Talk:Antonin Scalia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wasn't Justice Scalia Preceded by Justice Burger?

This is my third contribution to Wikipedia; I'm not familiar with editing and link nomenclature--my other contributions were simple list additions. I'm posting this here so hopefully someone who is more familiar with Wiki page layout can make the proper changes. Simply put, I don't want to make a mess for someone else to clean up. That said:

If my understanding is correct, Scalia was preceded by Warren Earl Burger. When Burger retired, Rehnquist, who was already on the court, was named as Burger's replacement for Chief Justice. Rehnquist was on the court when Scalia was confirmed, and they served concurrently for several years.

The page for John Roberts has his predecessor as William Rehnquist. This is correct, as Roberts was the replacement for Rehnquist after his death. In other words, Rehnquist's move to Chief Justice didn't leave a vacancy for Scalia--Rehnquist took the court's high office, and Scalia filled Burger's vacancy.

Is this not the proper way to view the timeline regarding Roberts and Scalia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.116.40 (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the page for Warren E. Burger, and that page has his successor as William Rehnquist. I think it is correct to say that Rehnquist succeeded Burger as Chief Justice, while Scalia succeeded Burger on the court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.116.40 (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Chief Justice of the United States and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court are two distinct offices. When Burger succeeded Warren as Chief Justice, they had a predecessor–successor relationship. When Malcolm Wilkey was appointed to replace Burger on the Appeals Court, they had a predecessor–successor relationship. Wilkey did not succeed Earl Warren, he succeeded Burger. Similarly, when Rehnquist was appointed Chief Justice, he succeeded Burger. When Rehnquist resigned his Associate Justice position, he created a vacancy in that office, just as Burger had earlier created a vacancy on the Appeals Court. That vacancy was filled by Rehnquist's successor, Scalia. 2600:1006:B14D:A4B0:DDF:6999:A965:B6F6 (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Time to semi protect the article

Vandalism is already reaching the media about how this bio is being vandalized. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is that already done? Might have missed it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's semi-protected now. clpo13_(talk) 22:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Death

Are there any legitimate news sources reporting his death? I see one ABC affiliate now but the other one is questionable.Ladysif (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Many news agencies are reporting but this appears to be breaking. Buffaboy ^talk 22:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, CNN is reporting it now. When I initially checked someone had updated the article with no sources and then that questionable San Antonio one was the only one I could find. Glad to see people are on it here. Ladysif (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no info about his funeral arrangements. Whats up with that?72.196.204.208 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

His death was just reported an hour ago, how would they arrange a funeral that fast? Buffaboy ^talk 22:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you planning to attend...? I doubt it'll be a public affair and there's no reason for it to be reported now. Ladysif (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

His death appears to have been officially confirmed by the Governor of Texas and the U.S. Marshals Service.[1] -- The Anome (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that media reports contradict each other as to the exact date of his death. Until a time of death can be determined, no one knows if he died late Friday night or early Saturday morning. Of the three cites now in the article, KVIA says Feb. 12, NY Post says Feb. 13, and San Antonio paper says it could have been Friday night or early Saturday morning. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

With someone of his political significance, I would imagine there will definitely be an official time of death declared. -- The Anome (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2016

Passed away in Texas on February 13, 2016.

2602:306:3BD0:9450:9D71:13B8:4079:7AF8 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Already done It's already mentioned in the section "Death": Antonin Scalia#Death. clpo13_(talk) 00:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Writing judgments - forming views

I'm seeing "sending notes and draft opinions to each other's chambers" which suggests that the communications are one-on-one rather than circulated among all members of the majority ("to the others' chambers"). Can anyone cast any light on whether there is a protocol for communications? Is it considered proper for private communications between pairs or are all communications promulgated among all justices during the process (i.e. everyone gets cc'd in)? Sirlanz Sirlanz 03:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a protocol. The justices, from what I've read, make their own rules about such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

I don't really see the point of the Legacy section. I think it should be removed, if not it needs to be cleaned up because it is unorganized and doesn't make much sense. Prcc27 💋 (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A Supreme Court justice should not have a "legacy" section? Why would you support that idea? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It will do for now but plainly it will need to be rewritten in the coming weeks. We will just have to find a balance.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like how the "legacy" section looks right now with quotes being broken up with dots. Also, we don't need to add someone's opinion of him because to me that doesn't make sense. I feel like we are giving WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to a specific perspective. Furthermore, the court is not officially split 4-4. Sometimes the "conservative" justices side with the "liberal" justices and vice versa. But from my understanding the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the constitution rather than be partisan. It needs to be rewritten now as there is no balance in that section. Prcc27💋 (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

An "aftermath" section would be more appropriate than a "legacy" section for now, I think. To start talking about someone's legacy on the day of (or after) their death is ... presumptuous. Items like the "there are only eight justices left" and who/when questions about filling the vacancy are really more aftermath than legacy, anyway. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The 4-4 split is a bit crystal ballish. HYMF (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind changing it to an "aftermath" section. But I definitely want the following to be removed for the reasons I stated above:

