Talk:Ken Cuccinelli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reference removed[edit]

I would appreciate it if whoever removed the reference to Ken's opposition to abortion and gun control would cut it out. I put it back in and will keep doing so no matter how often it is censored.

As is your right, Mr. Mark; just don't run afoul of WP:3RR. Captain Zyrain 18:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an SPA attempting to change the meaning and balance of the page. — Cageyd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Racepacket (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?[edit]

This article seems developed well beyond the stub class it now rates. Please assess to "C" or perhaps "B" in accordance with the criteria. Thanks. My76Strat 00:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have rated it B class, based on the substantial detail, supported by a large number of inline citations. The difficulty may be in preserving a WP:NPOV neutral point of view for a politician with unconventional views. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Investigated / Targeted[edit]

In reference to this edit war: [1] [2] -- "Targeted" certainly comes with some extra baggage and isn't really NPOV. Although it was edited by a sock, I'm not sure it was incorrect. jheiv talk contribs 06:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying investigated, rather than targeted implied that there was some merit to these baseless accusations that have come up repeatedly. I seem to recall there being at least five previous investigations which have failed to find anything seriously wrong with Mann's work. Maybe a wikilink to this article would explain the definition of long? Sailsbystars (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coherence[edit]

Let's avoid the WP:RECENTISM format and try to band together the different newsbites into actual prose. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 02:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Usury" vs. "Combating usury"[edit]

Hey all,

I've temporarily changed the subsection title from "Usury" to "Combating usury"; if the casual reader just skims the summary, the first assumption upon just seeing "usury" is likely that he was implicated in a scandal of some sort (like some of the other subsections.) As such, I highly recommend some sort of change in order to avoid a misleading title. "Combating usury" is the best I could come up with for now (I may change it again soon; if I do, I'll note it here), but it's not particularly neutral-sounding and could be worded much, much better. If anyone could come up with a better wording, it would be much appreciated.

Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

baby-saving at expense of normal readers[edit]

Shouldn't his political views be up before a stream of accolaids? I'm asking because I was trying to find his political nature and has to scroll through a baby-saving list of nearly POV esk stuff before I find out the guy is one step away from a birther who is anti birth control. Just saying. But in all seriousness, I don't want a laundry list of what he did, I want his stances on topics. And guys, that list seems a bit POVish.

Gay rights nondiscrimination policy "Against Protecting Gays from Discrimination" give the title what the reality is. Your current title does nothing but royally confused and mislead the reader.

Because as the text makes clear, the situation did not address protecting gays from discrimination. It involved a request by Virginia state universities for an attorney general's opinion on the legality of making sexual orientation a protected class under Virginia law. A legal opinion states what the law is, not what the attorney thinks it ought to be. And the proposition that being a protected class is a right that a university can create is already NPOV enough.

Environmental policies Jesus call the title what it is - unless you call blasting the EPA an environmental policy, as I certainly don't consider that anything but a gross euphemism. On February 16, 2010, Cuccinelli filed a request with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its proceeding regarding EPA's finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health. He also sought judicial review of EPA's finding in Federal court. His press statement explained, "We cannot allow unelected bureaucrats with political agendas to use falsified data to regulate American industry and drive our economy into the ground".[33] On March 19, Cuccinelli announced that the total number of states supporting Virginia’s position is now at least 15. "While we made the decision to intervene based on what was in the best interests of Virginia and her citizens, it is gratifying to have the support of so many other states," said Cuccinelli.[34]

Virginia Seal[edit]

Why is this being included? It's the only thing on the page which is not a position on public policy, not work performed on behalf of the Commonwealth, and has nothing to do with ethics. The supposedly "reliable" sources for this section make such outlandishly partisan statements such as, "We theorized that the move was due to an Iranian cleric's recent declaration that women who dress suggestively increase the frequency of earthquakes" and "Perhaps next, Mr. Cuccinelli will prohibit women from looking down, lest they be scandalized from the sight of their own breasts."

