Talk:2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Stephanie A. Finley
ResolvedThis source mentions Stephanie A. Finley's retirement, but is ambiguous as to whether this was the result of Sessions' resignation request or not. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Diff of addition to list. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Zbase4: Are you sure she was asked to resign by Sessions? Unless I'm overlooking, I don't see this mentioned in the source you added to the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: Seems to me like she was retiring soon anyways but was asked to resign by Sessions. This article also says that she announced her retirement rather than saying she announced her resignation but as far as I can tell Finley is one of the 46 U.S. Attorneys asked to leave. In my view, resign vs retire is a distinction without a difference so I added her to the list. If you feel otherwise, then you can remove Finley, but the fact remains that she left her job on March 10. Zbase4 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Zbase4: Thanks for replying. I'm just trying to make sure we're identifying the correct 46 people. (I haven't actually come across a single list of all 46 names yet.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: Seems to me like she was retiring soon anyways but was asked to resign by Sessions. This article also says that she announced her retirement rather than saying she announced her resignation but as far as I can tell Finley is one of the 46 U.S. Attorneys asked to leave. In my view, resign vs retire is a distinction without a difference so I added her to the list. If you feel otherwise, then you can remove Finley, but the fact remains that she left her job on March 10. Zbase4 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Finley appears on this list, so marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Source naming all 46
- http://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2017/03/jeff_sessions_us_attorneys.html ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Done The article now includes all 46 names mentioned in this source. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete
Attorney Eric Holder was questioned on why they were firing attorneys and his response was "Elections matter. It is our intention to have the U.S. attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as we can." It seems the only controversy this is stirring is the invented one by the media. --SlackerDelphi (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- You've made your points in the ongoing AfD discussion, and there is a discussion section above regarding the word "controversy". ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I did make my "points in the ongoing AfD discussion". That is true. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with me making the point over there about the title of this article, which is wrong. It is not a controversy. It is just part of the transition process. Trump has a constitutional right to make his own appointments to the U.S. Attorney positions across the U.S.--just like Obama did and Clinton did and all of them did. I can comment on the silliness of the name of the article over there and I can comment on the silliness of the title of the article here--just like you have. You not only wrote most of the article, you have commented over there, much more extensively that I ever have, and you have commented on this talk page about each and every topic (which I have not). If you were to compare your amount of comment versus my amount of comment one, if objective (please note the word "objective") would come to the conclusion that you have absolutely crushed me in the amount of comments and responses. So yes I did "make you my points" over there but of course that is something that I am allowed to do and you pointing it out simply weakens your point of view.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @SlackerDelphi: ... ok... I was just trying to direct discussion to the above discussion re: "controversy". There is now another section re: "controversy" below. I've not objected to removing the word from the article's title, I just wonder if we need to wait for the AfD discussion to close before moving this page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I did make my "points in the ongoing AfD discussion". That is true. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with me making the point over there about the title of this article, which is wrong. It is not a controversy. It is just part of the transition process. Trump has a constitutional right to make his own appointments to the U.S. Attorney positions across the U.S.--just like Obama did and Clinton did and all of them did. I can comment on the silliness of the name of the article over there and I can comment on the silliness of the title of the article here--just like you have. You not only wrote most of the article, you have commented over there, much more extensively that I ever have, and you have commented on this talk page about each and every topic (which I have not). If you were to compare your amount of comment versus my amount of comment one, if objective (please note the word "objective") would come to the conclusion that you have absolutely crushed me in the amount of comments and responses. So yes I did "make you my points" over there but of course that is something that I am allowed to do and you pointing it out simply weakens your point of view.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Must we really have 2 merge banners at the top of the article, especially when there is an ongoing AfD discussion (which appears to be leaning towards 'keep', I might add), and one of the merge destinations is just a redirect? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I support removing the move banners until after the AfD discussion is over. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Controversy
ResolvedOne of the concerns raised in the AfD discussion is over the word "controversy". I named this article based on Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy (2006), but I'm open to different article titles. Shall we discus if this article should be called "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys" instead? And, if this event is deemed uncontroversial, we'd want to remove Category:2017 controversies and replaced Category:Trump administration controversies with Category:Presidency of Donald Trump. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Update: Another editor removed the two 'controversy' categories. I replaced one with the general Trump presidency category. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think there is enough precedent in this matter that its not really "controversial," like the 2007 dismissal.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Page moved to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggest move: 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys
ResolvedThere is no reason for the "controversy" at the end of this title. Just amputate it and make it, cleanly, about the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys whether controversial or not. (It might be desirable to further rework the title to more visibly exclude the more typical resignation of attorneys at the very beginning of the term, but I think that is sufficiently distinct from the apparent "dismissal" here as to leave it to the article text to clarify. (I notice @Another Believer: proposed the exact same thing above, and recognize the completion of the move has to wait for formal closure of the AfD) Wnt (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Wnt: Yes, there is already a discussion about this above. Not that my opinion carries more weight, but as the article creator, I do not object to moving the article to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. However, I hesitate to move the article myself only because I'm not sure this should be done while there's an active AfD discussion. Do you know if the article can be moved now, or should we wait until the AfD discussion closes? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think we can wait - I don't think it should take that long, because I feel like it's a pretty obvious keep. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think we can wait - I don't think it should take that long, because I feel like it's a pretty obvious keep. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Page moved to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Should "United States" be spelled out in the article's title?
Comment: Isn't it standard practice to spell out "United States" in article titles? The only policy I could find is WP:NCA. FallingGravity 06:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am fine with "United States" in the title. The current title was based on the article "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" and the ongoing AfD discussion, but thanks for raising this question here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)