The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
A fact from Jack Smith (lawyer) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 December 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please edit this page to include the FACT that https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-VI/part-600 "The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" gives the Attorney General the right to appoint a Special Counsel. Please CHANGE the "Unlawful" heading under his picture as it is clearly misleading and patently false. Andy Cowen (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments3 people in discussion
An editor changed the infobox parameter from "incumbent" to "illegal" in the infobox as part of a series of other edits (see above), causing me to revert them all and to ask for an explanation of why they imagined that this was appropriate. They are invited to make a case in Wikipedia policy for their edits. I have not reviewed all of the other edits to see if they also breach NPOV or SYNTH, editors are welcome to reinstate appropriate edits as they see fit, within policy. Acroterion(talk)18:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
See below, please. I'm open to having my edits reviewed, but please provide a reason you suspect me of trying to breach NPOV or SYNTH. That's like me saying "Acroterion has never denied setting fire to an orphanage." Again, let's have a civil discussion about content without innuendo about my character. Bremps...19:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Acroterion I ask that you strike out the text containing the wink-nod implications about me. Again, I want this to be civil, and I'm assuming you're editing in good faith. Bremps...19:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You made a good-faith edit, based on what I'm hearing, but introduced something well beyond what you might have meant to convey. I'm criticizing your edit, not your character. Acroterion(talk)19:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I probably won't have the energy to dispute this further (we'll see), but I want to be clear that I only changed the parameter upon Cannon's ruling that Smith's appointment was unlawful. I imitated the page on Chad Wolf, which I saw as precedent. Again, I am not adding the unlawful parameter based on personal feelings, only based on what reliable sources described as Cannon's ruling. Cannon, as a judge, is the arbiter of law until a higher court intervenes. "Unlawful" does not imply agreement or disagreement with Cannon's decision, it only reflects the legal reality at the time. Bremps...18:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Smith remains incumbent special counsel. Why do you think what amounts to a BLP violation is appropriate? As for Wolf, think that's really inappropriate in an infobox too, and will remove it. Stuffing infoboxes with things that require context is one of the banes of infoboxes. Acroterion(talk)19:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there we go, a content argument. I concede you have a point, but I still think it should be reflected that his appointment was ruled unlawful (which is a fact) somewhere within the infobox. I'm agnostic as to whether it remains underneath his office parameter. Bremps...19:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia isn't the news, infoboxes aren't vehicles for conveying something that is properly described in a paragraph, he's still special counsel, and please don't put things in infoboxes that look exactly like the kind of routine partisan soapboxing (or worse) that we get all the time. I understand that you meant it in good faith, but I think your judgment and excessive reliance on a single example to claim a precedent is flawed in this case. Your stretch of Cannon's opinion into something that overrides "incumbent" is indeed an inappropriate synthesis. As for the other edits, you are welcome to gain consensus to put them back, but I would appreciate it if other editors reviewed them first. Acroterion(talk)19:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply