? And if you don't mind, provide an argument as to why that particular opinion is less relevant than the others. Skyerise (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would only be the case if the opinion were irrelevant. — Not at all. Every editor knows that relevance does not equal inclusion. There are thousands of opinions "relevant," but only a few can we include and be due. This copy/paste mentality has never been accepted, especially when there was a consensus to merge the material. GuardianH (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The opinions of active elected officials in the legislative and executive branches of government are always relevant with respect to criticism (or praise for that matter) of those appointed to the judicial branch. Especially those on the Judiciary Commnittee. You seem to simply want to remove the whole thing without the effort of justifying doing so but rather by Wikilawyering. But perhaps Pence's comment should be removed, as he is not currently an active member of government. Skyerise (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The opinions of active elected officials in the legislative and executive branches of government are always relevant with respect to criticism (or praise for that matter) of those appointed to the judicial branch. Especially those on the Judiciary Commnittee. You seem to simply want to remove the whole thing without the effort of justifying doing so but rather by Wikilawyering. But perhaps Pence's comment should be removed, as he is not currently an active member of government. Skyerise (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

There was never a consensus at this page to merge all of the content in. Per BRD, it should be removed and proposed. Arguments like "there's an RfC" and "there's no consensus" are absurd when there was no consensus to include the material to begin with. (And before you say "there was at afd", no, that's a consensus to merge. Merge can be a single sentence if need be -- not a full copy paste. There have been two objections, one "include but trim" and Skyerise alone wanting to include the whole lump. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true, supported inclusion of the material early in the RfC. He didn't support trimming, only removing repetitions. And another editor went through and did that already. Skyerise (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I supported inclusion of the Alito flag display controversy, and uploaded Alito's letter to Senators Durbin and Whitehouse.
 * I also support creating an article for Martha-Ann Alito, who Samuel Alito and Lauren Windsor have confirmed was the one displaying the flags. Being married to a SCOTUS justice and being involved in a nationally covered controversy qualify for WP:GNG. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Being married to a SCOTUS justice... Okay, no. And we have a policy forbidding that at WP:INVALIDBIO. Relationships do not confer notability.
 * Skyerise has so far been doing things backwards. One of the things merging entails is a condensation of the material, which, after resisting that, then the whole process of WP:RFCBEFORE was bypassed so a faulty one could be initiated. What we are left with to discuss is now over the product of those.
 * The listing of individual opinions by multiple different isn't WP:DUE for inclusion, and is an unnecessary lengthening of the section — maybe it was due when the original page for the controversy was made, but now that were here at the main page, it isn't anymore. There are always a myriad of [X] statements by [Y] politician, and articles are never meant to be a catalog of those, especially in light of WP:BLP. GuardianH (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more productive if you started discussing rather than repeatedly Wikilawyering. "Dueness" is determined by consensus, not by you. So make some arguments why some specific statement is undue so we can evaluate your argument. Skyerise (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more productive if you started discussing rather than repeatedly Wikilawyering — You've been the only one wikilawyering here. You have literally threatened administrator action if the copy and paste was not kept: . The WP:THREATEN personal attack is plainly unacceptable.
