User talk:BD2412/sandbox/80

- let's put together a draft here for a more balanced article, where we can avoid any back-and-forth, and then build a consensus to move it over. It will have to be a slow and deliberate process, to insure that there's no question at the end of it that we have that consensus. bd2412 T 04:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Would love to! You take the lead, and I'll chime in. Atsme  Talk 📧 10:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

?? Atsme Talk 📧 12:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * redo ping Atsme  Talk 📧 13:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am having a very busy work week. I will work on this as well. I have already made a few tweaks in the direction of reducing content given undue weight, and providing appropriate context. I will have more time to attack this tomorrow night. bd2412  T 01:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, BD - is User:BD2412/sandbox/80 ready for me to review? And do you want me to make suggestions here or on that page? At first glance, I'm seeing a tiny bit of CE (which my eye is trained to look at first) and then I'll look at content when you give me a green light. Atsme  Talk 📧 13:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * this is what I have done so far. Please feel free to have at it. There is quite a bit of innuendo and excessively negative wording here. Much of it is pulled from one-sided attack pieces. I don't want to remove relevant and reliably sourced content, but this at least needs to be balanced much further. bd2412  T 03:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Was reading...will wait till morning and read it again...Atsme Talk 📧 02:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made some further improvements to areas of very unbalanced language. This is the current diff. Cheers! bd2412  T 04:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's easier for me to work the lead first, then one section at a time. Following are my initial thoughts about the lead: I would shorten and combine paragraphs 2 & 4, and make the 3rd (and final lead paragraph) start off with his entering politics in 2002, yada yada. In the Trump Administration section (I would change it to Department of Justice, or Trump administration DOJ) I'd combine Legality and constitutionality of the appointment and Legal challenges into 1 and shorten it considerably. There is far too much detail with no lasting value (although it's very well-written). What we're dealing with is a big tadoo about nothing. SCOTUS rejected the Senate Dem's legal challenge, the Maryland lawsuit was pretty much moot after that when Trump appointed Barr. Whitaker barely served 4 mos. as acting AG, and his article is 4169 words (readable prose) vs 8 years of Janet Reno whose article is under 3,000 words (readable prose). Eric Holder served 6 years and his article is 7857 words (readable prose). Atsme Talk 📧 03:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To me, that seems more like an underserving of previous AGs. My big concern with this article is the degree to which things like World Patent Marketing and a $12,000 lawsuit (a pittance in the construction industry) are phrased to make them seem much more significant than they are to the subject's biography. bd2412  T 02:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Granted, there has been a degree of partisan whitewashing/coatracking throughout the AP2 topic area. Older articles are eventually gutted after the fervor wanes, and most of the time, new material is added over time and cited to better sources. The latter is why I believe the no-action allegations/lawsuits in this article suffer from UNDUE. When the heat is turned up, typically prior to and during elections, what is or is not included is based on POV numbers and to a lesser extent, WP:PAGs. It's the nature of the beast we call crowdsourcing. In today's political climate, partisan leanings are obvious and more aggressive than what I've witnessed in the past. I agree with you that some of the AG articles may be underserved, but we actually do have editors who sit quietly in the background and wait for the retrospectives of historians and academics, and then go in and clean-up the mess that was left behind. RECENTISM, noncompliance with NPOV, and NEWSORG does leave us with a messy pedia from time to time. So...your thoughts about deleting most of the material about legal challenges that were dismissed or went nowhere? Atsme Talk 📧 12:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the degree of acrimony that has been engendered by past efforts to clean up the page, I think the better course of action is to reduce the footprint of such claims to what is due, or to provide a more complete context (i.e., tell both sides of the story rather than just one). I'm happy with where the draft revision is right now, and I am going to implement it. That might get some pushback, which can be dealt with as it comes. We can also discuss possible further changes on the article's talk page. bd2412  T 19:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You did all the work - I feel bad for not doing anything, but I also realize that when one editor is not plagued with writer's block and the mental juices are flowing, it is better if others stand down and let it happen. My only thoughts at this point are that you might get some slack for it being overly detailed, and needs trimming or perhaps you weren't critical enough. You covered a great deal of territory. Back in my publishing days when we paid by the word, I definitely would have trimmed it substantially. 😂 Based on WP's pay scale - I would definitely be saying "atta boy!!" and treated you to a steak dinner - excellent job!!  Fingers crossed in hopes others will agree. Atsme  Talk 📧 22:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please continue to keep an eye on it. We'll see what happens! bd2412  T 22:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)