“ leaving the court at a 4-4 split. Marcia Coyle commented that "Many of his dissents were very caustic and stinging..." yet "he was widely liked... a very colorful writer, and in person... a consummate gentleman,...could be very funny. He is going to be missed ... especially by Justice Ginsburg, with whom he had a special friendship—they called each other best friends—and with whom he went to opera and ... to India." ”

Prcc27💋 (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The 4-4 split was moved out of the "legacy" section and this time I actually agree with the wording. Now all that's left in the section is the quote of someone's opinion rather than a factual assessment of him and the quote is very unorganized. The section needs to be deleted. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I've merged "Death" with the rump "Legacy" section and called it "Death and reaction". That should do for now. Regarding the 4-4 split, I think there is a well-recognized divide in the court hovering somewhere around Justice Kennedy. I don't think it is OR when the sources recognize it, or predicting the future when the sources are doing the speculating based on that lineup and divide.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I still think we need to get rid of that unorganized quote. It is an opinion not based on facts. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. It's not particularly good, and the information in it should be reflected elsewhere in the article, not here. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Funeral

Can we have some info put into the article about the Funeral arrangements? 72.196.204.208 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

He just died. How can someone arrange a funeral that quick? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that they meant "when the info is available" as opposed to "right now, before the info is available". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep neutrality

Main Point Let's continue with slow but appropriate speed. It will help avoid editing wars on dates and reactions. Antonin Scalia was unarguably a very influential political figure in American politics. Liberals and conservatives would agree that he had legal influence . Just no on methodology. Tthe news is already seeing that. The article about his death and the intro look neutral as of now, let's keep it that way. Follow WikiPOV inserts.

The now issue of the court being spilt 4-4 in big cases

It looks as though most of the comments surrounding his death are being properly cited news reports about the outcome of it. That is good, BUT let's stay on track with that. Don't allow this section to overlap with the current Supreme Court cases that might be affected by this (most won't). And The notion of a now 4-4 spilt is a bit controversial but is generally excepted. I would say add as many as reliable wiki approved sources as possible. Also, the cases like Zubik v. Burwell will now VERY likely be a 4-4 spilt. But we shouldn't put that here. Those comments can be put on the court's page. I fear the section will begin a liberal bias towards the reactions. I do not think anyone would make Scalia out as a bad man or even disrespect his jurisprudence here. But let's move slowly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manful0103 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned, but I don't know that it should be mentioned in this article – better to place it in the main SCOTUS article and/or in the Roberts Court article. Any time a justice dies or retires before a replacement has been confirmed, we enter 4-4 split territory, just as we do when a justice recuses himself. This possibility, however likely, is not unique to this case, so I don't think it needs to be mentioned here. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Some truth to that on the 4-4, but in a way it is a part of the next justice's story. I agree neutrality is very important.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest handling the 4-4 split issue in a way similar to my suggestion below for the coming succession battle. In fact, the two could be parts of the same article. I suspect that as the article(s) are written, it will become clear whether it's best to have one article or two. Ultimately, however, neither is a part of the life of Justice Scalia. CometEncke (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request (1 character spelling error) on 14 February 2016

Just noticed a simple typo in the section "Statutory and constitutional interpretation" In the sentence: In 2006, before George W. Bush appointees Roberts and Alito had time to make an impact, Rossum, wrote that Scalia had failed to win converts among his conservative colleagues for his use of originalism,[115] whereas Roberts and Alit, as younger men with an originalist approach greatly admired Scalia battling for what he believed in.[116]

It should read "Roberts and Alito" twice but the second appearance misspells Alito as Alit. Please edit to add the missing 'o' Abadfeeling (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. SS451 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Exact date of death

Scalia was found dead on the morning of February 13. However given the tendency of information in Wikipedia to be quickly and widely spread as fact (e.g. by Google), it might be a good idea to hold off on giving the exact date of death as February 13 until it is well established that Scalia died on Saturday morning and not Friday night (February 12). Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree. I already edited to give the differing dates. See my note above. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The exact date of death will most likely be issued by the Presidio County Justice of the Peace as that Texas county does not have a Medical Examiner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.106.142 (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent.

Fixing the date might be difficult if it turns out he died close to midnight. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

People have died in their sleep before. They usually seem to manage something on a date. If I had to predict, it will come down on February 12.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, the lead image is that copyvio again. The official portrait is not free, I put up an edit notice on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless medically proven that he died before midnight, the date of pronounced death tends to be used. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not true. If so, we'd indicate "date body found" or such. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we know for a fact what day he died yet? Why has the infobox been changed? Prcc27 💋 (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Now I know what "anal retentive" means. 192.0.158.233 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is "anal retentive"? You'd prefer that an encyclopedia publish incorrect information, as opposed to correct information? Is that your contention? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

John Poindexter (not John Poindexter)

The owner of the ranch where Scalia died, who was present when his death was discovered, shares his name with a prominent conservative figure, a retired admiral, involved in the Iran-contra scandal and the George W. Bush administration. There are already crazy conspiracy posts kicking around confusing the rancher with the admiral. Is there a straightforward way to add a note to this article noting the distinction? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

There is more referenced info about the owner of the ranch at Cibolo Creek Ranch. The Washington Post suggests he is a Houston businessman and Democratic donor.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Religious views

Hello, I think the religious views should be in the personal life section with the recusals separate. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Date error can't be corrected because page is locked

"Ralph Nader argued in 2013" should read, "Ralph Nader argued in 2008."

I can't edit, apparently, because the page is locked to prevent vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.120.67 (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It is. I've fixed that. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2016

Please hyperlink the words: "natural causes" to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_natural_causes 71.184.100.164 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done although someone may think it unnecessary, and undo it - we do not link common words and phrases - Arjayay (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Exact date of death - part 2

The date is inconsistent as to what is listed in the lead versus what is listed in the info box. Please edit accordingly. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This is still a problem! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this comment - but the six cites in the lede seems excessive. Per WP:LEDECITE and WP:OVERCITE. Connormah (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I just removed a blatant falsehood that was a commented-out note in the article. Someone deliberately and falsely claimed that the New York Post and The Washington Post both said Scalia died Saturday. They absolutely did not. Both say only that he was found on Saturday. The WaPo headline even says "Chaos, confusion and conflicting reports." Good gravy. The fact is that until a time of death is determined, there is no way to know exactly when he died. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And, I agree, six cites seems excessive. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Early Life

Early life section says he moved to queens with family when he was 6 years old. This is incorrect.

Scalia moved to queens before the 1940 census, where he and his parents show up at the address noted. That would make him less than 6, perhaps 3, given that he was born in 1936. One of his biographers seems to have it wrong saying he was 6 when he and his family moved. Another has it correct saying he moved in 1939. Here is the 1940 census page and biographer's page:

1940 census:

http://www.archives.com/GA.aspx?_act=ImageViewCensus1940&FirstName=antonin&LastName=scalia&Location=NY&UniqueId=54674512&type=census&folderImageSeq=46

From "A Court of One" by Bruce Allen Murphy

https://books.google.com/books?id=LGhNAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=antonin+scalia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL-vukiPrKAhVDWD4KHUeWDWUQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=1939&f=false

Semi-protected page and can not edit. News sources are using incorrect age as 6. Is there any way to edit this to moved to Queens in 1939 citing second biographer and 1940 census?

Cunusciri (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, per your comment and the Allen biography. --Pechmerle (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Coming succession battle

Pretty much everywhere I look at the news, it says a succession battle is brewing. I think that battle deserves an article, and this article should link to it, and say nothing more about the issue, as it ultimately has nothing to do with the life of Justice Scalia. CometEncke (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This seems as if it would fall under WP:CRYSTAL. When a nomination is announced and any battles begin, that's when this becomes encyclopedic and not newsy speculation. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well there's already sources showing the lines have been drawn ([2]). Senate Republican leaders oppose Obama nominating someone ([3]) while Senate Democrats support it ([4]) and Obama himself says he'll go ahead with a nomination ([5]). That's all that needs to be reported for now. clpo13_(talk) 20:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There were Senate Republicans (Sen. McConnell and Sen. Grassley come to mind) releasing public statements the day Justice Scalia died stating their opposition to any possible pick from President Obama. Maybe a sentence mentioning opposition from prominent republicans which are expressly tied to Justice Scalia's death would be appropriate. The opposition isn't really related to any named successor and the timing of it being so close to the news of Scalia's death brings it back to Scalia.Knope7 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh? How could it have nothing at all to do with the life of Scalia? It has everything to do with the life of Scalia. What am I missing here? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

There have been many notable confirmation battles in the past. Brandeis, Bork, Rehnquist (as CJ), Thomas are a few in the past century. We generally don't put much about them in the articles of the justices who died or retired to set up the struggle. It's going to be part of the next nominee's story, not Scalia's. Right now, I think a lot of things are finding a home here, but they should migrate to Nomination of Joe Blow once Obama nominates Judge Blow. Scalia's story is done, but for the funeral and such like, what we are seeing are early skirmishes in the Blow confirmation battle.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we typically have articles entitled "the confirmation of Joe Blow" ...? I don't think I've ever seen one (nor have I looked). I assumed the "confirmation" topic is simply a section of Joe Blow's bio article. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Separate article about his death?

Given the widespread effects of his death on the Supreme Court, the presidential election, and Senate politics, (as well as the widespread media coverage), shouldn't a separate article be started; specifically on his death and the effects thereof?

This is a story that's likely to be in the news, and debated, for several months, (likely into next year). Rather than all of that being covered in this biographical article (or the general article on SCOTUS), this info should, probably, go into a separate event article.

I would suggest the title Death of Antonin Scalia.Plvt2 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article is warranted at this time. Although the death of Scalia will result in an undoubtedly contentious nomination process, this will have its own page once a nominee is announced. bd2412 T 20:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should not create a separate article at this time. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

But certainly if someone writes an opera about it. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think an article about his death is needed either: it appears to have been a non-suspicious death of someone who was advanced in years. The potential Supreme Court succession battle looks almost certainly article-worthy at this point, but "Death of Antonin Scalia" would not be a good title for that article. "2016 U.S. Supreme Court vacancy" might be something more like it. -- The Anome (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with The Anome. There's not much to say about the death itself, but it appears there will be a great deal to say about the Supreme Court vacancy and subsequent Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation (or non-confirmation), so the title should reflect that focus. Meters (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've now created a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court vacancy article for that purpose. -- The Anome (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the article. It addresses the issues that I thought should have been in a separate article. The title 2016 U.S. Supreme Court vacancy does fit the topic better than Death of Antonin Scalia. I do think Death of Antonin Scalia should either redirect to 2016 U.S. Supreme Court vacancy or to this article, (probably the vacancy article).Plvt2 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would redirect that to the section of this article that discusses his death. bd2412 T 18:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2016

Please change from (remove) in Early Life section:

When Scalia was six years old, his family moved to Elmhurst, Queens, New York.

Please change to:

In 1939 Scalia and his family moved to Elmhurst, Queens, New York.

Rationale for change:

Scalia moved to queens before the 1940 census, where he and his parents show up at the address noted. That would make him less than 6, perhaps 3, given that he was born in 1936. One of his biographers seems to have it wrong saying he was 6 when he and his family moved. Another has it correct saying he moved in 1939. Here is the 1940 census page and a correct biographer's page link:

1940 census:

http://www.archives.com/GA.aspx?_act=ImageViewCensus1940&FirstName=antonin&LastName=scalia&Location=NY&UniqueId=54674512&type=census&folderImageSeq=46

From "A Court of One" by Bruce Allen Murphy

https://books.google.com/books?id=LGhNAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=antonin+scalia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL-vukiPrKAhVDWD4KHUeWDWUQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=1939&f=false

Cunusciri (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Justice Scalia's funeral set for Saturday

Shouldn't this be in the article? 72.196.204.208 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This could be added to the Death section, but it would need the verb tense to get changed by Sunday. Now 'it will be held,' but by Sunday it becomes 'was held.' FYI, some articles on Supreme Court Justices who have passed away have these details about memorial arrangements and some do not. Doesn't appear to be any consistent Wikipedia practice.--Pechmerle (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Whatever the media is doing, this should be treated like any other Supreme Court justice article. There is at present no reason to have the entire long discussion of who would have ordered an autopsy and who would not. Nor that the family declined one; after all, there are actually very few autopsies per capita. Nor his shoulder problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It will settle down. For now it's a corrective to the conspiracy theorists, and (probably) more helpful than not. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Date of death is still inconsistent throughout article.

The date of death is still inconsistent throughout the article. Can this be fixed? Is there any official word on the correct date? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You're correct — no official date has been announced, and no death certificate made publicly available so far. A new editor with very few edits made the unilateral change from February 12/13 to February 13 in one spot — in complete contradiction of the six citations verifying no confirmed date. Then another, more experienced editor came by, saw the inconsistency, and made another edit to match February 13 without even looking at the footnotes. Sometimes it feels like editors can't or can't be bothered to read the frikkin' footnotes before making a change not supported by the the cites. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I might've been the vet editor who changed the infobox to 13, but I can't remember. Anyways, not having a definitive answer, is tormenting :) GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Image

2009 from group image

2013 individual

2013 crop

The current image has Scalia with glasses on, from 2009 (cropped in 2011). An official portrait, from 2013, is higher resolution, has him without glasses, and is more recent.

I propose using the cropped version of the 2013 portrait.-- Callinus (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We can't use it because the official portrait is not public domian. Prcc27💋 (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not certain about the 2013 image, but the 2005 and 1986 official images are not PD. Either the court or a private party (possibly the historical society) hires a photographer, and the copyright is transferred to the government. I think we'd need evidence it was federal employee in the course of his duties. We no longer have to worry about it being recent, by the way. I'd settle for a good portrait image that we knew was PD.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If the official portraits are not PD, they should all be deleted from Commons (the articles of all the other justices use their official portraits, which are stored on Commons claiming PD status). --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 23:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It might be well if someone contacted the Supreme Court Historical Society and asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've found it to be PD and made this clear on the image page.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In the news template?

I'm not all that familiar with how the "In the news" procedure works, but Antonin Scalia is listed today as a recent death on the In the news section on the main page. Should this template be included on this talk page then? Ergo Sum 18:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the people at WT:ITN might know better than us.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a f----ing circus over there and a pissing match about whether his death is notable: [6]. They gave it a "recent deaths" blurb on the 13th and I missed it. [7]. Apparently he is not as notable as a film director. ( /snark) Maybe make one more try for tomorrow...? Montanabw^(talk) 06:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Public commentary on Scalia's death

