Talk:Pam Bondi/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- HornandsoccerTalk 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Home
Pam Bondi does not live in Temple Terrace, but in Hyde Park. Us441(talk) (contribs) 23:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Family?
can anyone tell about her husband(s) and family life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.81.4 (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll second this. This is a two times divorcee who is getting married again in Florida. Every other political figure has a personal section. While I understand that Brett Doster who would not approve, the campaign is over and it time to actually write an article about her. This lacks any mention of her high profile failed prosecution in the [|Martin Anderson case]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.30.86 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of talking about what you think should go there, why not be specific about what belongs, along with reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Noah the Dog
In the "Early career" section appears the story of Noah the Dog. Pam adopted the dog, and then the original owners sued to get the dog back. I don't see how this contributes to the "enduring notability" of this subject per WP:NOTNEWS. Should the story of Noah the Dog be included or excluded? – Lionel (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Exclude: completely fails WP:NOTNEWS, totally unencyclopedic. This is the current Attorney General for the State of Florida. We can do better than this. – Lionel (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Include. As a resident of the county Bondi represented, I can attest that this was not a trivial matter here, but was repeatedly front page news, and much more significant to her notability than many other random factoids currently in the article.  This was discussed at the time of the incident and further discussed during her statewide race.  Wikipedia can "do better" by accurately representing the circumstances as they happened in real life, not arbitrarily excluding notable items because they don't fit our preconceived notions.  A quick Lexis/Nexis search reveals that this is discussed in many significant nationwide sources, including a Fox News interview.  Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And this adds to her "enduring notability" how? – Lionel (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As explained above, it's already part of her notability. Gamaliel (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me be more specific. We need to establish "enduring" notability for Noah the Dog. I'll stipulate that Noah the Dog was well covered. But that only bolsters my position that this fails NOTNEWS. How did Noah the Dog impact her career? Afterall this is in the "Early career" section. Did it affect the manner in which she discharges her duties as AG in the State of Florida? Did it have a lasting effect on state politics in Florida? – Lionel (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How do we measure these things and why are they required? Why are they not required of other factoids in the article?  I'm no expert in political science.  All I know is what the sources say, and they say that this incident was notable and impacted her statewide race.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to challenge any and every "factoid" per NOTNEWS. However this RfC is for Noah the Dog. I did not see in the sources where it impacted the race. – Lionel (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was in some of the L/N sources I skimmed. Gamaliel (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Exclude, as it puts WP:undue weight on a minor event in her life. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exclude got mentions in the local news because people like pets and because this was connected to their displacement after Katrina, not because it is a meaningful "incident" in Bondi's biography. Hekerui (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * INCLUDE Why? Because if this happened after a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina, of course it should be mentioned a little and what happened after she took the dog. I have no knowledge about this article, to me we've had many stray animals over the years that have had good lives. If this dog has had been cared and looked after by Pam Bondi then it should be mentioned. Adamdaley (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that all animals rescued after Katrina deserve to b mentioned? Or just stray animals who "have had good lives"? That really doesn't make much sense. Why exactly does the dog become important enough if it was a rescue? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Pam Bondi was in "Office". Who else would in a political position and take on a dog that was lost due to a disaster? Pam Bondi obviously cared enough to take the time, effort, financial side of it. Unfortunately she didn't want to get into a legal fight and get a bad reputation with it's owners if it became a bad legal situation. Adamdaley (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * She wasn't really "in office" then. She was working as an assistant states attorney, something you might know better as a prosecutor. She wasn't elected to an office, just hired. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking "why" in the sentimental sense. I'm asking why in the Wikipedia policies sense. Is there any reason/policy you see that agrees with the inclusion of the relevant material? Nolelover Talk·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 15:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Exclude. This has nothing to do with dogs, Katrina or any other red herrings being thrown out. It was a minor lawsuit that was settled out of court. It is a minor event and the inclusion is WP:UNDUE that appears to be included more as an attempt to try to say something negative than an actual notable event in her life. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exclude. This is trivial, and does not belong in her brief Wikipedia biography. – Quadell (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exclude. The test isn't just whether it got coverage at the time, which it did; it's whether anyone cares a couple of years later. A piece from when she was running for Atty-General suggested that this dog thing may have been what she was best known for at the time, but that's clearly not true because there are maybe two or three articles on it from this period. Everyone seems to have forgotten about this. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
A section about some criticism was removed and then restored. I removed it a second time because I see a bit of a problem with it. Keep in mind, this is a bio of Bondi, not an article about the AG's office. The section did have sources, but I didn't see the sources actually state Bondi was personally involved in any of those decisions or evidence of wrong-doing. What I did see were some implications that since they were donors, they got special treatment, but nothing substantial and nobody saying that Bondi did anything directly. I think including the section could be a BLP issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of speculating and thinking out loud, why not identify if indeed there is a BLP issue in this section and make constructive edits to correct those? I do not see any glaring issue, it is well cited and balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.13.242.11 (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what that comment was about? Not the material you're edit-warring. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Executing her reelection
When will her reelection campaign become notable? Hcobb (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When something notable happens. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Execution rescheduled
This entry about an execution being rescheduled is being overblown. It was rescheduled, critics complained, she admitted it was a mistake and the media moved on. There hasn't really been enduring coverage of this non-event. This is a classic case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. When I was reverted, the editor claims I said there was an expiration on news. Not true. But recentism does suggest looking at an incident in a longer term, not just a short news cycle. Also, NOTNEWS says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." While is was newsworthy, it's not notable. There is no enduring notability in this event. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your claim "a month later and it's forgotten by the media", which was not the case as there had been two new sources added to the section, which you completely ignored. It was a major controversy which was covered by media sources from all over the world, to call it a "non-event" is simply untrue. Tiller54 (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A source doing a follow up on the day of the execution is hardly significant. And reporting when the guy gets executed (like your Russia Today article) isn't really coverage of the event. This is WP:UNDUE as well as the NOTNEWS issue. Just because "Russia Today" mentioned something or the Daily Mail mentioned it the same time everyone else had it on the wire isn't "Covered all over the world" like you make it sound. A bunch of sources when it happened, then coverage started dropping off. There is no enduring notability, like the policy requires. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Trump University
The Trump tangle with Bondi is getting legs and will be looking for inclusion in article. Shall I do it?--Wikipietime (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do what specifically? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What he heck is going on with self-described 'proud Republican' Niteshift36 repeatedly for years now shutting down any unflattering additions to a Republican AG's page? And then insisting that his own deletions are constructive, whereas the additions he keeps deleting (since 2013!) always count as editing wars? That's standing logic on its head; classic Wikipedia nonsense.

