The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:21, 28 February 2010 [1].

Antonin Scalia[edit]

Antonin Scalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because...I believe it meets the criteria. Antonin Scalia needs no introduction to Americans, in almost 24 years on the Supreme Court he has become the Supreme Court justice almost everyone can name. Few have neutral views about him. For non-Americans, he is our most controversial judge, and makes no bones about defending his positions. I cannot hope to capture everything he has said or every position he has taken in his time, but I've done my best to touch all the bases. He would be our first Supreme Court justice to hit FA, and I think the article is worthy of the honor. Brianboulton gave the article a peer review, or at least most of it, due to computer problems he was unable to quite complete it, but I have no doubt we'll hear from him here or on article talk page once he is back online (I gathered it would be some days).Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede: "before serving in the Nixon and Ford administrations". As what? Some indication of the sort of post(s) he held must be given.—DCGeist (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 13:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@DCGeist, I've made that change. @Ucucha, Sorry, I meant to mention I am in the WikiCup (though it has not altered my normal pattern of submitting a FAC every month to six weeks).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dead link decently disposed of. Is the use of Reagan's name the only problem with the alt text you see? While it will not help the blind, of course, I figured that Reagan's image is so well known that it could be mentioned and it itself would be enough to form an image in the mind's eye.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, (nearly?) all the names are unnecessary. For example, in the first image, I think the reader will be intelligent enough to understand that it is Scalia without being told that in the alt text. Reagan is already mentioned in the caption, so no need to repeat that. Ucucha 13:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sliced the parenthetical names. I left one reference to Scalia in per the guidance I got from User:Eubulides here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. Alt text looks good now--thanks! Ucucha 13:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bush v. Gore is out of place in "Public appearances and statements". Suggest incorporating the first part of that section into "Assessment" and move the Bush v. Gore stuff into "Other cases".
  • On Heller, I'm detecting some POV: quoting two "conservative" jurists as opposing Scalia's opinion, with only Scalia defending himself. But in general, those two paragraphs are clunky—the article should come out and say that Scalia's "conservative" opponents argued that he was using the court to pursue his pro-gun rights political agenda, not use two quotes that beat around the bush. Preferably it would then include the nature of their disagreement (disagreement over the meaning of 'militia', disagreement over the how much the federal government can regulate the right to bear arms, etc.), followed by a defense of Scalia by Scalia himself or another "conservative" jurist, or both (if both accusers are kept).
  • This seems out of place: "He believes that if the people desire legalized abortion, that a law should be passed to accomplish it." There's already a section on abortion; remove it here. Much more interesting would be any discussion of Scalia's opinion of constitutional amendments made long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were approved. For example, how does he interpret the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments? As he thinks the founders would have? Or as the writers of those amendments would have? There's some discussion of this related to Nader's criticism of his interpretation of the 14th amendment and corporate speech, but it doesn't get into Scalia's general philosophy of more recent amendments than the Bill of Rights. --Spangineerws (háblame) 22:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scalia believes that you have to interpret at the time of the passage of the specific amendment. I will have to look for where he has said this, I recall something on that but will have to dig. None of your comments look unreasonable, I will have them done as soon as possible, though it may take the weekend. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes. I axed Judge Wilkison's comments and expanded Posner's a bit. I hesitate to get into a debate about Posner as that will require an explanation of "loose constuction" and really slow things down. I am not aware of any Scalia opinions interpreting any of the 20th century amendments (he has said that he felt the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) was a mistake as it altered the federalism balance, but I'm not sure that is worth including. So I contented myself with a discussion of Scalia and the 14th Amendment. I made the other changes you suggested and hope you will withdraw your oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of the Archivist's Office at the Court. I am in touch with them and have asked for the serial number and more images of the justice. I don't know how quickly they move though.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have started by emailing NARA about the two Reagan images. I imagine if they give a confirmation and (if possible) a name you will accept that? I expect that the others will take several days, given it is a Friday afternoon before a Federal holiday weekend. I will see what I can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine, indeed; I can even take care of the OTRS tagging for you. Эlcobbola talk 20:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. If time gets short I will comment out any problem ones and substitute with images of fellow justices, Reagan, so on so forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That reference has been replaced. Italics fixed. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. I erred on the side of people the general public would be familiar with. I'll drop you a note on your talk page when I have some. It is not, of course, difficult, but it may take me several days to sit down and get the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I'd welcome specific suggestions on article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On the images, I've received word from the archivist's office that they've pulled some images for me and have sent them to "Chambers" for approval. The mind boggles.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! Biskupic at least puts her souces into the appendix, that is less true of Toobin's book which is in the anonymous-interview tradition of The Brethren and I was reluctant to use it. Regarding you suggestions re the assessment section, I do have comments from Posner in the article regarding the Heller decision. If you glance through the history, you'll see at one time I also quoted Wilkinson, but sliced it at the suggestion of another reviewer. Given McConnell's controversial nature, I'm uncertain what telling the reader of his views on Scalia will do, but I'm open to it. Please feel free to follow up on any of these points.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I hear you about the anonymous sources. But part of me thinks that the only way to get anyone to talk honestly about someone with a lifetime appointment to a position of extreme power and zero oversight is to promise them anonymity. :) I'll take a look as time permits. If I were to come down as a support or oppose, I'd probably lean support as is, since the article overall looks pretty solid. MastCell Talk 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. I'm going to lay my hands on a copy of Toobin. All these Supr. Court expose books are much of a muchness in my view, but I will see what I can do. It may not be before the FAC closes, though, though I have placed an order with Amazon. I am hopeful that if we can finally straighten out the image concerns, the delegate will consider promotion this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got a copy of Toobin and am glancing through the bits on Scalia. I see nothing earthshattering, but I've put in a couple of cites to Toobin, replacing a Biskupic cite in one case. This is not hugely surprising as Biskupic postdates Toobin.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we have three supports (one from the peer review, two making their first contact with this article here), no opposes, all checks done, image issues resolved after a bit of a marathon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are what he has argued. I don't see much difference, because no one has accused him of being a hypocrite, but I'll change them to "argued" and similar verbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed all the "Scalia believes". I guess we can't know what is in his head, and it is not worth the argument.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More