Ken said nothing of the sort. These were paid for with private funds. It's a manufactured controversy which in no way affects citizens of Virgina. PHR11 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a reliable source that says so and add something. There are literally dozens of sources spanning more than a year that mention Cuccinelli's covering up of the state seal. We don't remove things just because they put an unfavorable light upon a candidate. It's not mentioned with WP:UNDUE weight. The section might be better titled "Virginia state seal controversy," but there's no justification removing something for which, whether rightfully or not, Cuccinelli is well-known. Hopefully some other page-watchers will offer their input, as I can see your point, but don't think that it's sufficient justification for wholesale removal. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with an unfavorable light. Cuccinelli is a former state senator, an attorney general, and a gubernatorial candidate. This "issue" has nothing to do with public policy, not legislatively, not through the AG's office, and not as part of his gubernatorial platform. He didn't propose changing the state seal in law (which would be notable) nor did he pay for these with taxpayer money.
Wikipedia has an article on Cuccinelli because of his work on public policy issues, because these issues affect people - and this does not. Were it not for his holding of elected office, he'd be yet another non-notable individual.
What is the purpose of including the section? To point out that he's a social conservative? That's already very well documented in the sections on abortion and homosexuality. The issues contained in those sections are public policy which does affect constituents. This doesn't.PHR11 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this is a very stupid section. It lasted all of 2 days (which was not specified). Arzel (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this section is that it's one of the things that he's most notorious for amongst his detractors. Given that it warranted a mention in the lede of his profile in TIME magazine six months later, it certainly warrants a mention in our article. I wouldn't object to somehow including it without its own section heading by reorganizing the article, but I can't think of any way to properly do that which doesn't involve creating the dreaded "Controversies" section. I agree the whole thing was a bit silly, but it's unequivocally notable. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most notorious for? This shows a stunning lack of perspective. I assure you that his detractors are way more preoccupied with his actual policies and views on the issues, not on a silly minor edit to the state seal.
You might notice that the phrase "birth certificate" is not found in the Barack Obama article and the name "Vince Foster" is conspicuously absent from the Bill Clinton article, despite a ton of media coverage and detractors getting worked up into a huff on the Internet.
This is neither relevant to the biographical background or public work of Cuccinelli. It doesn't deserve one sentence, yet it occupies an entire section, with four references, more than Ken's sections on: immigration, veterans, antitrust, extradition, education, taxes, eminent domain, law enforcement, sex education, homosexuality, and Obama's citizenship.
Take any statewide or federal public official and you'll find enough sourcable criticism to fill a feature length article. Newsflash: people who don't like a politician are going to write up anything they can on slow news days when the policy criticism is in short supply.
That is what you call undue weight. It is the only post-electoral section in this article which has absolutely zero to do with his public work. PHR11 (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bad counterexample. We have an entire article on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Sure it's not in the main article on Obama (nor should it be), but it exists on wiki because it's a notable phenomenon. I've already expressed that I'm open to moving/demoting the info, but you've failed to offer a constructive suggestions on where the info should go. Wholesale deletion is not a viable option. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a great example. The conspiracy theories about Obama's citizenship are indeed notable due to the vast coverage received in light of the implications of their hypothetical result. Despite having their own article, they still aren't included in the page on Barack Obama. They're not relevant to the introductory biographical blurb and have no bearing on how Obama has governed as a leader, despite clearly meeting your test of, "one of the things that he's most notorious for amongst his detractors." The birther issue has been going on for years and would have huge implications if there were anything to them, yet aren't mentioned - but you want to include a tempest in a teapot over a cartoon breast here. PHR11 (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of tripe that you see during an election. Pure politics. Arzel (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haynesworth/exonerations section[edit]

