Talk:Eugene Scalia

Notable?

So this guy held a government position in the Bush administration which is not notable enough to have it's own wikipedia article and he argued on the winning side in a case that is not notable enough to have it's own WP article ("on the winning side" is very vague, how involved was he?). The main notable thing about him appears to be that he is Justice Scalia's son. The only source cited is his employer bio, not a secondary or independent source and definitely not enough to constitute "significant coverage" under the general guidelines at WP:NOTE. Also only 3 pages link to this page, Justice Scalia's, Gibson Dunn's (which includes him in Notable attorneys with not justification of why he is notable), and a Harvard Journal which lists him under "notable authors" again with no explanation of why he is notable.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about this guy and have no opinion about whether he is notable or not, only about whether the article and its sources establish his notability. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The most notable thing about him seems to be his father. -- richjenkins (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Was going to tell original author Crzrussian, but apparently he banned himself.. @InspectorTiger: @Richjenkins:

• PROD has been contested; should be an AfD. I have respectfully contested the proposed deletion because I think that a full AfD discussion is necessary. For example, this article (http://www.thenation.com/article/how-wall-street-defanged-dodd-frank/) discusses Eugene's legal work in some depth. If there is other such coverage, it might fulfill WP:GNG. I am skeptical that Eugene satisfies this standard, but that possibility warrants discussion. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Astro4686: So are you asking for someone to nominate this article for deletion? Boomer Vial^Holla 08:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Boomer Vial: I haven't reached a conclusion about the issue of notability, but I support nominating this article for deletion. That said, I wasn't going to nominate it myself until I had a chance to research the matter of his notability. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Added afd because, like Astro, I feel it merits discussion, especially as, strangely, the person who started the page and added most of the information is not even able to discuss the issue on his own talk page anymore (he banned himself?). I'm glad to see you are willing to discuss as afd, and of course welcome a discussion. But seeing as how Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher managing partner Kenneth M. Doran doesn't have his own page, and the firm has added at least 27 new partners in the last 28 months, the firms desire to occasionally push the Scalia name into the press more than other partners isn't enough to distinguish him. 69.7.122.236 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @69.7.122.236: I saw that you didn't finish the last two steps in the AfD process. They're described in the AfD box at the top of the article. I would've finished them for you, but since the next step requires that a reason be articulated for the deletion, I didn't want to presume to speak for you without your permission. Like I said, I'm currently inclined to vote to delete the article, but I would like to do some research first. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@69.7.122.236: Do you still want to nominate this article as an AfD? A different editor reverted your incomplete AfD nomination, but only because it hadn't been completed. I've done some more searching, and I came across another article (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/eugene-scalia-court-antonin-financial-reform-dodd-frank) discussing Eugene's career in non-trivial detail. However, I don't think that there's evidence of sustained coverage as required by WP:N, so I think that there's still an argument to be made for deletion. Astro4686 (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Wal-Mart v. Maryland"

According to the article, "Scalia argued the winning side in Wal-Mart v. Maryland in July 2006." The "Official law firm biography" does NOT say that. It does say that he argued "Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2007) – Successful ERISA preemption challenge to controversial Maryland law that required increased expenditures on employee health care."

First, why is it even important/significant?

Second, can we fix it to "Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder (AKA Wal-Mart v. Maryland)"?

Any other suggestions? Pinnygold (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing Partisan Comments that Violate Wikipedia's 'Neutral Point of View' Policy

I am removing the last sentence of this biography. The sentence states, "His initiatives are said to be not meant to protect workers, but instead to safeguard the industries favorable to the Republican Party." The citation is from Jacobin (magazine), which is a partisan far left leaning magazine. Wikipedia's article on Jacobin magazine notes that the magazine has been described as Marxist and Socialist. The article shows its lack of neutrality in its title, "Trump's Labor Secretary is Reaching Cartoonist Levels of Supervillianry (sic)". An Encyclopedia should not be citing articles whose author talks about their political opponents as cartoon supervillains.

Wikipedia's 'Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view' policy requires that authors " Avoid stating opinions as facts and Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" The deleted sentence violates the Wikipedia policy because stating that 'Scalia's initiatives are not meant to protect workers, but help the Republican Party' is an opinion without factual content. Additionally, the Wikipedia policy is violated because numerous Americans would seriously contest the assertion that Scalia's policy is based on partisanship and not a genuine belief.

