Talk:United States administrative law

Untitled
A little too much cleanup? I think this diff is definately removing too much info for just cleanup, some of the info should be useful. &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta 01:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Untitled
I've brought some of it back. Amcfreely 05:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What a mess...
This article looks like a slightly-cleaned up version of a second-year law student's admin law outline. Besides the obvious stylistic issues, it completely ignores the whole other universe of administrative law &mdash; the strange realm of government manuals, handbooks, and bulletins that lies beyond the APA. I'm referring to the SSA POMS, the USPTO OED General Requirements Bulletin, the MUTCD, and other similar documents which have de facto substantive legal effect but have never been promulgated properly through APA procedures. POMS exists in its own legal universe altogether while the Bulletin and the MUTCD are included in the CFR only by reference.

Also, POMS has even been mentioned and given Chevron deference by the U.S. Supreme Court, even though it's not promulgated through APA rulemaking procedures! It's amazing it's not mentioned here. --Coolcaesar 08:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, no one has bothered to defend the status quo. I assume this means no one will mind when I start to move things around a bit in a few months (after I finish with Lawyer). --Coolcaesar 06:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that these pages should be a combination of a law student outline and the substantive administrative law. The appropriate place for the detailed information and case explanations would be the individual areas of administrative law linked to from this page. --Gtouchton 04:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Adjudication Hearings
I've removed the reference to the APA because the formal hearing provisions of the APA dont' get triggered unless a statute requires a "hearing on the record". I figure a statute's incorporation of the APA would be covered under "required by statute". Idag (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

58th Plenary Session of the Administrative Conference
I've been adding some stuff from the 58th session of the Administrative Conference, but I don't think I'll get around to adding the science and recordkeeping stuff. In case anyone else wants to work on it... II | (t - c) 07:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Creation draft
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United States Federal Regulation may be worth merging with this article. &mdash; rybec   05:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Distinctions between rulemaking and adjudication
The more condensed discussion as reverted by Prototime is incorrect, and too terse to be useful. As reverted by Prototime, the comment above in "What a mess" applies: "This [section] looks like a slightly-cleaned up version of a second-year law student's admin law outline."

As reverted by Prototime, the section states a test for the distinctions, not the differences themselves. The distinctions are explained earlier in the article, Thus the heading as reverted by Prototime is incorrect.

The section as reverted by Prototime doesn't explain why the test matters. The pre-revert discussion explains the test, why the test is what it is, when it's applicable, enough facts to understand the test as applied, and what the consequences are of being on one side or the other.

Prototime's concern that the content is "unsourced" is distinctly peculiar. Is not the main content of the article a discussion of "rulemaking" and "adjudication?" Does Prototime really suggest that every single cite from the rest of the article must be redundantly set forth here?

73.38.59.62 (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

To add a note to Prototime after he/she reverted AGAIN without discussing on Talk page -- how many admin law cases have you litigated? How many have you won? Quite a few, and more than I've lost (which, given the burdens of proof, is something not many lawyers can say). This is not my first rodeo. Before you revert me again, please follow your own admonition to discuss here on the Talk page, and demonstrate that you know at least as much about the subject matter as I do.

Prototime, if you think something is "unsourced," then please identify something specific that can be fixed. Your comment with no specificity is entirely unhelpful -- dare I say it's "unsourced?"

[Special:Contributions/73.38.59.62|73.38.59.62]] (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for discussing this. Your contributions are appreciated, though your personal attacks are not, and we are not here to litigate your personal experience in administrative law or mine. I do recommend you spend some time familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as the Manual of style; for example, headings in articles should not be entire sentences, which is why I replaced the heading with "Distinctions between rulemaking and adjudication". In addition, articles on Wikipedia are not self-referential; there should not be in-text notations saying things like "see the above section". Beyond that, in reading things over again, this entire section is redundant to the rest of the article, and I would recommend simply integrating its content into the above sections. The "situations" in which rulemakings are warranted should be in the Rulemaking section, and the "situations" in which adjudications are warranted should be in the Adjudications section. I have not done a thorough cite-check of the entire article, but if the citations are already there for these claims in the earlier sections, then this should be an easy task. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Regulatory bankruptcy and promissory estoppel
Kinda trying to work some of my notes into Wikipedia. One thing I've noticed is that agencies feel hemmed in by their precedents and prior mistakes, so I thought Can a federal agency declare “regulatory bankruptcy”? was pretty interesting. In addition, sometimes a regulatory agency goes through a bad period and isn't functioning right, and businesses or people get used to that and feel upset when rules start being enforced, which brings up the idea of estoppel ("person is prevented from asserting certain matters before the court to prevent injustice"). I found [http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/doctrine-of-estoppel-against.html this discussion of Agress v Clarkstown Cent. School Dist., 2010]:":as a general rule estoppel may not be invoked against a governmental body to prevent it from performing its statutory duty or from rectifying an administrative error there is an exception to this general rule 'where a governmental subdivision acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently, inducing reliance by a party who is entitled to rely and who changes his position to his detriment or prejudice.'" II  | (t - c) 03:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ex ante versus ex post enforcement
Some agencies regulate by approving actions prior to them happening whereas others investigate and review things after it happens. Unsurprisingly, it makes a big difference in how things turn out. Modes of Regulatory Enforcement and the Problem of Administrative Discretion discusses it and comes down heavily against preclearance (ex ante). I'm not so sold on his thesis... anyway, not sure how or whether to work this sort of thing into the article. II | (t - c)

Fairness and administrative discretion applied to corporations
In some cases, a regulatory agency has turnover, lots of "policy statements", and lots of corporate lobbyists asking for exceptions. Over time, this can turn into a mess where the law ends up being applied inconsistently. We see a lot of complaints about this in the media about how the big corporations get special treatment, but I haven't seen much academic coverage and this type of thing happens a lot at the smaller state level as well. Of course there is the equal protection clause but the rational basis test means that corporations don't seem to litigate based on it that much these days. Still, justice is blind and generally there shouldn't be too many carved out exceptions. I'd like to have a section on this... if anyone knows a good article, let me know. II | (t - c) 04:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Noticed Political Cycles of Rulemaking: An Empirical Portrait of the Modern Administrative State (2007) in my notes a bit ago which gets into these sticky de facto law issues. II  | (t - c) 08:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Odd section added by User:ImperfectlyInformed
There's something called Skidmore deference which isn't properly reflected in the current text. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It does seem that Chevron and Skidmore are different enough to warrant separate discussion, e.g. Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC which has "Like tariff-classification rulings, which the Supreme Court held are entitled to Skidmore — not Chevron — deference". Feel free to add something. II  | (t - c) 18:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hortatory, instructional, and nonbinding
, let's chat here. The sources we're talking about here are more on the WP:PRIMARY side (court cases from decades ago) so that's not great, but let's skip past that and assume that they remain valid for now.

Among the sources you added, in one  says "an interpretative rule does not have the force of law and is not binding on anyone, including the courts". Another says "interpretive rule is one issued without delegated legislative power. … Such rules are essentially hortatory and instructional" - why not use instructional then?

This article [https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2607&context=lawreview Hortatory Language in the Preamble and Bill of Rights of the 1970 Constitution, 6 J. Marshall J. of Prac. & Proc. 217] observes: "BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY contains no definition of "hortatory," a word of the utmost use and abuse by the drafters of constitutions. This is probably indicative of the fact that the word, in a legal sense, is almost meaningless. But Webster, more given to popular usages, says the word means "hortative" or "exhortatory,"' another way of making a verbal somersault and arriving exactly where you started"

Words that are ambiguous are problematic. And the above is not the only source which criticizes the word. Can we come to a compromise here and just explain it in a sentence? By the way, calling me a "hyper-pedantic ignoramus" violates the Wikipedia conduct guidelines (WP:CONDUCT) II  | (t - c) 02:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course. An explanation -- ONE THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING -- is fine.  But that's not what you did -- first you changed the meaning in an incorrect way, and then you removed the sentence.  The latter is not good faith, it's vandalism.  Your rationale was that the sentence was uncited -- which is a false, there's a footnote right there -- and then that citation does not track word for word, even though the meaning is the same.  That's a reflection of your lack of knowledge (also called "ignorance").  "Not binding" and "instructive" are not synonyms for "hortatory."  That change and proposal reflect your lack of appreciation for the meaning of words.  Also called "ignorance."