In the February 16, 2016 podcast of Dan Savage, the Savage Lovecast, Savage celebrated Scalia's death and its implications for the controversial issues that could be brought to the Supreme Court. He also said that listeners had been suggesting he turn Scalia into a sexual term, as he did previously with Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum: the universal BDSM safe word. http://www.savagelovecast.com/episodes/486#.Vsa4kUU8KJI

deisenbe (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

We are using commentators at a somewhat higher level than Mr. Savage. Such a section would simply open the door for everyone's comments about the late Justice Scalia.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Wehwalt's comments above (see also WP:BADIDEA). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If the neologism "Scalia" catches on and gets as much coverage as the neologism "Santorum" then maybe it would be noteworthy enough for inclusion. Until then, it *might* be best to leave this information to Dan Savage's wikipedia page only. Prcc27💋 (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In terms of public commentary on Scalia's death, the deleted material is very WP:FRINGE, i.e. far out on the margins of the public statements and mainstream media and scholarly comments. I reverted it, and I think that was the appropriate action. Collecting here some scurrilous things that various people have said about Scalia upon his death is ephemera, not encyclopedic, and quite a WP:BADIDEA. Collecting just some of them might be even worse.--Pechmerle (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have taken up Deisenbe's invitation to look at his user page, so -- further reflection on the issue that he is raising. There is a difference from the Santorum situation. Santorum is alive and still very much a part of anti-LGBT activity. Scalia on the other hand is off the Court and will cast no more anti-LGBT votes. That some people are glad is he is gone (for that and many other reasons) is quite true, and they are very numerous. Others, who are also very numerous, are sorry that he is gone and won't further influence the work of the Court. This I think supports the point made above, let's see if Savage's neologism campaign catches on this time or not. If not, then it's not notable. I tend to think not because of the "the man is dead already" factor, but we'll see.--Pechmerle (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd also suggest it's not going to catch on, but I'd say it's more because it's desperate and malicious leftist douchery of a sort that only works if you pick a marginal and unpopular target, and even then only if a favorable wind happens to blow in your direction. I think it's safe to say that Dan Savage's 15 minutes ended once there was nobody left paying attention to Rick Santorum, and now the former has gone back to writing about freaky sex for a tiny niche audience, promoting pornography, speaking out in favor of NAMBLA, and generally being a wack job.

I do think one thing is noteworthy: this is the first time I've thought WP:FRINGE may actually be applicable to a contemporary political opinion by a person whose name regularly appears in print. More usually, a published political view is simply entitled to no weight in the article at issue, but is not actually WP:FRINGE in keeping with the policy's description and examples. Here, though, I think the label sticks pretty firmly. YMMV. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice

To any editor of the Antonin Scalia article who might be interested: A deletion discussion has begun for the John B. Poindexter article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Poindexter.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Information about Justice Scalia's children

The personal section portion of Justice Scalia's page includes the following:

The couple raised nine children, five boys and four girls.[146] Two of the sons, Eugene Scalia and John Scalia, are attorneys. Paul Scalia is a Catholic priest, Matthew had a career in the Army, and Christopher is a writer. All four daughters, Catherine, Ann, Margaret and Mary, have given birth to several children. According to Scalia, Maureen raised all nine children "with very little assistance from me."

The issue with the segment above is that it provides small bits of information about each of the justice's sons and what they do in life. It does not, however, grant the same courtesy to his daughters. It does not mention anything about the daughters besides the fact that they've all birthed children. The article should either elaborate on the daughters, or limit the discussion about the sons to their names and whether they are fathers. Satiharuty (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The phrasing at present is unfortunate.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Date of death

The Washington Post today is saying Feb. 13. [8]. Is that just sloppiness, or has a coroner or someone announced a formal day? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war with User:Tenebrae

@Tenebrae: please clarify why you feel John B. Poindexter should not be mentioned in this article. It is true that Cinderela Guevara pronounced him dead, but she did so over the phone at the behest of Poindexter, who has stated he discovered Scalia's body at his ranch. Optim.usprime (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, here is what the passage that I removed said: "According to John B. Poindexter, Scalia died in his sleep from natural causes." John B. Poindexter is not a doctor or a medical examiner and cannot state a cause of death. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet Poindexter did make that pronouncement, though if you had edited the sentence tos ay that John B Poindexter discovered Antonin Scalia's body at his ranch in Cibolo Creek, that would make sense. That Poindexter is not a doctor or a medical examiner and no medical examiner was present to pronounce Scalia dead only increases the notability. It is strange to eliminate the only mention of him in this article, despite his being the main point of contact for those asking about Antonin Scalia's whereabouts before he died (Poindexter's ranch). Optim.usprime (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RE: "That Poindexter is not a doctor or a medical examiner and no medical examiner was present to pronounce Scalia dead only increases the notability." No, just the opposite: Any unqualified person can make any pronouncement they want to. But unless you're the doctor, M.E. or judge, in this case, that pronouncement is worthless, not notable.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain what Tenebrae is saying here? Anyone who finds a Supreme Court Justice's body, unless they are inside of a hospital, is quite noteworthy. Very concerned that this user has ulterior motives with removing John B. Poindexter since Poindexter id the man who discovered Scalia's body and first phone it in. 209.140.41.219 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I'm a member of the International Order of St. Hubertus [9] and involved in a cover-up. First responders, hikers and others discover bodies outside of hospitals; it's not unusual. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the bit on St. Hubertus, people are not responsible for who they share a hotel with. If it transpires he was a member, that's certainly worthy of mention somewhere in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