Would the editors who disagree with this section please explain their reasoning? Instaurare (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting a topic here. User:Candleabracadabra wanted to discuss it on my talk page, but I think here is better. I have to leave for work soon, so won't be able to respond more until later. I did more closely review the last section added by Candleabracadabra earlier this morning, as well as the article you recently created, but then got caught up in other stuff. My take now is that something should go in this article. The issue is how much and what it should say. If you can be a bit patient while other editors participate in this discussion, that would be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are the objections to what was there? What alternative text is proposed? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your patience. I thought others might contribute to this discussion, but they haven't. I've restored the material but not the same version. My objective was to include the material but (1) to give it more context and (2) at the same time cut down on the material that overpromotes Cuccinelli. See what you think. Obviously, changes can be discussed if you're unhappy with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no complaints about the material after you removed the promotional tone, but would note that we can surely replace the ref to breitbart.com with a similar story from a less-controversial source. a13ean (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it; it wasn't needed anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff comparing what was there after I trimmed to it wo what is there now. The current version is stilted in several ways. It starts off covering Haynesworth who is not the subject of this article. I would prefer to tighten up what was there. I have no objection to removing the Breitbart source. But Haynesworth take on Cuccinelli (who this article is about) should be included and the focus should be on Cuccinelli's involvement in the case, not on Haynesworth. Haynesworth is covered in a separate wikilinked article. Only essential context should be included. I believe the chronology in the current version also has problems. Didn't Cuccinelli hire Haynesworth before he was fully exonerated? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is about Cuccinelli, not about Haynesworth, but you can't just start a section of the article saying that Cuccinnelli exonerated Joe Schmo. There has to be a minimal amount of context. As for the chronology, if it's wrong, it should be fixed. Why you don't take a look at that aspect?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look at it and your version confuses the chronology. The first two sentences are also weird because they don't tie in at all to Cuccinelli who is the subject of this article. If you wanted context on the previous version fixed I wouldn't have had any objection to that being worked in. The Breitbart source could also have been removed. It's not clear what other objections you had? Why was the quote from Haynesworth about Cuccinelli removed? Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I don't have much more to say. The idea is to tell Cuccinnelli's role without undue promotion and for it to make sense. There's already a glorifying quote from Haynesworth in "my" version.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I have removed the Breitbart source and worked in the context you requested. WHy have you again reverted to a non-consensus version for which specific objections have been clearly stated? Please respect the editing process. If there is something you want changed explain yourself. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple people have expressed objections to your version which adds overly promotional language. Per WP:BRD please stop edit warring until there is a consensus on its inclusion. a13ean (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific about which language you object to or alter it as you see fit. I have not edit warred, I have made changes as objections have been expressed and repeatedly communicated with Bbb23 seeking to find out specifically what he took issue with. My messages to him have so far been ignored although he did restore bits of stilted content after my postings to him seeking clarification of his views. I have expressed my objections to that version above and reincluded a superior version with the changes suggested by him and others above. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases it includes the same overly-promotional language as the Newsmax source, which appears to be a semi-official biography. The first paragraph is fine, as it mostly covers the facts of the case. The entire point of the second paragraph appears to be gratuitously promoting the subject of the article. a13ean (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bit sourced to Newsmax is: "Shawn Armbrust of the Innocence Project, who helped bring the Haynesworth case to Cuccinelli's office's attention, had feared Cuccinelli was trying to score political points by working on the case but said her fears "evaporated" when Cuccinelli invited Haynesworth to his office to personally apologize for the 27 years Haynesworth spent in jail." Is that correct? It isn't absolutely essential, but I think it's relevant and helpful. Aside from being sourced to Newsmax what is it about it that you object to? If it were cut down to say Cuccinelli apologized personally and his actions were lauded by Ambrust would that satisfy your concerns? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a paraphrased statement from an article which is a near-hagiography of the subject. Sticking with the basic facts is better as usual. Your suggestion is a good start on that score. Cuccinelli's comments on his own actions remain undue. a13ean (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with Cuccinelli's comment being removed. I don't think it adds anything. I will try to trim the Innocence Project bit if someone else doesn't get to it first when I'm on next.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013[edit]

Input is sought in an RfC at Talk:Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013. Instaurare (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth is the word "federal" capitalized throughout. It's not even a noun, let alone a proper noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.111.4.51 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article must be Mistaken[edit]

Elected as Virginia's 47th Attorney General in the November 2009 general election. From 2002 until January 16, 2010 he was a Republican member of the Senate of Virginia,

That would put Ken holding two different government posts in the same time period and assumably collecting two paycheck: which, right in the USA Constitution (and VA) is considered THEFT.