 * If you want to write up an explanation of Skidmore deference, be my guest. "Exhortatory" is good -- but that's got even more syllables than "hortatory," so I suppose you won't like it because it's "legalese." BostonBowTie (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you've added a lot of good stuff! Keep in mind that some of it may end up being removed down the line without citations, but I'll leave it alone for now. As far as that singular word, I removed it in part because it was duplicative. In that sentence, they refers to Guidance and statements of policy - and that sentence says Guidance and statements of policy are not legally binding on the public, so the word I used - nonbinding - seemed reasonable, and I believe it to be true and properly reflective of that source. In any case, I strongly believe that it's better to unpack the complex meaning behind these types of rules and avoid trying to fit it into a single word, so I expect to be removing it again down the line. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2007 - I think I've got a few decades left. :)
 * Defining hortatory as meaning exhortatory is, as observed in the quote above, circular. If a dictionary can't define an uncommon word aside from providing synonyms (which then point back to the same synonyms), then it's not really meaningful enough to be useful. However, I'll admit that exhortatory is much more commonly understand. Further unpacking exhort brings us down to a reasonable Merrian-Webster dictionary definition ("to incite by argument or advice : urge strongly"). The dated version of Black's Law that I consulted doesn't define either, but that is OK. II  | (t - c) 22:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem underinformed on the English language, on the subject matter, and MOS.
 * Your first edit comment was that your removed the word "hortatory" as a "synonym lawyers use to confound general public." If this is your starting point, you've conclusively rebutted any presumption of good faith, and you need to shove off.  We do not use words to "confound the public."  We use precise words to communicate precise meanings,
 * English words have meanings. Your change, "not binding" is not correct.  "Hortatory" or "exhortatory" is.  There's an immensely important difference -- "not binding" means "nothing," like a draft contract that never gets signed.  "Hortaory" means "This is the agency's advice.  Do you want to get to a result easily in the agency, or are you going to have to go to court to get the agency to back down?"  Likewise, "instructive" and "hortatory" are not synonyms -- "instructive" implies historical fact from neutral point of view, "hortatory" implies intent to urge action.  If you don't appreciate shades of meaning among English words, then accept your limitations, and please do not edit legal topics.
 * The existence of synonyms does not make a word "circular." That's complete nonsense.  The existence of a synonym with the same shade of meaning, and difference in that meaning from other words with fewer syllables, doesn't make a polysyllabic word "circular" or "legalese."  It makes it "correct."  You seem not to care too much about "correct."  It's time to sit back and learn, not edit.
 * Primary sources are just fine for footnotes -- your assessment of "not great" is imperfectly informed. Secondary sources are only necessary "to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."  Read MOS carefully before you gripe or edit.
 * MOS tells us that if something is "unsourced" but probably correct, then the appropriate remedy is to add a "citation needed" tag, not remove it. Deleting a sentence because you don't understand it, and threatening to do so again, is not a good way to get a conversation off to a good start.
 * BostonBowTie (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your response and efforts! I appreciate your expertise, and I think it's benefited the article. With that said, I do think it would be helpful to nail down what is meant by the word hortatory (or its synonyms - still prefer to replace the word) in the article. Hortatory is a word with centuries of history predating administrative law. You agree that the agency's advice - however we describe it - is not actually legally enforceable, right? It isn't law because it hasn't gone through all the process required of a regulation. "Do you want to get to a result easily in the agency, or are you going to have to go to court to get the agency to back down" seems like a good way to put it - have you seen a source explaining the shade of meaning in that way? When I worked in an agency, we generally used words like advice or guidance when communicating to impacted stakeholders outside of actual regulation. Words such as 'hortatory' would occasionally be used by older folks, but were discouraged (see, e.g. Plain Writing Act of 2010). II  | (t - c) 16:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Now I'm even more confused.
 * If "hortatory" is "a word with centuries of history predating administrative law" then how is it "legalese" or beyond the ken of a reader who's sophisticated enough to be reading this in the first place? If it's the word that's used by courts, how could it possibly be an "improvement" to try to coin another word?  Words matter, and judges (especially Judge Scalia, even before he got on the Supreme Court) take pains to choose the right word.  Why would you entertain the thought that your choice of a different word could be more accurate?
 * "You agree that the agency's advice - however we describe it - is not actually legally enforceable, right?" No, I do not agree with that.  The law is nuanced, and you're trying to reduce it to black and white.  Without this article turning into hundreds of pages, the article communicates that nuance.  You're trying to simplify -- but you're oversimplifying to the point of error.
 * You say "It isn't law because it hasn't gone through all the process required of a regulation." That isn't correct.  "Regulations" are not the only form of "rule."  Non-regulation interpretative rules have some range of enforceability -- limited, as explained in the article -- but they're still "law" at some non-zero level.  Similarly, guidance documents directed to agency staff -- even though not promulgated as "regulations" -- are entirely enforceable.
 * BostonBowTie (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm putting a note a year or so from now to revisit this in my tickler file, to allow for cooldown and reflection, as I find your communication style exhausting - I don't see why your angry tone is necessary and it's not conducive to collaboration on Wikipedia. But as to your question: it is unclear that the use of the word hortatory in the centuries past captures the modern nuance of meaning. When I do a search on its use between 1600 to 1900 I find that it was exclusively religious (granted, I'm sure it's missing a bunch). The reliable source that I found in a moment's search discussing its meaning (see above) said that the word is "in a legal sense ... almost meaningless". Also, I'm not sure what opinion you're talking about by Scalia - but Brock v. Cathedral Bluffs Shale Oil Co. never uses the word. In any case, I stand by my opinion that the complex shade of meaning is best captured in a sentence rather than a single word. II  | (t - c) 14:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I’ve added several additional cites.
 * When we left this discussion several months ago, the standing inferences were—
 * 1. You have no more than an elementary knowledge of the subject matter.
 * 2. You don’t bring a useful mental model to the problem.  You want to put rules on a black-vs-white, binding vs. nonbinding dichotomy.  You are wrong.  Rules lie on a spectrum from binding, through several shades of grey, to nonbinding.  When you started, the article explained that.  You’ve tried several times to force-fit it into your wrong mental model. Your edits are wrong.  In correcting your edits, the article has gotten better, to be sure, but moving backwards to force others to move forwards isn't the most helpful or cooperative approach, is it?
 * 3. You don’t have command of the language to appreciate shades of meaning.  Your use of language, and suggested replacement terms, are wrong.
 * 4. Now you’ve changed a right sentence, “Many courts have characterized interpretative rules as only ‘hortatory’” to a wrong statement, “Many courts have characterized interpretative rules as only ‘hortative’.”  The word “hortative” is in quote marks to indicate that it’s a direct literal quote.  But not a single court has ever done so (at least none in the Fastcase database).  If you were writing on a blank slate, OK, that would just make you a silly, imperfectly informed, but good faith person.  But you made this false statement on an informed basis.  An informed falsehood creates an inference of an intentional lie, doesn’t it?  At the very least, it reinforces the inference I’ve suggested several times, and given you a chance to refute or counterdemonstrate--you have no care in what you write, no sense of precision.  Instead of proving otherwise, you reinforce the pattern and inference, and now you've added the further inference of truthlessness.
 * 5. Your initial basis for acting was your personal, confessed lack of familiarity with a term (“synonym lawyers use to confound general public”) that, after you researched, you conceded has “centuries of history.”  You complain that it shouldn’t be a single word, it should be a longer "sentence" explanation--and then you disregard the existence of the longer explanation.  You don't read what exists before you complain that you don't understand.  You don't read what's there before you assert that it might be incorrect.  Your practice of deleting what you don't understand, editing before you read, and writing here to argue before you read and think, confirms a number of adverse inferences.
 * 6. MOS tells us that if something is "unsourced" but probably correct, then the appropriate remedy is to add a "citation needed" tag, not remove it. Deleting a sentence because you don't understand it, and threatening to do so again, rebuts the starting inference of good faith.  Enough contrary facts cements a contrary inference, true?
 * 6. MOS tells us that if something is "unsourced" but probably correct, then the appropriate remedy is to add a "citation needed" tag, not remove it. Deleting a sentence because you don't understand it, and threatening to do so again, rebuts the starting inference of good faith.  Enough contrary facts cements a contrary inference, true?