C. Allen Foster

A lot of buzz surrounding him lately as he has been identified as the friend of Scalia who accompanied Antonin to Poindexter's Cibolo Creek Ranch. Worth mentioning in his death section, especially as he financed the privste jet bringing Scalia to Poindexter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scalias-traveling-companion-in-texas-was-a-prominent-washington-lawyer/2016/02/24/03e0ea62-db2a-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html http://m.greensboro.com/news/report-former-greensboro-attorney-foster-with-scalia-on-hunting-trip/article_dd8ce324-ab0b-516e-b5b4-13e20734e67c.html?mode=jqm http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/antonin-scalia-died-meeting-illuminati/1399807/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/02/25/daily-202-20160225-daily202/56ce1113981b92a22d3bf723/ http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-members-secret/nqXnY/ http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/2654952/joe-biden-lady-gaga-oscars/ http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202750613616/Morning-Wrap-Scalias-Secretive-Hunting-Party--Whos-Doing-Chinese-Dealwork-in-the-US https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2016/02/25/high-school-field-hockey-leaders/7J0HruECoLlqqFXdo4VEEN/story.html http://fusion.net/story/273147/scalia-death-conspiracy-secret-society/ 69.7.122.236 (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

A number of conspiracy theories regarding Scalia's death are now circulating, and on the face of it appear to pass the notability threshold: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Clearly, NPOV is an issue here: we should be careful to report these as conspiracy theories, as there appears to be no evidence to support any of them. -- The Anome (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It is too soon to give these "theories" notoriety by including them here at this point. If they remain a topic of discussion in reputable sources for more than a few days, we could then summarize and source them. But, as you say, at this time nothing by way of evidence seems to have been brought forward by any of the proponents of the conspiracy theories. This might be contrasted with the "Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories" article, which has a place because those theories have been discussed, explored, and argued for so long and so intensively. But in this case -- just too soon.

Plus: To put such theories here now would be cruel to Scalia's family, who have not even had time to have a funeral for the man. --Pechmerle (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What Scalia does with a pillow in the privacy of his West Texas bedroom is hardly our business. We are mistaking a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Veteran police detectives are also bluntly asking, in interviews with the media, whether Scalia was deliberately smothered by the pillow over his face, as well as bluntly criticizing the lack of any medical examination and the profound violations of procedure. Here are two news articles:

http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/detectives-question-lack-of-autopsy-in-scalia-death/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/15/conspiracy-theories-swirl-around-the-death-of-antonin-scalia/?postshare=3721455631405321&tid=ss_tw-bottom

Am I allowed to add this? TwilightCedars (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm now convinced by Pechmerle's statement above. Unless the ideas get firmly entrenched in public discourse, it's probably not a good idea, and, as Pechmerle also says, potentially distressing to Scalia's family without adding encyclopedic value. That's why I raised the issue here on the talk page, instead of adding this to the article without discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail ran an article quoting a law enforcement officer on the scene saying all this pillow talk is ridiculous. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If this is the case, having a pillow above his head (ie. nearer the top of the bed) is absolutely not either unusual or suspicious, and to conflate this with a pillow over his face would be misleading. Consider this: if someone had killed him with a pillow, would they really have been so careless to have left the pillow over his face for others to find? -- The Anome (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It should be left out, at least for now. The claim that he was murdered is decidedly WP:FRINGE and not worth including, and it appears to be so out there as to not have lasting notability worthy of inclusion. If it ends up being persistent enough to address, fine, do so when that becomes apparent. We shouldn't be in a hurry to add conspiracy theories on the basis that, maybe, they will turn out to be significant. See also WP:NORUSH, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:RECENTISM; some of which relate to a slightly different context, but the underlying idea of which is clearly applicable here. TJRC (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Fringe claims made by politically motivated individuals have no place in this article. It is far too soon, far too baseless, and quite inappropriate to give any credence or validity to this nonsense by mentioning it. Reywas92^Talk 06:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post mentions blanket-over-the-head sleepers, among other things. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article may debunk the pillow issue, but doesn't really address the other points: the lack of any medical examination and the assumption that it's possible to die peacefully of a heart attack. I've had a heart attack, and it certainly wasn't a peaceful experience because the pain is a bit of a problem. You can't sleep peacefully through a heart attack and die serenely. Sometimes old people do simply shut down and die in their sleep without undergoing a painful cardiac arrest, but they are generally people who are so badly run down that they are essentially invalids, almost by definition. Scalia wasn't an invalid - he went hunting that same day - and he looked practically half his actual age. He was the youngest-looking 79-year-old I've ever seen. Despite whatever medical problems he may have had, he certainly wasn't on the brink of just suddenly expiring due to extreme dysfunction. The Daily Mail article emphasizes the lack of a struggle, but that was never the issue : firstly, it's possible to kill someone with an overdose of a sedative or other toxic substance, in which case there won't be a struggle; secondly, even if there was a natural cause (or accidental cause such as taking too many sleeping pills or too much alcohol) it would be normal practice to find out exactly what that cause was rather than just pretending there's no need.