 * Rhododendrites has already pointed out that merges do not necessitate keeping the totality of a merged article, and that is obviously true. I proposed that each of the subsections be condensed into the main Flag display controversy section, which you flatly rejected, because "All those sections are relevant." I don't know how you expect us to continue to make "some specific statement" (we have, already) when you are not only in favor of a blanket protection of the section, but also have vague, contradictory views on the material that you just change at will. You said every section was relevant, but then proceeded to remove some select "less relevant details"  and some out of "tentatively thinking"  — no editor can follow those. GuardianH (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wah, wah! Editors appear to be pretty much equally divided between 'keep it all' and 'delete it all'. If you won't discuss, don't waste my time. I am not threatening anything. I started a valid RfC for reasons I consider valid as well. I have allowed material to be removed, and have removed some myself. If you think something else should be removed, explain what and why. That's what normally happens in an RfC, and this one has 17 days left to run. There's no consensus here, just slow progress. Perhaps other editors will join in an swing things more one way or the other. I don't care which, but the consensus should be clear. Right now it is not. Skyerise (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it helps to reach a consensus, my personal opinion is that the Democratic and Republican response sections are not relevant enough because the sentence "Reactions have been mixed, with most Democrats condemning Alito and most Republicans defending him" says almost everything that needs to be said about the matter (almost; I think the resolution to censure Alito and the letter requesting his recusal are relevant enough because they go a little beyond "X says Y is wrong"). I would keep everything else, including the legal response section because the expert opinion is more relevant than the political talking points. LahmacunKebab (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A merge does not mean you just copy and paste the entire article verbatim into another one. This is extremely poor editing and ends up making the article worse. It is a common problem with AFDs that close merge. Trim and trim hard. Aircorn (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An RfC is in progress. Around half the editors responding believe that most of the material should be kept. Please wait until the RfC concludes and is closed before changing the portion of the article covered by this RfC. Skyerise (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Around half the editors responding believe that most of the material should be kept" — This is misleading. This RfC was on trimming the section, and a majority of editors believe in trimming, despite your view that everything should be kept on the basis of relevance. Aircorn is giving a contribution to the RfC and is right to say: Trim and trim hard. GuardianH (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but no editor a right to remove the material until a neutral, uninvolved closer comes and evaluates the balance of opinion and determines the consensus of this RfC. Only then does that consensus get implemented. And if it is more or less equally split, that uninvolved editor has the right to extend the RfC for another 30 days until the consensus become more clear. But you know that already, right? Skyerise (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We all know that. I don't know why you're choosing to repeat the platitude of "RfCs should be unbiased" when that has nothing to do with what I said. Aircorn is an uninvolved, neutral editor, even if that goes against your view. GuardianH (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The RFC seem to be an RFC in title only. Can't find it at Requests for comment/Article topics for example and it lacks the usual notices at the top. Why one is needed for a merge conclusion is unclear anyway and has already been raised. It is quite clearly undue and if a discussion was going to be had it should have been done before the entire article was merged into this. Another week won't make much difference I suppose, but if anyone wants to implement a trim then they are welcome to restore this diff. Aircorn (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I opened it as and RFC and it was assigned an ID. Some editor removed it and they will be reported as soon as I step through and figure out who dunnit. That's simply NOT COOL. Skyerise (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Admin Redrose64 removed it, as for the many problems that Redrose64 has validly pointed out regarding this RfC you've initiated. Those commenting on the report you have filed against Redrose64 on WP:ANI unanimously agree that this RfC is faulty, and they have also pointed out your bad-faith, personal attacks, and castering aspersions there. So from the looks of it, Redrose was justified. GuardianH (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * None of which means that an RfC isn't necessary in this particular case now that it has been established that there are widely divergent positions and repeated lack of respect for the editors arguing for more inclusion above. Skyerise (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

neutrality disputed?
Why is the neutrality of the entire article being disputed?