In any event, his justifications for deleting info about Bondi keep evolving and fall afoul of logic. He now says this info should be excluded because Bondi has not been convicted of anything. Yet there exists an entire wiki article on the Clinton email controversy in which nobody has been charged and no crimes proven. It exists because it is a public controversy - just as Bondi's close ties to Trump with her decision not to sue Trump are a public controversy. Even Niteshift36 himself earlier said (while deleting yet more info about Bondi) " too soon. Right now, this is mainly an allegation. Need to see if it becomes a notable issue before putting something like this in a BLP". So, multiple people have tried since 2013 to add this info about Bondi's controversial ties to Trump, who is now the presumptive GOP nominee for president, but Niteshift36 wants to shift the standard for admitting anything unflattering about Bondi from "becomes a notable issue" to "leads to a criminal conviction of Bondi". You can't ask for clearer evidence that Niteshift36 is editing this page giving vent to his own partisan bias. Yes, there is an editing war. It has been going on since 2013, and it is Niteshift36 who is always involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.220 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC) — 72.86.133.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Listen sunshine, you've done NOTHING in the way of discussing the actual issue, despite multiple invitation. All you do is discuss me and your baseless allegations. You, on the other hand, have not contributed to Wikipedia in any way except to fight about this material. So who really has a more pointed agenda here? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources: The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, The Washington Times, Palm Beach Daily News, The Washington Post.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The question here isn't whether there are sources or not. It's whether it belongs in Bondi's bio or not. A Trump organization made a donation to a PAC that supports Bondi. Bondi doesn't control that PAC. It's not hers, it just supports here. There has been demonstrated involvement by Bondi herself. There's no investigation. No charges. The only actual complain I see isn't filed against Bondi or the PAC, but against Trump's organization. As I said in this edit summary, this issue MAY be relevant in the Trump article, since a complaint was actually filed against him. But at this point, there is nothing but innuendo that the contribution to a PAC that isn't hers got money from Trump, so it must have influenced her decisions. Without more of a connection to her personally, including it in her BLP is problematic because it implies she did something unethical or illegal without any substance or even an actual charge. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's important that we follow sources, plainly, without inserting our own theories. The connection between Bondi, the PAC, Trump, and the lawsuit against Trump University has been clearly drawn for us. It simply needs to be summarized in this article as a factual sequence of events in which Bondi, via her political office, obviously plays a central role.- MrX 00:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But has the connection been drawn? There are sources saying essentially "what a coincidence". There has been no direct connection to Bondi herself. It was a PAC she doesn't control that accepted the donation. The decision not to go after Trump U (which I personally think was the wrong decision, if that matters) was not, according to the AG office, not something Bondi was actually involved in. There is no evidence that Bondi, herself, did anything wrong. Most of the sources don't actually say she did anything illegal either (I say most, because I haven't read them all). They make an implication that she was complicit, but I haven't see one actually make the allegation. So what are we really reporting here? That some sources have implied or questioned? Not one has filed an actual complaint against Bondi. It would be easy to complain to the US Attorney or DoJ. Nobody has. So why are we going to include an implication that is so circumstantial that nobody will actually investigate it? Despite what the SPA has claimed, I am not against the information being on Wikipedia. I just don't think it belongs in her BLP. I think it's more suited for the Trump article, since there has been an actual complaint filed against his organization over this. If Bondi is later shown to have done something illegal, then it would obviously be a good candidate to include here. Again, I'm not saying never, I'm saying not here, not now. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Niteshift36 claims: "It was a PAC she doesn't control that accepted the donation." That is a flat out lie. Bondi established the PAC and continues to control it. It is her PAC.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You'll fight tooth and nail for 3 years to prevent any mention of this controversy on Bondi's page, no matter how many people say the info belongs there, but I'm the one with an agenda? And you know I must have an ulterior agenda because ... you can see no evidence that I have an ulterior agenda? Hoo boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.220 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.133.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've made over 33,000 edits on English Wikipedia and a total of 35 of them have been to this article. Most of those were not controversial at all. You've edited no place but here. .001% of my edits here. 100% of your edits have been devoted to putting this info on Wikipedia. Yeah, you clearly have an axe to grind. Saying I've fought tooth and nail to prevent any controversy is an overstatement. Much of what I removed was also removed by other editors, not just me. Now, would you like to discuss the actual issue or just continue your baseless allegations? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've made lots of edits on wikipedia articles over the years, interesting that you would assume these are the first and only ones. As it happens, the only ones that have been disputed are factual statements (such as this one) added to the pages of *Republican* politicians. In those cases, some abusive ("sunshine") partisan know it all will spring forward to delete the info almost immediately as 'trivial' or 'disputed' or 'unnecessary' or 'unfair'; that critic, like Niteshift36, will start an edit war and carry it to almost any lengths. All to prevent readers from seeing even a single unflattering thing about a fellow Republican office holder. Even more remarkably, though they always appeal to other editors to back them up in their edit war, they invariably reject any and all advice forthcoming from others that there's no good reason not to include that information in the WP entry. It almost like users of WP are meant to infer that they're arguing in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Um, all the IP's you've used in this have nothing but Bondi related edits. So yeah, you're a SPA. And you have a clear agenda. Discuss the topic, not your conspiracy theories sunshine. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You're really desperate to die on this hill, aren't you? Gonna make yourself look super duper clever by outing an SPA (gasp). But somehow failed to note that my IPs do in fact keep changing. If you were even half as clever as you imagine, you'd know that some ISPs apply a new IP everytime you log on at home. Duh. But I still gotta have an agenda, right, damn the facts. And you cannot possibly have an agenda of your own, still, whatever the facts. Still insisting that the PAC doesn't belong to Bondi are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The unusual coincidence is the connection, and is what should be mentioned. Here's how some of our sources summarize it:
 * - MrX 22:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first WaPo source calls it "Bondi's group", while the other 3 say "a political committee tied to Bondi's reelection campaign", "a political action committee associated with Ms. Bondi’s re-election campaign" and " pro-Bondi group". That's a little problematic since it is factually incorrect. Of the 4 you presented, the second one is the most neutral sounding and would probably be a good basis to start with if this does end up being included. I do not, however, think it belongs. Again, there is no evidence that she did anything wrong or that she had first hand involvement, especially when the PAC was independent of her. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - MrX 22:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first WaPo source calls it "Bondi's group", while the other 3 say "a political committee tied to Bondi's reelection campaign", "a political action committee associated with Ms. Bondi’s re-election campaign" and " pro-Bondi group". That's a little problematic since it is factually incorrect. Of the 4 you presented, the second one is the most neutral sounding and would probably be a good basis to start with if this does end up being included. I do not, however, think it belongs. Again, there is no evidence that she did anything wrong or that she had first hand involvement, especially when the PAC was independent of her. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - MrX 22:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first WaPo source calls it "Bondi's group", while the other 3 say "a political committee tied to Bondi's reelection campaign", "a political action committee associated with Ms. Bondi’s re-election campaign" and " pro-Bondi group". That's a little problematic since it is factually incorrect. Of the 4 you presented, the second one is the most neutral sounding and would probably be a good basis to start with if this does end up being included. I do not, however, think it belongs. Again, there is no evidence that she did anything wrong or that she had first hand involvement, especially when the PAC was independent of her. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there any deceit that Niteshift36 will not engage in? Now he's arguing that the PAC "And Justice For All" is not associated with, belonging to, or controlled by Bondi?! She established the PAC. The legal complaint by CREW against the Trump donation to AJFA quotes from Bondi's Statement of Solicitation in FL regarding AJFA, in which she says that she "established" and "maintains" the PAC. This person Niteshift will say anything to prevent this info from appearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Read again. I never said it doesn't support her. I've clearly stated the PAC DOES support her. But 3 of the 4 sources quoted above, along with many others, clearly state the it is not Bondi's PAC. It does, however, support her. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Still playing the game of deceit. I never claimed that you've said the PAC "doesn't support her". I said you've kept saying it is not her PAC and she doesn't control it...which is a flat out lie. She created the PAC; she controls it; it's her PAC and therefore it's also her scandal when it accepts an illegal donation from Trump. That is newsworthy, and that therefore has a place in a WP page. No wonder you keep lying about her PAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The WaPo, the Nation and WSJ don't call it hers. You are once again warned for your personal attacks (calling me a liar). Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So never mind what Bondi herself said in the legal filings when the PAC was established. No, none of that matters. What matters is that Niteshift36 has noticed that he can parse the words of some journalists in such a way to suggest that they might just believe the PAC wasn't actually created by Bondi. Well, that's all any of us should need is Niteshift36's elaborate parsing of newspaper articles - the guy who insisted that he knew based entirely on an IP address that I could not possibly have edited any other WP pages besides this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * See below. And I'm not being "clever", I'm labeling your posts for later retrieval. I understand how IP's work and you're the kind of editor that makes mandatory account registration a good idea. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There's really nothing you won't claim, is there? You repeatedly make wild claims about your supposed knowledge of my (non) editing history at WP, based solely upon my IP...demonstrating your basic ignorance of IPs. But now you know all about IPs. You're always right, even when you're wrong; always insightful, no matter how screwy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There's nothing you won't twist to your own purposes, is there? I look at your edit history and see what is there. I understand how IP's work, but you can't rely on them as evidence of your experience since those IP addresses can be assigned to others besides you. You can make all the claims you want about your amazing experience, but you can't actually show it. And when you are unable to sign your posts or provide a simple link correctly, it does make your claims suspect. Regardless of how many edits you have (or claim to have), you've demonstrated a lack of the basic editing skills. The only skills you've demonstrated is personal attacks and misrepresentation, neither of which make Wikipedia a better place. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Who controls the PAC?