Criticisms by veteran police detectives of the lack of a medical examination ought to be sufficient to include at least a brief mention of the subject. We don't need to include the genuinely farfetched conspiracy theories which are based on nothing but speculation, but the comments by these police detectives are valid, common sense criticisms which do not accuse anyone of being part of a conspiracy, nor do they invent wild scenarios to fill the gaps in our knowledge. TwilightCedars (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a notorious tabloid often relying on anonymous "insiders" of uncertain agenda, so anything it says has to be judged on a case-to-case basis. In terms of detectives' criticisms, anyone can criticize anything — that's not encyclopedic unless the criticisms result in some concrete action. Otherwise, such criticism is simply speculation. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Right now we are giving more space to speculative conspiracy theories than to important events in his career and crucial elements of his judicial philosophy. What random law enforcement say, or even what the other judge says he would have done, is second guessing and meaningless. They are kibitzing, and they know what they say will be far more newsworthy one way than the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If we really can't trust the Daily Mail, then I guess the pillow issue is still in play and we should consider including the issue of whether someone smothered him after giving him a strong sedative? Or is it trustworthy on this point? I accepted the Daily Mail's information on this point - even though it contradicted my own assumptions - because it was quoting one of the investigating law enforcement officers.

Speaking of law enforcement officers: the criticisms by veteran detectives are not merely "speculation" since they're describing the normal procedure in such cases, which is a matter of standard protocol, not speculation. They are publicly asking that the standard procedures be followed in this case, which is most certainly an important public issue.

I also find it ironic to see people claiming that even a mild suggestion from a veteran detective that someone *might* have wanted to kill a controversial Supreme Court justice is allegedly a wacky conspiracy theory that should just be dismissed. There are numerous people who opposed Scalia's rulings who are now literally celebrating his death on Facebook and Twitter, which would normally make one question whether someone had a motive to kill him. Clearly plenty of people had a motive to do so, and speculation about a possible homicide stems directly from that fact. That isn't a wacky conspiracy theory, it's a reasonable question to ask, and it's being asked by professional detectives. I think if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had suddenly died of uncertain causes, plenty of people would be calling for an investigation or at least a medical examination, in spite of Ginsburg's old age and famous exhausted condition (falling asleep at government functions, etc). Scalia was far more robust than Ginsburg and therefore far less likely to just die in his sleep, so why is it unreasonable to ask for a medical examination to determine the cause of death? And how can you just dismiss all of these issues as irrelevant?

Wehwalt said we should focus on the details of his life, but that has long been covered in the article already. The only new issue to come up recently was his death, which is why we're focusing on that. TwilightCedars (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories, the murder speculations, are all still just WP:FRINGE. An elderly man with known health issues died of natural causes. His family declined an autopsy; they were aware of his declining health. I can't find another article on a Supreme Court justice in which we discuss an autopsy in connection with his death from natural causes, and why there was or wasn't one. Adding fringe theories to this article wouldn't be increasing encyclopedic content. It would just be watering down the solid content on the man, his life, and his work. That the fringe conspiracy theories are recent doesn't make them encyclopedic. My view: they still don't belong.--Pechmerle (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Pechmerle, your argument is based on unqualified statements - a) "elderly man with known health issues", b) "died of natural causes", c) (family) "..were aware of his declining health". a) what were his known health issues? Do we have an official statement from his doctor? b) only a medical dr is qualified to determine the cause of anyone's death, and that never happened here, c) again, do we have official statements from his family to back this up? Calling important contributions referenced by reputable sources just WP:FRINGE without valid arguments does not dismiss their importance. I know this is cliche, but let's remember that gravity and the roundness of the Earth were once considered "fringe" and that scientists were put to death for them. Indeed, what made those theories not just fringe but significant is that they could be proven, not whether we liked them or that they fit in with our political agendas Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Scalia, we now know, had health problems. His doctor told Judge Guevara that Scalia had heart problems and high blood pressure. No statement from the doctor to the public except that he couldn't talk about Scalia's health because of doctor-patient confidentiality; so no statement from the doctor implies Nothing about foul play because he isn't allowed to say anything to the public himself. He did speak to the Judge, though, per her. All first-hand sources say it was natural causes. No Evidence of anything else. First-hand sources -- including the U.S. marshals who arrived on the scene before the body was taken away from the ranch -- saw no indications of foul play. No statements from any law enforcement on the scene of possible foul play. No statements from personnel at either of two funeral homes that handled the body that they saw anything odd.

We do know the family was aware he had health problems; son Eugene Scalia said so and dismissed the speculations of possible foul play as "hurtful distraction" to the family in its time of mourning. As Wehwalt points out, we owe the family some deference in the case of a recently deceased person. Your gravity and round earth examples are not cogent, because those are provable theories. To put in the article a suggestion -- contrary to what we do know even when it isn't everything one might like to have known -- that maybe, somehow, there was foul play in Scalia's death is to elevate idle speculation to a level it doesn't merit. Someone in this discussion seems to have implied that I have some sort of agenda here, but I don't. I'm not pro-Scalia or anti-Scalia for Wikipedia purposes. The article has a pretty good balance of people praising him as a strong constitutionalist and people attacking his judicial opinions for such things as homophobia. I haven't done any editing on any of that. But in this area of his sudden death while "out of town," I just think we would do better to stick to the facts we do know, and also avoid causing pain to a grieving family for no good reason.--Pechmerle (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