The cited NPR Article expressly contradicts the Jacobin Magazine's assertion that Scalia is acting out of partisanship rather than a genuine held belief "Secretary Scalia has said over and over again - that I don't think they really believe that government has a role here. They believe in real limited government." Id.

Although Wikipedia's 'Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view' policy generally allows for biased sources for content,"[t]his does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." According to Wikipedia's 'Venerability Policy',

"While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

I hereby dispute the content. This places the burden to include the disputed content on those who wish to include the sentence. I am disputing the value of the sentence even with a further clarity and edits.

I am also adding "According to a former Senior OSHA Advisor" to the previous sentence. Wikipedia's 'Neutral Point of View' policy on Avoid stating opinions as facts states, "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources". Accordingly, the new language reflects the opinion of the author instead of using Wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.135.128 (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

References

The section you speak of is sourced. Perhaps you should write a counterpoint and make sure its sourced as well. --evrik ^(talk) 05:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Evrik: Although Wikipedia's 'Neutral Point of View' policy generally allows for biased sources for content,"[t]his does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." [5] According to Wikipedia's 'Venerability Policy',

"While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

I hereby dispute the content. This places the burden to include the disputed content on those who wish to include the sentence. I am disputing the value of the sentence even with a further clarity and edits.

Accordingly, Wikipedia requires that the sentence is left out until those who seek to keep the sentence achieve consensus. Otherwise Wikipedia policy is violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.135.128 (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• • While you are stating the policy correctly. I'm not sure it applies here. Perhaps you should start an RFC? --evrik ^(talk) 05:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• • • @Evrik: The Wikipedia policy that I cited does not place the burden with me. Accordingly, I am not required to start an RFC. The person who wishes to include the content (which could be you), would be required to start the RFC. The policy requires that the sentence be left out in the mean time, until consensus is achieved. The sentence should not be added back unless others besides you and I decide to include it.

If you dispute my interpretation of Wikipedia Policy, please provide a source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.135.128 (talk • contribs) 02:13, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

• • • • You keep removing sourced content. --evrik ^(talk)
        • @Evrik:The Wikipedia Policy that I cited allows me to do so. You have provided no citation to Wikipedia policy explaining where you believe that I am wrong. I have requested a dispute resolution. Someone else can determine whose interpretation of the policy is correct. Can we agree to note the sentence is disputed until a neutral party resolves the issue? If you find this agreeable, then i would request that you add the sentence is disputed to the article for now. That seems like a fair compromise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.135.128 (talk • contribs) 02:48, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

NPR is not a biased source. It's reliable. Feel free to provide reliable sources that give a counter view. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik:, as an independent editor, it seems obvious to me that the statements that have been removed are not in keeping with the NPOV rule. You can of course prefix a POV statement with a rider such as "some people have suggested that..." but you should be very clear about it, otherwise you can expect such content to be removed. Deb (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Deb, the NPR piece is fine to support the fact that this is a widely held view. It's unsurprising, after all: regulatory capture is the signature achievement of the Trump administration. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Not saying the citation is inadequate, it's the way it's been phrased that's unacceptable. If it's a widespread view and you wanted to say that (which Evrik didn't), you would need more than one source to show that it was true. Deb (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

My point in this is this: an anon IP is stripping put sourced content, and then claiming that there must be consensus to put it back. As it is sourced content, it seems to me that the editor should work to add more content, or perspective. Writing a sourced counterpoint is a good idea too. --evrik ^(talk) 16:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "sourced". If Donald Trump (for example) makes a controversial statement and a paper reports it, that doesn't make the statement true, it only makes it true that he said it. And sometimes not even that. Deb (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't drink the kool-aid people! user:68.231.135.128 is a troll who is misusing process to try and remove negative information. The jacobin piece is not an opinion piece. I added two more cited sentences to show what kind of thuggery is happening the the Labor Department right now. 185.77.143.76 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deb:After you ruled as an independent editor that Wikipedia Policy had been violated, an editor put the removed sentence back. I request that Wikipedia enforce its own policy that you have ruled upon. I have re-deleted the sentence that violated Wikipedia policy and you agreed needed to be removed. I request that you enforce the sentence stay removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.135.128 (talk • contribs) 02:55, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

