Talk:Scalito

This page redirects to Samuel Alito as a result of this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left the redirect but I have put a disputed tag as this is just a simple slur. It is akin to me directing miserable failure to George W. Bush. BlueGoose 07:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the dispute tag. I just watched Senator Cornyn apologize to Alito for calling him that in the hearing on the basis of it implying that he is like Scalia, not for it being insensitive. Also, Alito did not object to it as being discriminatory in that exchange. Dubya redirects to Mr. Bush, so Scalito should redirect to Alito. Thirdly, there is a reference to the name in the Alito article and no reference is made to it being deragotory.Monarch75 22:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scalito is a political epithet, implying a relation between Alito and Scalia. Opponents of Alito use this to contend that Alito will be a mirror image of Scalia. Redirecting political epithets to the reference is not worthy of an encyclopedia. BlueGoose 14:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, why would Cornyn apologize for calling Alito that if calling him that was OK? Sorry that I had to inject common sense into this. BlueGoose 14:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to usurp common sense with a familiarity with the issue, but Cornyn apologized for using the "Scalito" as it was not his name. It merely slipped out. It would be similar to him calling Mr. Bush "Dubya" in a Senate hearing, which is why he apologized. Thus, the apology and the discussion it initiated showed that neither Judge Alito nor Senator Cornyn seemed offended by the name, but rather its use in a formal setting. Dubya still redirects to Mr. Bush, so Scalito, which is a non-offensive epithet should be left as a redirect to aid those who may not be aware of the pertainant issues. Monarch75 16:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalito, the fact that Dubya redirects to George W. Bush, and the fact that the Scalito epithet is discussed in full at Samuel Alito are conclusive that the redirect is appropriate. It is POV to actually use the term by calling Alito "Scalito", but this is not what redirection does. A redirect is not a factual statement or POV assertion, but instead only the reflection of an editorial decision that the redirected term is a mere subtopic of the target article undeserving of independent treatment. Postdlf 18:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely redirect to Samuel Alito. Scalito doesn't come close to being an epithet, at most mildly sarcastic. A phonetic play of this sort isn't professional in tone, and indeed should not be used in a non-quotational sense, but neither is it inherently insulting to claim that Alito is very similar in judicial attitudes to Scalia. Similarly, the phonetic condensations we've seen of the names of celebrity couples (e.g. "Bennifer") recently may be silly, but they are hardly derogatory on the parties (any more than simply stating that two celebrities are a couple to start with, which is generally neutral). Obviously, the relationship between Alito and Scalia is judicial not romantic, but no one suggests otherwise. 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But Dubya is in no way pejorative...in fact Bush supporters often use it as a term of affection. If Scalito has ANY negative connotation, then it is not an apples-apples comparison to Dubya.

Sorry, forgot to tag that last entry. It was by me. Applejuicefool 15:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if it isnt redirected to Samuel Alito, there should be an article for it, or that reference should be included in the article on Samuel Alito. zachjones4 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep as redirect. it seems odd that a comparison to a fellow SCOTUS justice, with whom he is ideologically compatible, would be seen as insulting. at any rate, it's in pretty common use, and there is ample precedent for such redirects. Derex 00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]