What is non-neutral about including information regarding the numerous flag incidents that have involved the Alitos? And shouldn't just that specific section be flagged? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Beats me. I'll admit that I'm no Alito fan, but I always try to have a neutral point of view in everything I add or change because I'm a firm believer in actions speaking for themselves. If a public figure like him does something ethically objectionable Wikipedia should by all means do their part in informing the public about it, and if the public doesn't like it? Tough luck for said figure and his/her fans. But if for some reason the public likes it? Tough luck for me. It's not my place to explain to anybody why I think they're wrong. Nobody here wants nor asks for my opinion. That's my perspective if you can believe it, and for the life of me I can't see the lack of neutrality in this article, except maaaybe the Republican response to the flag incident section being shorter than the Democratic response section? And even that is a non-issue, because anybody who wants to do so is welcome to expand on it, assuming we don't simply end up deleting both. LahmacunKebab (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup for flag controversy
This section is very repetitive, I think because it was a standalone page, and now it should be trimmed. Seananony (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Italian-American?
The article refers to Mr Alito as an Italian-American yet he was born in Trenton, New Jersey. How does that make him an Italian-anything? I have ancestry in Denmark, UK, Canada and Germany - what does that make me? 2607:FEA8:6CA0:4100:7177:866A:A75F:6E90 (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alito's father was an immigrant from Italy. His mother's parents were immigrants from Italy. He fully meets any reasonable definition of an Italian-American. You are, like me, of mixed ancestry. Cullen328 (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the basis for saying that Alito can claim to be "Italian-American" by virtue of the fact that his parents were once citizens of Italy? How does that work? What are the laws in the U.S.A. that bear down differently on a U.S. citizen whose parents were Italian vs. other U.S. citizens? What taxes does he pay, or does he claim exemption from, because of his Italian ancestry? Look, there are people who fall in the cracks somewhere so that it's actually legal for them to carry both a U.S. and an Italian passport, and their right to live at whim in either country cannot be disputed. But Alito, so far as we know, isn't one of them. So, not only is he not Italian-American, he's not Italian. A citizen's ancestry has no bearing on the nature of their citizenship except in very unusual cases.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson


 * Italian American is common usage for Americans of Italian descent ("Italian Americans are Americans who have full or partial Italian ancestry"). The article doesn't make any of the strawman claims you gratuitously object to. Skyerise (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This sentence is not right
As I type this, this article contains the text "after psychiatrists found she may have suffered from schizophrenia, with up to four distinct personalities". Ummm, did she have schizophrenia, or did she have multiple personalities? These are two entirely different mental illnesses. Read YOUR OWN ARTICLE on Shizophrenia", Wikipedia, and then read YOUR OWN disambiguation-page for "Multiple Personality".2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson


 * It appears that language follows what is written in the source:
 * "Judge Nicholas Politan delivered the verdict against Judy G. Russell, 38, after Justice Department lawyers presented psychiatric reports stating that she is severely disturbed and a possible schizophrenic with as many as four distinct personalities."
 * Which by the way, the Washington Post source article title in that citation is written in ALL CAPS and should probably be formatted differently.
 * If there is another relevant source that offers clarification on the psychiatric diagnosis, that could of course be included in the article as well. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Flag thing and WP:BLPBALANCE
Too much space was devoted to and too much detailing afforded to the flag happenings. I have restored User:Aircorn's trim, as a temporary solution, since the encyclopedia can't tolerate an ongoing WP:BLPBALANCE problem while editors sort out which exact words and how many to use to work something out. There are probably various improvements to be made to this section, but I would probably oppose any suggestions to significantly expand the section. Improvements can be made without expanding it much. —Alalch E. 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging other editors who may have expressed an interest in this content elsewhere on this talk page. Your thoughts on what this content needs to become excellent are welcome.—Alalch E. 11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support creating an article for Martha-Ann Alito, who has been confirmed by Samuel Alito and herself (in Lauren Windsor's recording) to be the one flying the flags, and moving most of the content to that article. There's a page for Ginni Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas, and we can do the same for Martha Ann-Alito. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do it in draftspace as a proof-of-concept and if the article about her is a good start, if she is notable not only for one event, then I might agree with removing something from this article in order for that to be included in a new article about her, but I will not agree to removing everything about the flags episode. —Alalch E. 15:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it over the next few days. This is the draft Draft:Martha-Ann Alito. Martha-Ann Alito is notable for being Samuel Alito's wife, including being at his confirmation--there are pictures of her in Wikipedia Commons--, and the flag display controversy. This article likely won't be long, but both Alito's confirmation and the flag display controversy should be adequate for WP:GNG. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the letter from Alito should be added back into the article, because it is his response to calls for recusal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Letter_from_Justice_Alito_to_Senators_Durbin_and_Whitehouse.pdf

It is relevant to include, I'm not sure why this was cut. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)