The Orlando Sentinel says ''"...And Justice for All" wasn't set up by Bondi. It was set up for Bondi, according to paperwork filed with the state Division of Elections. Supporters formed something called an "electioneering communication organization," which can accept unlimited donations."'', But of course the Orlando Sentinel are lying Republican mouthpieces. The Tampa Bay Times says it's "associated" with Bondi, but not actually part of her campaign. . IBTimes says it's a group that supports her . Here is the link to the PAC registration with the Division of Elections . Please point out where her name is on it, anywhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. You're relying upon a single, vague newspaper opinion piece to make your core argument that the PAC wasn't "technically" Bondi's? Even if that were true, it would be the lamest possible excuse for trying so desperately to exclude info about this controversy from Bondi's page. But it is not true. I have already pointed you to the CREW filing, which investigated the legal situation in its entirety. You apparently have refused to acknowledge it, and have persisted instead in parsing the words of newspaper articles, so here is the link to it: 3429baca6f958ccc07_nvm6yx60v.pdf Read it and weep; page 2, second paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, I'm not relying on a single one. The vast majority of sources are careful to use phrasing like "associated with" or "supports". Very few actually call it hers and even fewer expand on that. Again, I provided evidence that shows there's no "lying" on my part, despite your repeated personal attacks. Second, for all your claimed experience at editing wikipedia (but still can't sign a post), you did NOT provide a link to anything. When I click on it, does it go anywhere? No. If I put the brackets around it for you, does it take me anywhere? No. Learn what a link is and how to use one, then you can show us all your source...... and then I'll ask you how your single source from an activist group somehow trumps (no, not that Trump) a single source from a large newspaper. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You can't just suppress this content and falsely claim that it's a BLP violation . The sources are many, and include at least one Pulitzer Prize winning publication. Please state your specific objections to to this content and leave original research out of it. The sources are very clear that Bondi solicited a donation, her PAC accepted a donation, and she declined to investigate the donor. If you are aware of current sources that present these facts differently, please present them.- MrX 03:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no false claim and you are wrong for stating that I'm not acting in good faith. I haven't denied at all that there is news coverage, so saying that there are sources isn't the issue. Here is the biggest issue: It's not her PAC. You called it "her PAC". Most of the reliable sources are careful to NOT call it her PAC because it isn't hers. It is a PAC that supports her, but she doesn't control it. The SPA has claimed that she set it up, but has shown no evidence of that. I have shown the state registration that is absent her name. I've shown numerous reliable sources that also state it isn't hers. So if she doesn't control it, why are we making putting forth the claim that it is "hers"? And if it isn't hers, and she hasn't been charged with anything, sued or anything like that, why are we devoting so much space to it? Further, the version I removed actually stated things the sources did not state. The text you and the SPA put in says " a political action committee Bondi controlled received a $25,000 donation that she solicited" but the AP source cited calls it "A political group backing Bondi's re-election..." The Tampa Tribune story that is also cited doesn't even address mention the PAC, let alone claim Bondi runs is. So the IP falsified what the source says and you restored it without looking...... then you have the audacity to say I'm making a false claim? That's just one issue. Let's start by addressing that one. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The content never claimed she was charged with anything, so let's keep that red herring out of it. It doesn't matter who owns the PAC. Bondi solicited donations for it while considering investigating Trump University. She politically benefits from the PAC. Those are facts. If the material written by the IP was problematic, it could have been fixed by changing a word or two. It was wrong to delete all of the material and the sources.- MrX 03:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * More bad faith. Mentioning that there is no charge isn't a red herring, it's pointing out something that would drastically change this discussion if she were charged. Next is your claim that it makes no difference if she controls it or not. It absolutely makes a difference. This whole premise is based on the idea that there was some sort of a trade made. But she doesn't control who donates to the PAC, she doesn't control how it is spent and I actually haven't seen any evidence that Bondi was the sole beneficiary of the PAC's efforts. Do you have evidence of it?
 * In addition to the four very reliable sources that I present above, here are some additional sources:
 * There is plenty to work with here and obviously we can't pretend this isn't happening (see WP:DUEWEIGHT). Perhaps Niteshift36 would be so kind as to explain any concerns about how this material violates WP:BLP, or any other policy.- MrX 03:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at your sources closely, the AP made the statement. The LA Time, Politico, and Tampa Tribune all say "AP said....". So in actuality, one of those 4 said it. CBS doesn't make that claim and they are clear that is it a PAC that supports her, not "her PAC" as both you and the IP have claimed. Ditto for the US News site and several other I've cited on this page. What should be done here is that the wording be worked out on this page before it is shoved into the article. THAT is what the talk page is for. Why don't you propose wording for the entry. It should be noted that I said a month ago :" Of the 4 you presented, the second one is the most neutral sounding and would probably be a good basis to start with if this does end up being included." Of course you ignored that and engaged in no further discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, however the recent revelations were from an Orlando Sentinel reporter. I agree that the PAC supports her and that it would be wrong to call it "her PAC". This content can easily be fixed to bring it in line with what sources actually say. As the content has now been restored by a third editor who supports its inclusion, I think the best way forward is to copyedit it so that it conforms to the sources.- MrX 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was restored because apparently the concept of actually crafting it on the talk page is completely lost on the rest of you. For the record, I detest Trump and, as a Floridian, am disappointed that Bondi and Gov Scott have endorsed him. This isn't about protecting Bondi, despite what the SPA claims, it's about what is right and wrong. You, (Mr. X) just reverted out of reflex and restored information that was incorrect because "it was sourced". Turns out, the source didn't say what it was alleged to say. If this was so cut and dried, as "wildly unethical" as the Sentinel calls it, then why have there been no formal complaints? Why no charges? Why is Trump the only one being investigated? Could it be because the claim has no actual proof of anything being done by Bondi, so the Sentinel just keeps making innuendo? Just food for thought. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the material before I restored it, and while it needed copyediting, it was important material and mostly factually accurate. Whether Bondi's or her staff's actions were unethical is not for us to decide. I'm sure you realize how nearly impossible it would be to bring charges against her, given that she is the highest legal officer in one of the most politically corrupt states in the US.- MrX 13:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently the fact tha neither source being cited called it "Bondi controlled" slipped past, which is odd since that's been a major point of the previous discussion. And actually, I realize how easy it would be to bring charges. The Florida Ethics Commission is easily accessible. Even if her influence allowed her to avoid a finding of wrong-doing, the charges could still be made. CREW has plenty of resources and goes after politicians all the time. They filed the complaint against a billionaire and presumptive Republican nominee. Wonder why they didn't file against her? And, BTW, Florida is not nearly as corrupt as many other states, but your phrasing of that last sentence is telling. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is plenty to work with here and obviously we can't pretend this isn't happening (see WP:DUEWEIGHT). Perhaps Niteshift36 would be so kind as to explain any concerns about how this material violates WP:BLP, or any other policy.- MrX 03:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at your sources closely, the AP made the statement. The LA Time, Politico, and Tampa Tribune all say "AP said....". So in actuality, one of those 4 said it. CBS doesn't make that claim and they are clear that is it a PAC that supports her, not "her PAC" as both you and the IP have claimed. Ditto for the US News site and several other I've cited on this page. What should be done here is that the wording be worked out on this page before it is shoved into the article. THAT is what the talk page is for. Why don't you propose wording for the entry. It should be noted that I said a month ago :" Of the 4 you presented, the second one is the most neutral sounding and would probably be a good basis to start with if this does end up being included." Of course you ignored that and engaged in no further discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, however the recent revelations were from an Orlando Sentinel reporter. I agree that the PAC supports her and that it would be wrong to call it "her PAC". This content can easily be fixed to bring it in line with what sources actually say. As the content has now been restored by a third editor who supports its inclusion, I think the best way forward is to copyedit it so that it conforms to the sources.