Also I remember in a legal dispute (still unsettled) with VA that Ken claimed to be the AG but I saw no claims of his also being a Virginia Senator.

It's about the money more than separation of power (the laws), and were even written about extensively by Thomas Jefferson in the Federalist - a fine NY publication in the time the forefathers published digests in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.160 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not mistaken. While Cuccinelli was elected Attorney General in November 2009, he wasn't inaugurated into office until January 16, 2010, four days after completing his term as State Senator. --JayJasper (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Scientific[edit]

As to Bob or Ken. I see no article showing abuse of power of VA. Parties at the Gov Mansion is not abuse.

If accepting money from a private firm wishing (getting) only publicity is considered fraud? The throw all of Washington DC in prison and the key with it. Obama first, solar panels (which DID get grant money).

After all "Citizens v. United" has allowed companies to literally bribe Congressman legally: brought to us by the Democrat's Supreme Court of the USA.

But it's the job of a good VA governor along with (his/her) commerce dept to help private industry born and run in VA. Accepting money and providing aide without abuse of VA's power is certainly not only legal but tradition. A little rule bending is well known as to political donations and commerce.

I HAVE read the indictment. The indicters were not named in the filing. Democrats si?

What I do see for sure is NOT A SINGLE complaint of action that bob or ken used VA's power with respect to Star. Did they insure a VA grant? No. Did they fail to collect tax? Not a VA firm.

Accepting republican moneys for republic politics is all american. And Democrats also get contributions from companies very much more questionable (ie, solar panels).

I'd be a little miffed Bob and Ken are from NJ and Star from Del. However that is not fair in the discussion as this is a general happening across the usa, very non-specific.

If we investigate Hillary we'll find quickly her family members are flush with Grants i imagine...

"The UVa administrators expressed interest but did not agree to Star Scientific" the exact words in the indictment show there was no action that used VA's power

Lastly if we start talking pay for play i have endless pay for play and abuse of power complaints about democrats in NVA, where i live - they are harassing and stalking me and cheating in court to do so (even skipping court): as well as making immense and suspicious gains in the area - turning the area into a turf war where democrats use money printed in dc to win.

I now give NOTICE:

Use of VA courts for political obstruction or stalking officials and forcing special elections is specifically spelled out against in the VA Constitution.

There is no such right to use law to do crime. (knowably false and inequitable defamation, and threats of imprisonment by a ruling party)

The accusers names are not mentioned. I think i know who and if they are NVA democrats they know well I have a lawsuit waiting they skipped court on.

I accuse the democrats of doing so.

I don't like Bob spending on the other hand looking at democrats i won't look far to find golfing as the indictiment continually claims is suspicious.

(one is free to file honestly, and punished if filing dishonestly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.160 (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuccinelli as lead counsel on Paul Rand suit against President Obama and other officials[edit]

See: See http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/12/rand-paul-nsa-phone-surveillance/5428245/

Also, there are some controversies on the filing of the suite vis-a-vis Cuccinelli's role. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-rand-paul-and-ken-cuccinelli-accused-of-stealing-nsa-lawsuit/2014/02/12/058675aa-942b-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html Cwobeel (talk)

NSA Lawsuit w/ Rand Paul[edit]

Should probably add a note that KC is lead counsel for the Rand Paul/FreedomWorks lawsuit against the NSA. http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Sen-Rand-Paul-sues-Obama-over-NSA-surveillance-5228423.php 172.251.172.174 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard[edit]

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ken Cuccinelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Ken Cuccinelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Ken Cuccinelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cruz campaign[edit]

