User:Mz7/Attack ideas, not people

Here on the English Wikipedia, and across all Wikimedia projects, we have thousands upon thousands of editors who come from diverse backgrounds. In such a community, conflict and dissent is going to be inevitable. The question before us is whether, despite our differences, we will be able to respect each other as people, even if we do not agree with each other's ideas. For an illustration of—and, indeed, the inspiration for—this principle, one has to look no further than the friendship between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia.

Background
On March 1, 2016, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, delivered a eulogy for her late colleague, Antonin Scalia, who was also a member of the same Court. Ginsburg and Scalia had a remarkable relationship. On matters of the law, they were on diametrical opposite sides of the ideological spectrum: whereas Ginsburg is generally viewed as one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, Scalia was generally viewed as one of the most conservative.

Nevertheless, outside of the courtroom, the two were close friends. They both enjoyed opera, they both hailed from the outer boroughs of New York City, and they had both previously worked together as judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As a tradition, every New Year's Eve, their families would spend time together, and they once rode an elephant together in India.

Attack ideas, not people
When eulogizing her friend, Ginsburg stated that Scalia was "once asked how we could be friends, given our disagreements on lots of things. Justice Scalia answered: 'I attack ideas. I don’t attack people. Some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can't separate the two, you've got to get another day job. You don't want to be a judge, at least not a judge on a multi-member panel.'" As an example, Ginsburg noted that Justice Scalia "was very fond of" Justice William J. Brennan Jr., who was considered to be one of the most influential members of the Court's liberal wing, "as Justice Brennan was of Justice Scalia".

Notwithstanding their friendship, Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg were not necessarily nice to each other in their dissenting opinions. In United States v. Virginia (1996), the Supreme Court invalidated the male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), holding that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion, and the only justice who filed a dissenting opinion was Justice Scalia. Scalia lambasted the Court's opinion, writing that it "sweeps aside the precedents of this Court" and "ignores the history of our people". Scalia described the Court's opinion as "not the interpretation of a Constitution, but the creation of one".

According to Ginsburg, Scalia provided her a rough draft of this dissent as soon as possible, saying, "'Ruth, this is the penultimate draft of my dissent in the VMI case. It's not yet in shape to circulate to the Court, but I want to give you as much time as I can to answer it.'" Recalling the case, Ginsburg stated, "He absolutely ruined my weekend, but my opinion is ever so much better because of his stinging dissent". In a statement released after news of Scalia's death was announced, Ginsburg wrote: "We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots — the 'applesauce' and 'argle bargle' — and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. [...] He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader's grasp."

How this applies to Wikipedia
The most frequently quoted line from Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy states: Comment on content, not on the contributor. I see this as a clear endorsement of the same idea espoused by Scalia and Ginsburg. Avoiding personal attacks does not mean we should avoid criticism of bad ideas, but it does mean that we should avoid attacking the characters of our fellow editors unless there is evidence of a serious problem.