- MrX 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was restored because apparently the concept of actually crafting it on the talk page is completely lost on the rest of you. For the record, I detest Trump and, as a Floridian, am disappointed that Bondi and Gov Scott have endorsed him. This isn't about protecting Bondi, despite what the SPA claims, it's about what is right and wrong. You, (Mr. X) just reverted out of reflex and restored information that was incorrect because "it was sourced". Turns out, the source didn't say what it was alleged to say. If this was so cut and dried, as "wildly unethical" as the Sentinel calls it, then why have there been no formal complaints? Why no charges? Why is Trump the only one being investigated? Could it be because the claim has no actual proof of anything being done by Bondi, so the Sentinel just keeps making innuendo? Just food for thought. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the material before I restored it, and while it needed copyediting, it was important material and mostly factually accurate. Whether Bondi's or her staff's actions were unethical is not for us to decide. I'm sure you realize how nearly impossible it would be to bring charges against her, given that she is the highest legal officer in one of the most politically corrupt states in the US.- MrX 13:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently the fact tha neither source being cited called it "Bondi controlled" slipped past, which is odd since that's been a major point of the previous discussion. And actually, I realize how easy it would be to bring charges. The Florida Ethics Commission is easily accessible. Even if her influence allowed her to avoid a finding of wrong-doing, the charges could still be made. CREW has plenty of resources and goes after politicians all the time. They filed the complaint against a billionaire and presumptive Republican nominee. Wonder why they didn't file against her? And, BTW, Florida is not nearly as corrupt as many other states, but your phrasing of that last sentence is telling. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently the fact tha neither source being cited called it "Bondi controlled" slipped past, which is odd since that's been a major point of the previous discussion. And actually, I realize how easy it would be to bring charges. The Florida Ethics Commission is easily accessible. Even if her influence allowed her to avoid a finding of wrong-doing, the charges could still be made. CREW has plenty of resources and goes after politicians all the time. They filed the complaint against a billionaire and presumptive Republican nominee. Wonder why they didn't file against her? And, BTW, Florida is not nearly as corrupt as many other states, but your phrasing of that last sentence is telling. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's agree to disagree about Florida. Getting back to the content at hand, I note that several reliable sources do in fact say that the PAC is "Bondi Controlled" or call it "Bondi's PAC":

While I think it is better to write "... a political action committee backing Bondi's re-election, called And Justice for All...", it is not a WP:BLP or WP:V violation to decribe the PAC as "Bondi Controlled" or "Bondi's PAC", - MrX 14:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And a great number of reliable sources are specific in NOT calling it "Bondi controlled" or "Bondi's PAC". In fact, some make that point. So we have sources, very reliable ones, that conflict with each other. The current version says that it is a PAC that backed her. Is there anything not correct with that statement? Is there any source that disputes that the PAC backed her? If not, then why are we trying to change it? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to change it; I was explaining why I didn't change it when I restored the material that you removed yesterday. It was not a BLP violation as you seemed to assert in your edit summary the second time you reverted the content. Is there anything in the current version of this content that you still believe does not conform to sources? - MrX 16:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The version you restored had 2 sources for that statement. Neither of those sources actually said it. One source called it ""A political group backing Bondi's re-election..." and the other didn't even address the PAC at all. So, at that point, you restored a statement that was not supported by reliable sources as restored. I have made edits to the current version. (For the record, I still don't think this belongs in the Bondi article, rather it belongs in the Trump article.) Do you have any issues with the edits I made? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issues with your edits, but I did add some polish to the wording in that paragraph. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether the donation was a violation of federal rules, or a potential violation of federal rules. It should not be ambiguous. Hopefully some of the more recent sources can shed some light.- MrX 22:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the cited source says "... a potential violation of federal rules prohibiting charities from aiding political candidates.", I'd say we're perfectly fine calling it a potential violation. Until there is an actual finding by the IRS, FEC etc, it should remain a potential violation. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just Niteshift being Niteshift, yet again. A month ago I pointed out that CREW filed a legal complaint in court asserting as fact that the PAC was created and controlled by Bondi, as he would find on page 2 of the complaint. Niteshift has avoided looking at that filing, and instead has fabricated out of his own imagination the idea that Bondi has no direct connection to the PAC. As his "evidence", he insists on parsing the words of journalists - not the journalists who state explicitly that Bondi controls the PAC, but specifically and only those journalists who do not state it. Because, apparently, Niteshift believes that negative evidence so-called is the strongest kind of evidence. Why does anybody take his objections seriously any longer? He has spent years trying to block any mention of this scandal on Bondi's page, and even after the AP released a blockbuster story about Bondi actively soliciting the money from Trump, Niteshift rushes in to delete the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.133 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — 72.86.143.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just the SPA being a SPA. Where is this document you keep talking about? Oh, that's right, you can't even post a link correctly, despite all your alleged experience. There's no parsing words. It's called reading comprehension. You should give it a try. I've already proven that you put in content that the sources you cited didn't say. So either you're incompetent or dishonest. I'll let you tell us which one. More fabrications about timelines by you and just your normal bull talking about editors and not the issue. Progress is being made here. Go back to the kiddie table youngster and let the adults talk. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr. X proved that multiple sources, including some I cited, stated that the PAC is controlled by Bondi...a demonstration which you predictably sought to evade, thus permitting you (?) to continue to pretend that I was lying about it! As for your self-satisfaction that you have yet to see a link to the CREW filing stating that Bondi founded the PAC, thank goodness it never crossed your mind to google "CREW+Bondi+IRS", read CREW's press release, and follow the link to their filing. Because what with your sophisticated reading comprehension, it would have proven embarrassing for your preposterous assertions that the PAC was totally independent of Bondi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.133 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.143.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * And I've provided multiple sources that say it was not controlled by Bondi. What ALL the sources agree on is that the PAC supported her re-election, so that's what the article now says. The two sources that you put in the entry did NOT say she controlled the PAC. So again, you were either incompetent or dishonest. I'm sorry that you're not smart enough to provide a link correctly, but it's not my job to go do the work for you. It is your job to provide it. This time I'm not sure if it is incompetence on your part or just laziness. In any case, the grown-ups have a working version in the article. So unless you're going to actually start discussing the issue, you can go hump someone else's leg go find a new topic to obsess over. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You've shown over and over again how extraordinarily immature you are, and your tendentiousness is plain. It's not your job to find out the facts about the Bondi PAC first, before asserting all kinds of bizarre inferences as is if they were facts?! Talk about an open admission that you care nothing for intellectual integrity. CREW states explicitly that Bondi's filing in FL states she "established" and "maintains" the PAC. There's a link I've added to the article, if you haven't already deleted it. So, tell my why CREW would be lying about what Bondi's FL filing states. Otherwise, give up your preposterous attempts to run interference for Bondi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.133 (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.143.