@68.231.135.128:, your ping did not work because (once again) you did not sign your comment. There are no policy violations here. Also, I note that you removed the jacobin section again, which goes against what the comments here say. Perhaps you should tweak the language? --evrik ^(talk) 14:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's neutral moderator, Deb stated, "@Evrik:, as an independent editor, it seems obvious to me that the statements that have been removed are not in keeping with the NPOV rule". She continued by stating, "Not saying the citation is inadequate, it's the way it's been phrased that's unacceptable. If it's a widespread view and you wanted to say that (which Evrik didn't), you would need more than one source to show that it was true." She clearly said the sentence violated Wikipedia policy. I have requested that the dispute resolution people enforce the Wikipeida policy that Deb said was violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6082:A200:A8FD:AC3B:6463:FFED (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• The comments I made during this discussion should not be taken as a "ruling". They were my opinion as an independent editor. Deb (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• RE: the two extra sentences added. I changed the word 'circumventing' to 'intervening'. The title of the NY Times article said 'intervening'. It is the Wikipedia editor's opinion that Scalia is also circumventing his own agency. If we are using an article we should accurately reflect the language of the article, not editorialize with the author's opinion. I also added 'gender and racial discrimination'. I think this provided more detail than 'legal case'. The first article contained all of the relevant information in the second article and was more thorough. We should be providing factual information, not presenting opinions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.135.128 (talk • contribs) 03:46, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

• I'm noting that the the Jacobin source just got stripped by an IP editor, again. --evrik ^(talk) 18:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I am formally requesting assistance for Edit Warring. This is a very clear cut violation of Wikipedia Policy. Please see reasoning above and Independent Editor agreeing the sentence is inappropriate. I am removing the sentence again. There has yet to be any rebuttal on why the sentence is permitted under Wikipedia Policy just the user repeating a political opinion from a biased website as an objective truth in Wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6082:a200:d956:1ed5:a2dc:7c1a (talk • contribs) 03:17, August 26, 2020 (UTC)

• Good luck with that. Have you thought about dispute resolution? --evrik ^(talk) 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring# User: Evrik reported by User:68.231.135.128. Thank you. —2600:8800:6082:A200:D956:1ED5:A2DC:7C1A (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• For anyone that cares, the result was posted here. @2600:8800:6082:A200:D956:1ED5:A2DC:7C1A:, as was recommended, I see you have taken your complaint (for a second time) to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eugene_Scalia. --evrik ^(talk) 14:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Noting that this was closed at WP:DRN shortly thereafter, with the reason: “Closed. The filing editor isn't trying to discuss anything, but simply making some sort of demand, although, because there hasn't been any discussion, it is hard to figure out what the filing editor is demanding. A demand for administrative action can be made at WP:ANI, but caution is advised when throwing a boomerang at an emu that isn't there.” Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead should cover how he weakened labor protections

Both in his career prior to heading the Department of Labor and during. There is no dispute in RS about this. It's clearly pertinent information to readers to understand the man, his career, and his impact. In many ways, it is more important to clarify this given that he was Secretary of Labor, which may give some readers the mistaken impression that he was distinctly pro-labor unless it is specified otherwise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the sentence that's in dispute: "As a corporate lawyer, he repeatedly hindered the implementation of efforts to improve worker safety and worker rights." That seems like a pretty clear WP:NPOV issue, no? 74.67.45.185 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Change photo caption?

The caption under his photo identifies him as Secy of Labor. He's no longer that. I'd change it by adding his dates, maybe the word "former." Btw, I read the other Talk items, including those re whether to delete the article. I'm for keeping it. Big Law likes to operate out of sight - can't tell you how many newspaper articles I've read re important cases that didn't even mention the law firms or lawyers. I say bring on the daylight! 2600:1017:B81D:CA3D:0:51:421F:5F01 (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was from 2012-2016, before he became Labor Secretary. Given that he served as a Cabinet Secy, he is notable and therefore the article stands.JLo-Watson (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)