But "heart problems and high blood pressure" won't cause someone to just expire peacefully. A heart attack is not peaceful (I've had one!) It's frankly absurd to suggest that someone could die peacefully of a heart attack. Nor was Scalia in such a run-down state that his body would just cease functioning in his sleep. He had been out hunting the same day that he died, for crying out loud. He wasn't the type of exhausted invalid who might suddenly die in his sleep because his body was too spent to sustain life. That also strikes me as an absurd idea, and yet those two explanations of his death - heart attack and expiring of old age - are the only two guesses put forward by the official narrative. The claim that there was "no evidence of foul play" ignores the patent fact that his body was never examined for traces of poison or sedatives that might have been given him to cause death, and it's precisely the lack of this examination which is the main point of the criticisms made by veteran police detectives who have asked why the normal procedures were not followed in the investigation. I have no idea how you can justify excluding these criticisms in light of Wikipedia's rules requiring the inclusion of all properly sourced alternate viewpoints. Claiming it'll hurt the family - as if they're getting their information about the case from Wikipedia - strikes me as an odd argument, and it also ignores the fact that if he really was murdered, the family would need to know. TwilightCedars (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

These police detectives have mostly just called for the normal procedures to be followed, rather than alleging that he was murdered by a conspiracy. You didn't address the point they're making. You're also arguing that he died of natural causes (because a judge said so before any medical examination was conducted), therefore any other information is "fringe". It's precisely the lack of a medical examination which: 1) is the issue under debate, and 2) makes the verdict of "natural causes" a trifle uncertain, and arguably a violation of standard procedure. Please address these points. TwilightCedars (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No indication of a wave of official sources saying, yes, there should always be an autopsy when a high government official dies of apparent natural causes. Officials actually in charge -- apparently including U.S. marshals who arrived after the death but before the body was transported to the funeral home -- deferred to wishes of the family, having found -- from observation of law enforcement on the scene relayed to the Texas judge -- no indication of foul play. Nobody in government has said, a mistake has been made, there should have been an autopsy whether family said yea or nay. No indication I have seen from substantial sources that there always is an autopsy when a high government official dies of apparent natural causes. The WAPO and NY Post stories quote exactly two retired detectives. At least one (maybe both) of the detectives did not have the benefit of Poindexter's subsequent clarification that the pillow was not over the face, but between Scalia's head and the bed headboard. So not exactly a surge of questioning the decision not to have an autopsy. To put the comments of these couple of detectives in would inappropriately infer that there may have been foul play involved, when nothing in the actual evidence - esp. the eyewitness accounts, including clarifications -- suggests any such thing.--Pechmerle (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The two examples I gave you were not meant to be an exhaustive list of the criticisms. There has certainly been a great deal of discussion about the subject by the public, and not just by wild-eyed conspiracy nuts. Certainly, it is an active point of dispute that would normally be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. I'm not asking that we give it Wikipedia's approval as the accepted truth, but merely that the article should at least mention the fact that it's an issue. TwilightCedars (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Presidential candidate Donald Trump is spreading the (possibility of) the conspiracy (through inuendo): https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-campaign-of-conspiracy-theories/2016/02/18/3566ce16-d644-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions. Is this reason enough to mention the "theory"? Or should we wait to see if it fades?64.53.191.77 (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Even Donald appears to have mentioned it only once (as far as a search for further mentions shows) on that radio talk show where he was asked about it, so "spreading" it overstates. I think it is possible that he will let it slide; he has new fights to pick, e.g., with the Pope! (And - just maybe - he will respect the feelings of the Scalia family; a son stated that these baseless theories are a "hurtful distraction" to them in their time of mourning.)--Pechmerle (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Respect Eugene Scalia? Not sure why he's included as "including Eugene" under Antonin's children, despite a career in a big washington firm his father typically fought against.. Was this the same son who was expected to accompany Scalia and friend C. Allen Foster to Poindexter's ranch but backed out mysteriously just beforehand? 69.7.122.236 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC) @Pechmerle:

I'm OK with someone removing "including Eugene" under Antonin's children, if editors other than just you concur. I might not single out just one of the nine children in this article. Although, he has his own Wikipedia article because he held some fairly high executive positions in a Bush administration, so he has some notability in his own right. He is the son who stated that the (fairly silly) conspiracy theories floating around on the fringes of the Scalia death story are a "hurtful distraction" to the family in its time of mourning. I said nothing about "respecting Eugene;" what I mentioned was his reporting that the family had grieving feelings that were made worse by this conspiracy theory nonsense. (The two sources you link to seem pretty fringe as sources; they don't seem to do anything but speculate; they also state out of date "facts" such as the "pillow over the face" story that was never what Poindexter said, and, he clarified, not what he meant either.) I believe I've been correct that Trump moved on without ever mentioning any conspiracy theory re Scalia's death after the one radio interview with Jones. If you don't respect Eugene's feelings for some reason, how about widow Maureen, or the other eight children? I don't know of any mystery about a son's not accompanying Antonin on the weekend trip to the Ranch; as far I know some business engagement came up that interfered with his plan to go on this trip.--Pechmerle (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say "including Eugene" as he is notable. More than that we do not ask.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)