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually, the CREW press release calls it "a political organization associated with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi". Associated with, not established by. What you are looking at in the exhibits is the question about the relationship and the answer is "established/maintain". It was an established relationship (ie not new) and being maintained. It doesn't state that she founded the PAC. (Again, your CREW press release says "associated with"). If you look at CREW exhibit I, you'll see who founded and ran the PAC. Note the absence of Bondi's name and that the PAC is not limited to supporting her. (There's that reading comprehension thing again.) Niteshift36 (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with the version as it stands after Mr. X's editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again, Niteshift is flat out lying about the PAC and about the documentation. Exhibit E of CREW's legal filing backs up what its legal filing states: That when the PAC was created, Pam Bondi submitted paperwork ("Statement of Solicitation") to FL, and in Part B of that paperwork ("Relationship between Office Holder or Candidate and Organization") Bondi wrote "Established/Maintain". Niteshift claims falsely and bizarrely that this means: "It was an established relationship (ie not new) and being maintained. It doesn't state that she founded the PAC." That is a transparent deception by Niteshift. This is the paperwork to set up the PAC. The form is not asking whether the relations is an established one or a new one. He continues to try to create some kind of distance between Bondi and this PAC, for which there is absolutely no evidence or reason for this article to reflect his obsession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.110 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.140.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Established.... she already had a relationship with them. You can look at the PAC documents contained in Exhibit I and see who established it. You apparently aren't able to read words in context. Riddle me this: If she actually established the PAC, why does the CREW press release not say that? Why do they carefully say "associated with"? Do you suppose they actually missed the "controlled by" and you were the one who magically spotted it? Mr. X's version is fine. Your edits just add POV to it. This is no longer "Niteshift's version", though I'm sure you'll continue to focus all your misplaced blame on me. And cease your personal attacks. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're talking complete nonsense, made up in your own mind and 'justified' by increasingly elaborate (and at best grossly misinformed) parsing of some but not all of the documents. The document you refer to exists to list the people of legal record for the PAC's finances (i.e. the bookkeepers, paid officers, etc). Exhibit E, the one that's actually relevant but which you persist in deliberately misconstruing, is a form that had to be filed whenever a cabinet officer in FL establishes, maintains, or controls a fundraising organization like a PAC. It is a foundational document in which Bondi states that she established and maintains the PAC. Only an intellectually dishonest person would try to deny the evidence of that document, or re-interpret its plain meaning as you are doing to try to nullify its evidentiary value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.110 (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.140.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There's no nonsense in my response. You're the one who is now editing against a consensus. Now it is you who is edit warring against others to get your own personal version in. Using words like "evidentiary" don't really fool anyone, especially when you're misrepresenting the evidence. I'm sorry you're not capable of reading the exhibits correctly. Perhaps you should write to CREW and give them your insightful interpretations so that they can stop saying "associated with" and go with your version. Let us all know how that goes. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That 'consensus' appears to exist entirely in your mind. I notice that you did not engage with the points I spelled out for you. Exhibit E is definitive. It was submitted ###at the time the PAC was created###. Therefore your own unsupported inference that "established" should mean "long established relationship" is completely untenable. You've lauded yourself many times for your supposedly superior reading comprehension, and yet you promote and cling to ludicrously false interpretations of easily understood sources and never admit that you are wrong about anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.110 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.140.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You really are deluded aren't you? Mr. X edited a version that I think it NPOV and balanced. It's actually HIS edits that you're changing. I was restoring HIS version, not my own. If you actually took some time to focus on something besides me, you'd have seen that on your own. And no, I'm not addressing any of your points because you hear nothing but your own voice. All you have is personal attacks and fabricated conclusions. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Virtually the entire paragraph and nearly all the citations are my own additions, or lightly edited versions of my additions to the article. But you must know that I contributed substantially to the article, because when you showed up the other day your first step was to delete everything I had added. As for the current edit, when has anyone besides yourself insisted that despite Bondi's own filing with FL stating she "established" the PAC, we must pretend that we don't know that fact? The irony of your last sentence appears to be lost on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.110 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)  — 72.86.140.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, I deleted it. Including the statements you made that were not supported by the sources you cited. I'm still waiting to find out if that was incompetence or dishonesty. Which one are you? The Mr. X version was agreed on. You are the lone, loose cannon here my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This was a test to see if the editing of WP is as incompetent and easily manipulated as commonly believed. As a case study, a prominent politician’s page where a major scandal had been suppressed entirely for years by the blatant obstruction of a lone, dedicated partisan versed in the standard WP trolling methods (misdirection; edit warring; rancor; posturing and specious argumentation). The question was whether it’s possible to insert a credible account of the obstructed material simply by persistence, good sourcing, and drawing attention to the speciousness of the arguments for exclusion. The answer: Just barely, and only with the persistence of the Nile and the patience of Job. In this instance, without rectification by other WP editors, the partisan repeatedly engaged in personal abuse and edit warring. The same editor also consistently advanced what are plainly tendentious and factually untenable assertions and arguments (e.g. that the publicized controversy is neither an issue nor of public interest; that if it is an issue it should not be linked with this politician; that the politician had no control over her own PAC; that the donation she solicited was accepted without her knowledge; that she did not found the PAC she stated she established) without his being banned from further interference in the article. In fact, another editor insisted that consensus needed to be reached first with this blatant obstructionist before any changes could be made to the article. The entire process has been comically inept and perfectly encapsulates the alleged weaknesses of WP. Fwiw, I have no personal connection or interest in Bondi, her PAC, Florida politics, or Trump's Foundation. I chose the page as a test solely because it was so obviously being trolled by a self-described partisan. 72.86.133.83 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) — 72.86.133.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Then you should be blocked per WP:POINT.- MrX 18:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And where was this "self-described" partisanship at? Merely saying you belong to a group doesn't automatically make one a partisan. Since you engaged in extensive personal attacks, it's difficult to believe that you were trying to prove anything beyond your own personal feelings. This article is clearly being trolled, but it's not by me. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr.X, do you even read the things you link to? Your page says that "editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree". Everything I added to this article is accurate and sourced - otherwise there would have been no valid experiment to test whether WP's system of editing could incorporate important content while controlling the active obstructionist. But nice to see such a clear example of WP:CIRCLETHEWAGONS. Nothing at all to learn here from this prolonged trainwreck of editorial incompetence in the face of blatant partisan manipulation, eh? 72.86.133.83 (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you link me to where I described myself as "partisan"?Niteshift36 (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

And now there'd be no objection
Now that there's a complaint to the Ethics Commission, I'd easily support inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When did you abandon your years long efforts to delete every new piece of information that was in any way embarrassing for Pam Bondi? The archives on this Talk page are choc a bloc with all your hilarious equivocations and excuses for arbitrary deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.135.251 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Cooper interview