Someone should put in the fact that Cuccinelli is now the chief delegate-hunter for Ted Cruz. The Washington Post reported April 14, 2016, that: "Even as Cruz eyes upcoming contests, his team is deep in the process of influencing who gets to be delegates in states that already have voted. Cruz’s Houston-based delegate team, led by former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli II, has largely left the process up to activists at the state level who are well-versed in local rules." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.245.62 (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ken Cuccinelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ken Cuccinelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ken Cuccinelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ken Cuccinelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New official portrait[edit]

Cuccinelli now as an official USCIS portrait: [3] It should be uploaded to WP and added to this article's infobox, and I would do so if I were more adept at uploading for commons. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Vacancies Reform Act[edit]

Special:Contributions/216.252.8.183 inserted the following content:

His appointment to the acting Director is considered by some scholars a loophole in the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. There are three options a president may temporarily choose a senior government position. The president may by choosing a "first assistant" to the vacant office, choose anyone currently holding a Senate confirmed position in the executive branch, or choosing a non-Senate confirmed senior employee working in the same agency for at least 90 of the last 365 days. The deputy director, and assumed "first assistant", is an internal position created by executive branch regulation was only the acting director for a week before Cuccinelli. The newly position of Principal Deputy Director was given to Cuccinelli. He is the first person to hold the position for the agency.[1]

I reverted the content with the following edit summary: "remove poorly written and dubiously sourced info". Special:Contributions/216.252.8.183 re-inserted the material without addressing the concerns and added a personal attack in the edit summary. I reverted again, encouraging Special:Contributions/216.252.8.183 to fix the problems with the proposed language and dubious source rather than focusing on me. Special:Contributions/216.252.8.183 has again re-inserted the material and is again attempting to make me the issue. I have no objection at all to the subject matter; however, it should be rewritten for clarity and accompanied by a better source. SunCrow (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the edit history of Special:Contributions/216.252.8.183 includes only four edits, all of which have been made this week and all of which have been made to this article. Special:Contributions/216.252.8.183, are you a sockpuppet? SunCrow (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain "dubiously sourced", which you have not. Your own profile indicates many articles of wiki you think are very left. You profile indicates that you have a history of edit warring. This isn't an attack, this is pointing out your profile history indicates you attempt to white wash conservatives. You don't explain "dubiously sourced" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.179.122 (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that inserting material sourced to a post in a blog named lawfareblog.com is not compatible withWP:BLPSPS requirements. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Vladeck, Steve (June 10, 2019). "Ken Cuccinelli and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998". Lawfare. Retrieved July 10, 2019.

Proposed rewrite of Federal Vacancies Reform Act paragraph[edit]

I propose a rewrite as follows. (If anybody knows how to cite a letter from a House committee, please feel free to fix it up!) M.boli (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuccinelli's appointment as Acting Director of USCIS may have circumvented the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), according to the chairs of three House committees. FVRA stipulates eligibility criteria for temporarily filling positions that require Senate confirmation. Before being considered for the position, Cuccinelli had met none of the eligibility critera. In a letter to the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, the chairs noted that Cuccinelli had become eligible via a brief appointment to a newly-invented position "Principal Deputy Director" of USCIS. The chairs further allege that this brief appointment had been retroactively applied. Cuccinelli was appointed Acting Director after the White House learned he had little chance of achieving a regular appointment through Senate confirmation.[1][2]