 * I see by your rate of edits that you have a "quantity above quality" mindset. That may be appropriate for some articles, but it isn't useful here (or with Common Law).  You’ve proved you’re uninformed and imprecise, and your edit rate suggests you can't possibly be thinking deeply before you act.  Now you’ve gone a long way to proving the further suspicion that you’re an intentional troll.  You can’t lead.  So please follow or get out of the way, OK?  If you want to add "citation needed" tags, or ask questions here on the Talk page, be my guest.  But don't edit, OK?  You haven't yet moved things in a positive, correct direction.


 * BostonBowTie (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The first article I noted above notes that "the word, in a legal sense, is almost meaningless". Our WP:MOS exhorts us to "Avoid using jargon whenever possible" and "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible". We also write the article from recent, third-party sources and not our own understanding of primary sources. In your recent edit, you did some work to help address that. I still think that the article does not communicate this effectively and does not communicate at all the "shades of grey" which you point towards, but I'll let it lie for now. Separately, you've been making personal attacks on me and other editors - leaving a note on your talk page about that. As far as 4., I'm not sure what edit you are referring to, but you changed hortative to advisory, and then changed it back. It was updated to wikilink to hortative, possibly by, and you destroyed the wikilink. Incidentally, the origin of the word in this article is this edit in 2016. II | (t - c) 00:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)




 * So we have to go back to the beginning again, because you couldn't read the transcript, huh?