I'd like to ask why the interview with Cooper isn't a case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because of the notable context of her dogged determination in fighting against a federal court decision legalizing same sex marriage contrasted with her shallow shout out to the LGBT community. She did this in the aftermath of a mass shooting, which casts significant doubt on her sincerity. This has been covered international, in well-respected publications. By the way, WP:NOTNEWS is a shortcut to Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP:RECENTISM is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:DUE requires that we briefly cover Bondi's embarrassing interview and the resulting reactions. She doesn't usually get this much press, but apparently she wanted it.- MrX 17:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please assume a little good faith. I know RECENTISM is an essay, but it's a useful reference to this situation. Using an essay for a discussion is certainly not unusual. Had I removed the material based on it, that would be different. I'm also aware of what NOTNEWS links to. Specifically, I'm referring to "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". I realize that it's addressing the notability, I think it can be extrapolated to help gauge whether or not something merits inclusion in an existing article. Perhaps, in the future, you can assume that I have read what I link to and not imply that I just randomly link to things and don't understand them. Sound fair? So, to address the actual issue: Yes, it has been covered by reliable sources. No denying that. But the question for me is the enduring notability. Will this really be discussed 8 weeks from now when the 24 hour news cycle has moved on? Or, as RECENTISM suggests, 10 years from now will it look that relevant? I'm not sure the DUE "requires" this be included. First, "requires" really seems more like an opinion. Second, DUE is really more about how much of each POV should be given, not whether or not the incident is included in a BLP. It discusses a lot about proportion and prominence, but not so much about whether or not the matter needs covered. Cuold you please quote the specific part of DUE you feel "requires" including this? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * RECENTISM simply doesn't reflect actual practice. We routinely include significant current news, and I believe this falls into that category. Her comments were made in the shadow of a historical event, only about a year after another historical (Obergefell v. Hodges). Her words then are inconsistent with her words now. The LGBT community found her words hypocritical and offensive, she was called out for it, and then she misrepresented the situation and was called out for that. As I said before, there has not been much national and international coverage of Bondi, but there is now, so I don't see how we could possibly ignore it.- MrX 18:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think RECENTISM should be looked at in actual practice more often. Yes, we include current news, but we should be viewing it with a long term perspective. Whether the gay community found her words related to the case of gay marriage some time ago offensive or not shouldn't be the issues about whether or not she is actually doing her job at the AG today related to the gay community. From my view, Cooper just took the opportunity to drag that up. It really had nothing to do with what she is doing currently for the gay community in the wake of the shooting. I'd suggest that you've probably said things at one point that you later changed your position on. Should she be any different? The suggestion in RECENTISM of the 10 year test isn't a bad one. Is that really what's going to be remembered in 10 years? I'd submit that in 10 months, this won't be an issue. Probably not even in 10 weeks. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Other state AGs were not as aggressive as Bondi in opposing same sex marriage. I think history will remember politicians who fought to curtail the rights of their constituents and then claimed to support them when it became popular to do so. In any case, we have sources and should follow them without trying to analyze Bondi's motives.- MrX 19:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it sounds like you are analyzing her motives. Your verbiage, like "dogged determination", "shallow shout out", "curtail the rights" sound like someone who has a strong opinion on the topic. And I'd say that other state AG's did oppose the issue of gay marriage as vigorously as Bondi did. Some were still opposing gay marriage after Florida was done. (And can you curtail a right that didn't exist before?) Niteshift36 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything I wrote is a paraphrase of what appears in multiple sources. SCOTUS has ruled that the right exists implicitly in the Constitution, so yes, it did exist before.- MrX 21:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Up until then, homosexuals had never been able to marry legally in the state, so that right had not been curtailed by Bondi. And numerous states fought the measure, including after Florida legalized it. So acting like Bondi was the odd man out is unrealistic. Your avoidance of the other observations is duly noted. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump Impeachment Trial
Someone needs to add a section about that. I'd say that's pretty notable.kornbelt888

Pam Bondi's public support of Church of Scientology events
This article omitted mention of Bondi's notable relationship with the Church of Scientology, called 'the world's most controversial religion'. A good case could be made for covering it in the Controversies section, but in the interest of NPOV it's been placed along with the 2014 re-election campaign material instead. Feoffer (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Scientology is, to me, a money making scheme. I don't support it in any way. That said, just because some reporter call them "most controversial", something that is very disputable, doesn't make it relevant here. She is a politician. She speaks where she can raise funds. I don't see where it's all that relevant. Just because a local paper fills a little space with it doesn't make it notable. Most newsworthy events aren't notable. I also note that your edit summary was the she supported the church. It seems to me like it's the church supporting her, much like many churches who support political candidates. If this were Westboro Baptist, I might be with you, but not here. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not that hot on the Scientology material, but, please stop removing other well-referenced material, some of which has already been discussed and has consensus, and some of which was recently introduced and supported by 2-3 other editors. Bondi was very vigorous in her opposition to LGBT rights, so let's not try to whitewash that fact from the article either.- MrX 23:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merely being referenced doesn't merit inclusion. Moving a date is inconsequential and pretty much a blip in the 24 hour news cycle. But thanks for just restoring it over and over without the slightest bit of discussion before you do. (I, on the other hand, did discuss this before). She apologized, the news moved on and it quickly slipped from coverage. That sounds a lot like RECENTISM. As for the gay rights part, she pretty much does what the governor tells her to do. Merely opposing gay marriage doesn't make you anti-gay, which is what the entry sounds like. But since you seem hell bent on including it, I've at least made it more accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware that being referenced doesn't by itself merit inclusion. I never said she was anti-gay, and I'm fine with your copy edit of that material. The execution material is short and was covered in several reliable sources. I think we should hear from other editors about whether it's appropriate for this bio. I believe it is.- MrX 03:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump Impeachment Trial
Someone needs to add a section about that. I'd say that's pretty notable.kornbelt888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganDWright (talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The Joe and Hunter Biden corruption re: Ukraine is currently under investigation by the Senate, and is certainly not "debunked." The references in the Pam Bondi article saying it has been debunked are op-eds, which are not suitable sources. The results of the Justice Dept. investigation are forthcoming, at which point you can call it debunked, and use references that are not opinion pieces. Please revert your edit. MorganDWright (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You still haven't read the sources have you? Ref. #46 is a news analysis, not an opinion article. It says
 * - MrX 🖋 15:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion piece. The author says it's unfounded, but doesn't tell us why it's unfounded. Then the author tells us it's specious or debunked, but gives no evidence why, again just stating his opinion. Quoting a partisan journalist who says it's debunked is not encyclopedic and not worth of an unbiased project. Please change it back.MorganDWright (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not an opinion piece. If you dispute that, take it to WP:RSN for confirmation. Please use the article talk page for all further discussion about the content. - MrX 🖋 17:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not an opinion piece. If you dispute that, take it to WP:RSN for confirmation. Please use the article talk page for all further discussion about the content. - MrX 🖋 17:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am bringing this here from a user talk page at the user's request. If other people want to comment, this would be the proper place. I have stated my opinion on the subject and am leaving it at that. MorganDWright (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. - MrX 🖋 17:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if someone can point to the debunking, where we can read which claims have been debunked by which piece of evidence. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. The claims were without evidence in the first place. Also, WP:VERIFIABILITYNOTTRUTH. - MrX 🖋 20:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article says debunked. Can someone point me to the debunking? I can’t find it so far. I do see that the claims were made without evidence, but that’s a different thing. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in the green box above. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If we aren't able to point readers to the debunking, then it shouldn't be in the article. The Media can make statements that are not backed up, but Wikipedia shouldn't. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Some say it has been debunked, but present no evidence, some say there was never any evidence, some say Pam Bondi presented evidence, some say she presented bunk. The fact is, it is currently under investigation by the Senate, lead by Lindsey Graham, who is weighing all the evidence and all the bunk, and therefore it's kind of early for Wikipedia to publish that it has been debunked until it actually is, or isn't. References here saying it has been debunked are all bunk MorganDWright (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think that the Washington Post (and all the other news organizations) should present evidence, you are welcome to take that up with them. Our standard is verifiability in reliable sources. If Lindsey Graham (a Trump surrogate) finds evidence of Joe or Hunter Biden having broken laws, they can present that evidence to a grand jury and then I would expect that sources will stop reporting that it's debunked. As it stands now, it is a conspiracy theory originated by Russia and promoted by a faction of the right wing, and it has been debunked, as the source says. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Minor point here: Merely being published isn't the standard. Bump is a non-notable reporter with an opinion. Why would his opinion carry any more weight than a letter to the editor (those are published too.) Graham is a notable senator (It is your POV opinion that he is a Trump sugrrogate), so one would expect more coverage. Here's an easy one: How many other reliable sources are quoting Bump's opinion? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first point. The notability of the author is not a factor. The article is not an expression of the author's opinion. It's a news analysis. - MrX 🖋 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability does matter. Everyone has an opinion. The fact that he gave his opinion in an op-ed piece doesn't magically make is usable. I'm fairly certain that if some conservative reporter gave an opinion in an op-ed piece in a right leaning publication, you'd argue against it being included unless it was widely covered by other sources. Have you seen any other reliable sources covering his op-ed? We DO see that happen when it's relevant. This was not. It was just another guy on just another day. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, the WaPo article is an opinion piece and provides no evidence. The story broke in 2016 and had nothing to do with Trump who was not a politician at the time, and had nothing to do with Russia so I don't know what you mean. It started with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY Lindsay Graham is a Senator, not a surrogate, so I don't know what you mean by that either. Also, I don't know what "conspiracy theory" means so I am having a hard time understanding your argument. The fact is, nothing under investigation is debunked until the investigation is over, and saying it is makes Wikipedia look like an unreliable source and a defective project. MorganDWright (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, you're just repeating bare assertions and your YouTube video is part of the debunked conspiracy theory, and certainly not a reliable source. Graham is senator and surrogate. If you have doubts that the Washington Post article is a reliable source for facts, then you should inquire at WP:RSN. If you dispute that the facts have been widely reported, you can inquire at WP:NPOVN. The other thing you could do is read the feature length articles that dozens of editors have research and written on the subject: Trump-Ukraine scandal, Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal, and Hunter Biden. - MrX 🖋 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody agrees with you MrX. All the people who have given their opinion agree with me, so I have consensus and will now remove the word "debunked" from the article. If you put it back at this point it will be edit warring, which I can see from your history you have been guilty of on numerous occasions, you can be banned from Wikipedia if you revert 3 times. Don't change it. MorganDWright (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Edits discussion
'''I made a sandbox where we can work all of this out together. User:Curbon7/sandbox.''' Curbon7 (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

'''This is getting a bit too tense, so let's try to bring it back in. I'd recommend reading WP:COOL and WP:HOTHEAD.''' Curbon7 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't dived into this completely because of limited time, but this section does seem to be a little slanted. For example, a large paragraph of a little over 250 words is devoted to allegations in 2016. Bondi, the subject of this article, was never found to have done anything illegal, never charged with a crime and no agency foun she violated rules. So why is so much space devoted to this in her BLP? A more cynical editor may suggest that this is really a reason to highlight criticism of Trump and try to discredit Bondi association. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Or would a cynical editor focus instead on your return to the partisan field in which you spent years deleting, mischaracterizing, and obscuring any negative information about Bondi that any other editor (and there were many) tried to add to this article? There was nothing no matter how obviously relevant and how well documented and how accurate/precise that you would not contest at length, for years on end, all the while pretending that you were not doing so for partisan reasons but just out of putative concern for accuracy and fairness. Many of the absurdly untenable arguments you advanced are reflected in the archives of the Talk page. They're required reading for any current editor who wishes to evaluate your current putative concern that too many pixels are being devoted to a Bondi controversy for which she was never prosecuted by the department of which she was the Attorney General. I'll just put a really simple question here: Should we - in line with your argument - then delete all references to Bondi's scandals, evasions and falsehoods, given that she has never been prosecuted for any of them?
 * There would be a lot of benefit in WP figuring out the means by which the many committed partisans who inhabit this encyclopedia send out their bat signal to call for assistance any time one of them is trying to remove unflattering information about one of their party's figures. This year it seems nearly impossible to block one outlandishly partisan disruptive edit without another such editor showing up almost immediately to continue the dispute. Everybody has their opinions, but not every editor makes it their core purpose to advance the party's banner in every field. Democratic partisans can be as perverse as Republicans when they dig in, but it's the GOP partisans who appear to be super organized about bringing in fellow partisans to help give the veneer of "consensus" to whatever point they're organizing about. Just above Niteshift36's post, there's an example of exactly that happening. MrX alone trying to keep them at bay, as a string of obvious partisans make absurd claims that Trump's smears against Biden had not been rebutted-rebutted, at least not *to their satisfaction*, even though news reports state explicitly that the smears are "debunked". The fact that a partisan investigation was launched by the GOP in the Senate of debunked smears was supposed to be 'proof' that they weren't debunked. An argument that rebuts itself! And yet one of those partisan editors announced that, damn the sources, they had assembled a majority for the Talk page war so "debunked" had to go. And now that the Senate report has been published and proved that there was never any evidence Biden committed a crime? Crickets from the partisans, who have moved on to other pages to fight the same fights. The situation of partisanship is out of control.72.86.137.204 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, forget good faith, go straight for the personal attacks. It appears that your angry little tirade is based on some false assumptions and a healthy dose of hyperbole. So let me try to wade through some of the BS you just spread in this section. After you got done attacking me, you finally got around to asking a question. "Should we - in line with your argument - then delete all references to Bondi's scandals, evasions and falsehoods, given that she has never been prosecuted for any of them?" Let me be clear, since your anger seems to degrade your reading comprehension.... I never suggested deleting all that material. Do I need to repeat it? Did you get it? What I DID suggest was that there is a lot more space attributed to the matter than necessary. Mention that it happened, but don't dwell on it. Now, while you are dwelling on long past edit, it's probably worth noting that the only edit I've made to the aritcle in THREE YEARS is the removal of a single word that was reverted and I left it there. So pretty much all of your whining and crying is really not very relevant. As for the copious amount of blathering you did about Biden/Trump/debunked/whatever......I don't care. Let me say that a little louder: I DON'T CARE. I can't remember the last time I edited anything about Biden, but I'm sure with your keen obsession with the past, you'll go look it up. Really haven't done much with Trump articles either. The last part of your screed just doesn't even make sense. I'm sure it did in your head, but it doesn't in writing. So, now that we know I didn't suggest what you falsely claimed I requested, do you have any interest in actual constructive conversation or are you going to be an angry troll? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You did exactly what I described, for years on end. It is archived for anyone who cares to investigate whether your editing of this article has been in good faith in the past. Whose fault is it that your past editing this article (which you neglect to defend, but instead talk about how long ago you stopped doing it) involved a long series of indefensible edit wars to exclude documented information? To cite one particularly egregious episode, you insisted that news reports stating Bondi did something had to be wrong and should be ignored because you found other news reports that didn't mention the fact in question, which you declared to be decisive evidence that *those* reporters decided the fact wasn't true. There was zero basis for your nonsense, but you didn't care and you wouldn't budge. And when a link to the documentary record was produced that the reporters used, you declared that was original research so its evidence should be ignored. Later, you claimed that the document intended to convey the opposite of what the plain meaning of its text stated, and therefore (again) you would not budge. This was characteristic of your behavior FOR YEARS on this very article: utterly ridiculous arguments with no purpose but to prolong edit wars until others gave up. Just above this section on the Talk page, you're weighing in on the side of the ridiculous argument that smears directed against Biden are not debunked just because news reports say they are debunked. I can't imagine where you get the idea that I would consider it possible to have a "constructive" conversation with an editor having a record such as yours.72.86.137.204 (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, you focus on personal attacks about edits that happened 4-5 years ago rather than on the issue at hand. While you complain about 'you didn't defend yourself', I look at today and tomorrow. You go live in the past. The fact that you just declared that you can't even imagine having a constructive conversation with someone because of edits they made 4+ years ago should show that you are 1) the POV warrior you are accusing me of being and 2) unable to uphold the Wikipedia principal of good faith. In total, your total contribution to this discussion have essentially been to whine about edits made in the last decade. That's not helpful. Have you considered leaving the 2010's and and moving forward with your life?Niteshift36 (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And once again you refuse even to acknowledge your years long partisan edit warring on Bondi's page. I'm a professional historian, so yes I think understanding the past is rather important. You made your partisan intent clear here for years, and now you pretend that others are obligated to ignore that?! Because it's old!!! In the real world, once you've shown bad faith, that's how you're going to be evaluated. If you want to change that, at a minimum you need to acknowledge your bad faith, stop acting in bad faith, and demonstrate that you've rejected your own disruptive editing. But all you've rejected is the accurate description of your own behavior. You reject the right of other editors to evaluate you based on what they've seen you do. Here's a clue: "assume good faith" is a starting point. Nobody is obliged to continue to ignore repeated evidence of bad faith.72.86.137.221 (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't "refused to acknowledge" anything. I have simply moved past that. I think the past is important, but I also know things happened after it too. Allegedly being a professional historian doesn't absolve you from WP:NPA or WP:AGF. You can't put conditions on things like 'admit that 6 years ago, you said XYZ'. You either edit in good faith or don't edit. You discuss and not edit war. You don't get to act like a petulant child, stomping his feet and demanding I phrase my answers or responses in a way that you want. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You've "moved past" all the most blatant evidence that you have repeatedly edited this page in bad faith. When I encounter a historical source who writes in bad faith, deliberately turns facts on their head, makes things up, denies plain and established facts, in pursuit of an obvious agenda - I don't rely upon them. Not at all. They have proven that they can't be trusted. It's absolutely basic historical methodology. That's you, bub: you spent years on this page proving that you will act in bad faith. And I recognized that before I added my first edit to the Bondi page, simply by scrolling through a few years of the Revision page.72.86.132.197 (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Once again, you've discussed nothing about the actual topic. If all you have are personal attacks and complaining about 4-5 year old edits, then there's nothing productive to be accomplished in further discussion with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK I'm gonna make this easy. This article is more bloated then necessary (mostly on the part with Parnas) and a lot of the Parnas info doesn't belong here, rather on his own page. We also don't need to track every dinner date they had, just a "in 2018 when she was still in office and throughout 2019" is fine.


 * Tell me the specific parts you have a problem with in my edit. Like specific sentences, don't be vague.


 * Also just so we're clear, I'm not a member of either main party, so I'm not partisan here and I don't have a stake in this.Curbon7 (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Also2, now that I am going through the material I had written, I didn't change the content or the tone of the article with my edits, only things like grammar and general clean-up. The legal issues are all still there. Also check out the sandbox. Curbon7 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you continue to claim that your proposed changes are just about grammar/clean up, that you didn't change the tone of the article, and implying that it is all just minor tidying. That is not at all the case. For example, you have cast out material and rewrote the information about Bondi's ties *while AG* with the fraudulent Parnas in such a way as to make it almost entirely unclear why it is controversial at all. But even if your tidying were as minor and innocuous as you keep insisting, that does not come close to explaining why you showed up here on Sept. 24 immediately deleting so much information - and why you have continued trying to impose your will by repeatedly deleting it when I have just as often expressed the view that it is unnecessary and disruptive. Minor tidying doesn't usually involve so much aggressive deletion. What I want to see from you is a point by point, source by source explanation why a fact or a citation should be cast out. I have watched partisan editors on this very page for at least 5 years chopping up and discarding information about Bondi's activities, under any and every pretext, in ways that strongly resemble exactly what you are so intent on doing here. So if that is not what you're attempting to do, then I think it's on you to justify e.g. why the Bondi-Parnas links should be treated as a trivial footnote to Bondi's post-AG career; or why Bondi's convoluted involvement over the years in the illegal Trump donation should not be explained as a unit rather than fragmented and taken out of focus just so a bunch of random things having to do with Bondi can be jumbled all together on a timeline. The existing page makes sense of the disparate information; your edit makes far less sense. If you can't understand why it's a big deal when a sitting Attorney General makes a practice of hanging out with a known fraudster who is engaged in funneling foreign donations illegaly to members of her party, then just ask for an explanation and I'll spell it out for your in more detail. It goes well beyond the fact that Bondi then turned around and accused a Democratic presidential candidate, on behalf of her own party's candidate, of the kind of corruption that her buddy Parnas was involved with all along in Ukraine. In any other era, this would be shock-the-conscience kind of information about an attorney general.72.86.132.18 (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! So to clarify, the connection between Parnas and Bondi is still clear and written in the article, both while she was AG and after she left office. However, we don't need a timeline of every lunch date they had, so that part can be condensed into a simple phrase that says exactly that: "they met several time throughout such and such years etc. etc.." The only information that was really *deleted* was extraneous information about Parnas himself, which is irrelevant to note on the Bondi article. The information removed was some like business dealings with Rudy Giuliani and Ukraine, which again has been condensed into the sentence where he was arrested for funneling money between politicians and the Ukrainians.
 * As for the things with Trump, 99% of that part is unchanged as far as content, just rearranged to give a clearer image of a timeline. As I said, I'm not partisan and so I don't have a stake in either side of this partisan argument. I simply am aiming to make this article as clear and concise as possible. :) Curbon7 (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you still here ? --Curbon7 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Still here, just not sure why I'm discussing anything at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of the article I simply have no opinion on. There's a couple of points I may suggest some rewording on, but at first glance, no events that I think need removed. As I said at the start of this, I think that too much detail is going into events that she was ultimately never shown to be violating any rules/laws. the focus should stay on the subject, Bondi, not on Trump. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2020
It says that allegations of Ukraine corruption by the Bidens has been 'debunked'. This is clearly not the case, especially in light of new developments. Denial is not debunking. I suggest removal of the word 'debunked' to protect Wiki integrity. The word 'allegations' is sufficient to indicate they are not yet proven. The word 'debunked' at this time is simply partisan. Thank you for your kind attention xxx 165.73.16.237 (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. --Curbon7 (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)