Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antonin Scalia/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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]
  • Comments. No dab links. One dead external link [2]. Alt text present, but a few problems: some unnecessary names are mentioned in it. Ucucha 13:23, 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]
  • Image check: 8 images counting the signature, all are from Commons and public domain (government) except for one which is PD (self) and the signature which is PD (ineligible). All images have good captions. --PresN 17:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—nice job with the changes; overall an interesting and well-done article. --Spangineerws (háblame) 08:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose (for now):[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]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
  • Comment: all images issues resolved. Эlcobbola talk 12:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg - Source is a deadlink.
      Web archive link added [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattisse (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 February 2010
      The image uploaded is not the one that appears on that site. Is that the correct source? Эlcobbola talk 21:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it seems. I've obtained a copy of that from the Court. The OTRS volunteer has asked me to query the Court worker I'm dealing with for confirmation it was taken by a Federal employee. I am waiting to hear back. If the answer is "yes", we're in business. If it is "no", I have another image I will ask them to look at.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The answer is "no" and OTRS has declined that part of the ticket, which I agree with. Mollie Isaacs was a contractor to the Court and they can condition distribution and they said "no commercial usage". I have asked the Court regarding another image. If this fails, I will crop a PD image, though it will not be as good. Oh well, what is a FAC without difficulties.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have swapped out the nogood image for a crop of the official photo of the justices to show only Justice Scalia. If the Court won't help with more images and the Reagan Library doesn't have any shots of Scalia alone from the time of the nomination (I've emailed), this should be enough to get it through.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Reagscalia.jpg and File:Rhenswear.jpg - No author is claimed at the indicated source. How can "White House Photographer" be verified? Site policy explicitly says "not all materials appearing on this Web site are in the public domain". How can federal authorship be confirmed?
      I've added the photographer, Bill Fitz-Patrick, who NARA confirms was the White House Photographer and took these photos. You have the catalog number. I'm uncertain if anything more need be done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Bushscaliadirk.jpg - Source is a deadlink.
      Image was removed. Эlcobbola talk 21:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Scalia toplak harvard.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. For self-made images, as this presumably is, that means at least an explicit assertion of authorship.
      Image deleted, as the editor is inactive.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Scaliaisreal.jpg - Claim of federal authorship is unsupported. http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/ is not governed by the link in the permission field (http://www.state.gov/www/statedis.html) Alternative support is needed.
      Image was removed. Эlcobbola talk 21:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Supreme Court US 2009.jpg - "Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States" is not a verifiable source. Where is this collection? How can one locate this image therein (e.g. PID number, etc.)? Эlcobbola talk 19:54, 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]
  • Support - Changes made it better. I'd still like to see some more legal analysis added, but it's a good article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose[reply]
  • Good article, but there's too much of a white wash tone.
    • Scalia claims to support originalism and textualism, but critics charge he does not allows follow these doctines. I think using words like "advocates" or "espouses" would be better than stating that he actually follows these doctrines. I know more esteemed legal scholars than Nader have criticized Scalia on this.
    • Plenty of people have criticized Scalia on various issues and other cases. Scalia is a controversial justice, and the article should do a better job of reflecting that. Please add more criticism, praise, and commentary, preferably from legal scholars rather than politicians.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:30, 16 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]
  • Support: I did a detailed peer review on the first half of the article before my computer broke down (it has now made a full recovery). I have completed my reading but can find nothing but the odd tweak, which I have done myself. My chief problem with this article is that I can find no empathy whatever with its subject. Not a nice guy at all, by the sound of things; I'd say, however, this is certainly no whitewash, more a warts-and-all exposure. And he expects to be on the bench for another decade? However, my personal reaction is of no account; the usual hallmarks of thorough research and well-organised material are present in a very comprehensive article. Could he be the first Supreme Court justice to make FA? Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 21 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]
  • Comments: Overall this looks very good. A few comments that come to mind on reading it through:
    • The article leans heavily on Joan Biskupic's biography - at a glance, nearly 50% of the footnotes appear to cite it. There's not necessarily anything "wrong" with that - Biskupic is a highly respected author, and her book is probably the major (certainly the most recent) reputable biography of Scalia. That said, I do wonder if it would help to broaden the sourcing a bit. For example, The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin is another recent, high-profile reliable source which deals extensively with Scalia and his impact on the Court. I would (should) work on this myself, but I lost my copy of the book (weak, I know). Just a thought.
    • The "Assessment" section basically generalizes that conservatives like him and liberals dislike him. I suspect that is an oversimplification, albeit one based on a reasonable generalization. I mentioned this on the talk page awhile back with some sources, but haven't bestirred myself to actually work on it yet. My point was that Scalia's jurisprudence is unpopular among some prominent judicial conservatives, who argue that Scalia's political ideology trumps his stated judicial philosophy. Richard Posner, J. Harvie Wilkinson, and Michael McConnell come to mind among Scalia's conservative critics (sources in the talk page post I linked). I think the love/hate generalization for conservatives vs. liberals is a reasonable jumping-off point, but it would be nice to see a slightly deeper exploration of these assessments. MastCell Talk 05:33, 24 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]

  • Note: the phrase Scalia "believes" is used several times. Can some of those be reworded for variety, and in all of those cases, do the sources actually say or do we actually know that's what he believes, or merely what he has argued on cases, as his interpretation of law? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 28 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Antonin_Scalia/archive1&oldid=1078786020"