 * How can "hortatory" be "jargon?" Your showing is that "hortatory" is not in a legal dictionary.  It is in every everyday English dictionary (at least the four I just checked -- desktop/collegiate editions of Merriam, Collins, American Heritage, Oxford American).  If you consider it "meaningless," that's only by failure of your own knowledge.


 * YOU changed "hortatory" to "hortative." Others may have too.  But YOU did.  YOU made the error on an informed basis.  YOU changed the sentence to “Many courts have characterized interpretative rules as only ‘hortative’.”  YOUR statement is false.  At the very least, can we reach agreement on this conclusion -- you do not work carefully and precisely?


 * OK, you don't see the shades of grey in a 470-word detailed explanation of when a rule has effect, when it doesn't, the limits of effect, in various contexts. At the very least, can we agree that this establishes that your reading comprehension level is not up to a level that lets you absorb something that has this level of subtlety?  What legal texts CAN you read?  Tell me that, and if it's still at a reasonable reading level, I'll try to redraft at that level.


 * BostonBowTie (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

State law needs work
This edit by commented out a rough section on state law. I don't disagree with the edit, but we should try to circle back around to this. As a federation, state law is pretty important. Of note at the state level, the California Administrative Procedure Act predated the federal act by a year per The Influence of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act on California's New Administrative Procedure Act altho I'm not sure it influenced it much; also, it put administrative law judges onto central panels. II | (t - c) 10:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Number of Rules
The United_States_administrative_law section doesn't say anything that I (as a practicing lawyer in the field) find helpful or interesting, and the existing text is not an accurate paraphrase of the document it purports to cite. I see why that document is interesting to its intended audience (the executive oversight committees of Congress), but not how it's interesting or useful to any segment of the Wikipedia audience. I see how it got there years ago, and it used to have some interesting content about OIRA review (ha -- I'm one of the lawyers that has killed multiple rules in OIRA), but that content has been moved to other places, and the remaining stub just isn't very informative.

The unit of measure "one rule" is inherently meaningless. One "rule" can be five pages or a thousand, anything from amending a few words in a single section to thousands of new sections, anything from reinterpreting a term to change a customs classification to a tens-of-billions-dollars rule on ozone, coal, or the Affordable Care Act. Is "2,500 to 4,000 rules" a lot or a little? What does it compare to? The whole discussion is just a bit of flotsam randomly washed up on a beach.

Would anyone object to removing this section?

If it should be kept, what is it intended to say? What segment of the audience cares?

BostonBowTie (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , I would strongly object as long as necessary. This article isn't for lawyers - it's for nonspecialists, since Wikipedia is a general audience work. It helps to give people a sense for how rules are classified and analyzed, since a certain portion are counted as Significant/Substantive (and a further granularity, major) while others are classified as "routine" . We don't really need to worry about too much about what counts as a number as editors since we're using a reliable third-party source to figure that out, and it should be largely hashed out in the literature separate from Wikipedia. So you could publish a critique on the classification which we could look at citing. II  | (t - c) 00:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I asked a specific question. Could you answer it?  "what is it intended to say?  What segment of the audience cares?"  Your answer is as meaningless as the text.  Rules could just as well be classified as "north," "neutral charge," "massless," and whether they have an even or odd number of "e's."  Classification by itself is meaningless.  Giving raw names with no content, no standard for reference, no meaning, is, well, meaningless.  (Do you remember the bird name anecdote from "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman?")


 * Your observation of "reliable third-party source" is irrelevant -- the question isn't verifiability, it's relevance.


 * I haven't the slightest interest in writing a "critique on the classification" because it's only relevant to a couple dozen deep-in-the-weeds regulatory law lawyers. Adding that intestinal knot here would violate your principle that Wikipedia is written to nonspecialists.  (As far as I know, the only effect of that classification is whether an agency is required to analyze the rule under Circular A-4, and the level of attention that three people in OMB will give it, and some deadlines under the Congressional Review Act.  Nobody but a few dozen specialists know or care.)  This classification is really meaningless to anyone other than those few dozen.


 * Which brings us back to the question. "What is [this section] intended to say?  What segment of the audience cares?"