(Edited to make the move more clear. M.boli (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jerrold Nadler, Elijah E. Cummings, Bennie G. Thompson (June 18, 2019). "We write to express our deep concern over the June 10, 2019 appointment of Ken Cucinelli as Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)". Letter to Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security. U.S. House of Representatives committees on Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Homeland Security.{{cite press release}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Lapan, Tovin (June 21, 2019). "Why Trump's USCIS Pick Might Be His Most Controversial Yet". Fortune. Retrieved 2019-07-27.
You are citing a letter with the opinion of three people with a potential bias and not naming them, that's against WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I don't see in the second cite that the White House learned something, and you need a reliable source that directly supports, so maybe that's against WP:RSCONTEXT. In any case I worry that this is a long text to give to breaking news which in the long run (e.g. as of today) may be forgotten, so object due to WP:NOTNEWS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good points.
  • I agree about "White House learned" is hard to support. There are many citations saying he was not likely to win Senate confirmation if the White House nominated him. Here is one from Politico: [1] Adding more citations beyond the casual statement in the 2nd reference would be needed.
  • The three people are the authors of the letter, they appear as the first thing in the citation, but I see your point. It occurs to me that it might be more useful to put their roles (as opposed to their names) in the text, e.g.: "according to the Chairs of the House committees on Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Government Oversight."
  • Regarding the length, I think that it could be more clear to divide up the USCIS section into sub-sections: one for material about Cuccinelli's appointment to USCIS, more subsections can accrete for material or controversies that arise while he is in the job. I'm assuming that more controversies and events will accrete.
  • I considered the not-a-newspaper question before deciding to try to write something. Otherwise, why try to fix up some material which should be deleted? Ultimately I figured that it isn't just forgotten news because the appointment is so controversial. Also the controversy had at least one concrete consequence, viz: Acting Directors are limited by law to 210 days (or more if there is a confirmation fight going on). I didn't see this in the references, so I didn't put it in the article. Although you can read about it at the Federal Vacancies Reform Act page.
I will edit the text now to address three of those, and leave the not-a-newspaper question up in the air (which could ultimately just delete the whole thing). I can sort of see it both ways. It would be helpful if I found a credible source which tied the story together: a) Cuccinelli is term-limited because he is Acting, b) he was appointed Acting because of his inability to win Senate confirmation for permanent, c) the appointment to Acting might have used a questionable dodge.
--- M.boli (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Everett, Burgess; Johnson, Eliana (June 4, 2019). "Republicans ready to quash Cuccinelli". POLITICO. Retrieved 2019-07-28.

Principal Deputy vs. Acting Director of USCIS in the lede[edit]

I think it is pragmatically deceptive to use the title Principal Deputy Director in the lede. Even if Cuccinelli concurrently has that title while serving as Acting Director, he is directing the agency and has the job title to match. Cuccinelli isn't "deputy" in USCIS to anybody but himself. I think you cannot find other examples of Acting Directors who aren't described as such in their Wikipedia pages. (I just checked a few.) For heaven's sake, the three House committee chairs who objected to the legality of this appointment addressed him as Acting Director in their letter.

This might become moot now, with Cuccinelli's next appointment. But as long as this job is in the lede, I don't see the point in the deceptive wording. -- M.boli (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Acting" vs. Senior Official Performing the Duties Of[edit]

The current version of the page incorrectly refers to Cuccinelli as both the "Acting Director" of USCIS and the "Acting Deputy Secretary." But this is not accurate. "Acting" official is a specific title that has legal ramifications under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. "Acting" officials may perform any function that is in the sole authority of the main official (DHS Secretary or Director of USCIS) and that cannot be delegated to any other government official. Officials can only serve in an Acting role for 210 days after the date of the vacancy, after which they become the "Senior Official Performing the Duties Of" the job. [1].

While Cuccinelli was indeed appointed as Acting Director, because 210 days have passed since L. Francis Cissna left the job, he is no longer able to claim that tile, and is listed both as "Senior Official Performing the Duties Of the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security" and the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the USCIS Director, according to DHS itself. [2]. Therefore, it is incorrect to refer to him as the Acting Director or as the Acting Deputy Secretary, as those are positions he does not hold (and for Deputy Secretary, which he never held). Razzmatazzle (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. He signs his own emails with "Senior Official Performing the Duties of."2605:A601:A9A2:5000:E984:472F:C829:16A7 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 28 May 2020. Retrieved 7 July 2020.
  2. ^ "Leadership". Department of Homeland Security. 7 July 2020. Retrieved 7 July 2020.

Infobox[edit]

This infobox is a mess we need to simplify it. The titles are too long and there are multiple different term periods for the “Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services”. BigRed606 (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Cuccinelli&oldid=1217208190"