 * BostonBowTie (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's intended to "give people a sense for how rules are classified and analyzed" (quoting myself above). The CRS report itself discusses the why of their report: "Congress may have an interest in performing oversight of those regulations, and measuring federal regulatory activity can be a useful way for Congress to conduct that oversight". Wikipedia articles are intended to give an overview of a subject at a broad level. Readers want to know not only how regulations are created, but high-level facts such as how many there are. Facts that we don't cover but which are in scope include estimates for how they affect society and people, how often they are repealed / revised, how long it takes them to be completed, etc. Of course, many factual metrics and classification involve some judgment, which seems to trouble you. It's not necessarily as easy to count the number of rules as it is to, say, count the number of drugs (for the drug article), or the number of people (for a given country), but it is of similar purpose and we have sources that provide the information. Over time, more information to assess the scope and growth of administrative law may be added, such as number of pages (a not uncommon metric used by researchers of law). Again, we aren't writing this article for specialists, and how these classifications might be used in a howto manual is not really what it's about. II  | (t - c) 01:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, "how they affect society and people, how often they are repealed / revised, how long it takes them to be completed" could be very relevant. But that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this question, does it.


 * I have no problem with factual metrics and classification. (I did graduate work at MIT, and taught engineering grad students at Michigan, MIT, and Columbia.)  I don't see any sentence of mine that would lead you to that inference.  You don't read carefully, do you.


 * One of the key skills in being good with "factual metrics and classification" is knowing which numbers communicate something and which either communicate nothing or are bullshit that misinform. If I say "The temperature is 38," what does that tell you?  Nothing.  That could be cold if it's Farenheit, hot if it's Celsius, or REALLY cold if it's Kelvin, or not cold at all in Kelvin if we're trying to study Helium II.  When Republicans tell you anything about tax policy, sure, they've always got numbers, but more often than not, they're numbers that mislead.  Naked numbers without meaningful units and context are meaningless.  And this particular number ("rules") is one of the most meaningless of all.  At least with temperature, once I give you units, temperature units are well defined, and everybody has a frame of reference.  In contrast, "number of rules" is an inherently meaningless unit, and no one has a frame of reference.


 * Evaluating relevance and staying on point of one topic is not your strong suit, is it. Establishing that was a useful point for this discussion.  But there's no point in continuing it further.


 * BostonBowTie (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the section does note that 68% are routine - is that not context? Wikipedia is written in WP:SUMMARY style, so interested readers can click into the reference. And further, it originally discussed major rules, but now wikilinks to their section where people can learn more about that specific classification. II  | (t - c) 02:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Contrasting one meaningless thing with another ("68% are routine") -- OK, fine, that means 32% are not. But what does that mean?  "Routine" on what dimension -- pages, cost to the government, cost to the private sector, economic effect, effect on state government, interesting legal issues, number of words, number of comment letters received by the agency, or ratio of "e's" to "s's"?  "Routine" relative to what threshold?  How does "routine" vs. "nonroutine" change an outcome?  Explained in the context of a nonspecialist?


 * The mere act of "classifying" is meaningless if you don't know what use is made of the classification. I know what "routine" vs "significant" means and how they change process and outcomes, but that's only because I'm one of those few dozen who do know.  I'll bet you don't.  And if you don't know what any of this means, and you're the one interested, then how can it possibly be relevant to the "nonspecialist" reader we're writing for?  Your statement doesn't reflect a basic understanding of how numbers communicate, let alone how these numbers are relevant.  And it reflects no attempt to communicate something with meaning to the "nonspecialist" reader you say you're trying to write to.


 * OK, it's not worth wrestling to the ground with a person that doesn't understand the concept of "relevance," let alone how that concept applies here. So let's do the next best thing.  Consolidate the "major rules" section with the meaningless numbers section.  Move them both to the bottom position in the article.  Neither topic has high relevance (on average, this makes a difference to outcome about once to twice a year), and chronologically it comes last in the process.


 * BostonBowTie (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Now I see the history of how raw numbers got pulled apart from the context that makes them meaningful, and how a section on a minor topic got slotted at the top of the article. I should have guessed.


 * I fixed the article so concepts of a feather flock together, and they're discussed at the logical place in the flow.


 * BostonBowTie (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Loper v Raimondo
How should the recent overturning of chevron be handled? Should all sections referring to chevron be edited into the past tense and a new section added to the end of the article referencing the 2024 decision? 2600:1700:22F0:3FA0:5030:BC48:B7F3:1429 (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)