This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pardon of Joe Arpaio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Joe Arpaio was copied or moved into Pardon of Joe Arpaio with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
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 sourced must 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 page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
@ Infamia: I don't want to edit war with you. In my version the article redirects to Joe_Arpaio#Trump_Presidential_pardon, which is a much longer and better written article about the pardon. Can we keep it like that until a better article is created? Galobtter ( talk) 08:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I merged that material into the article. Some of it is good, but some should probably be fixed. Infamia ( talk) 09:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided.and
A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.That's nothing to do with whether you edited the article. I didn't say it wasn't notable. Just because something is notable doesn't mean an article has to be created right now, if the current section on it is better. Which it is. Galobtter ( talk) 09:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I've decided to simply work on the article and post on Talk:Joe Arpaio about cutting from the pardon sectoin instead of edit warring. An article anyway needs to be created. Galobtter ( talk) 10:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Animalparty: I don't think the full text is redundant. The image is very hard to read, and I personally didn't even notice that the text was there. Having the full text there is nice to have for exact context. This is similar to Dismissal of James Comey which has the full text of the termination letter. Galobtter ( talk) 18:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss before making any further changes to the article. I have removed the statements that were noncompliant with PAGs (like the character assassinations, etc. by detractors). Atsme 📞 📧 05:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no dog in this either way, it just came up on my watchpage and I make a point of reviewing edit reverts. Not even allowing two hours to go by before reverting his edit is not in the spirit of talking things out peacefully on a talk page. I don't think his intent was to blank the whole page since he didn't just cut away without trying to put some substance back in the meantime. I'm not sure what all the rush is about, wikipedia is intentionally meant to be a slow moving process. Trying to suggest a 'silent consensus' or that the two page creators agreeing one way is substantive consensus without waiting more than a couple hours to hear back from the original complainer is a bit silly. All I've stated, which I will state again is when there is point of view objections, particularly on a political page or a page that involves a BLP (which this is both), the safe bet is to remove the content and discuss it on the talk page. Thus, I'm again restoring his removals. Restoring it without giving him a chance to respond will be seen as continued edit warring. Sulfurboy ( talk) 07:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah, you have the article PP apparently because of the editing disruption that was initially caused by a now blocked editor. Can you please remove the protection so we can clean-up the policy violations, and make the lede compliant with WP:MOSLEAD, etc., which is what I had accomplished before the disruptive sock reverted? Atsme 📞 📧 17:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
removed BLP violationsI think this is third time I've asked you to explain why the content a BLP violation. It's all cited to RS - so there has to be a very good explanation. I highly doubt the entire thing is so - if it is only certain sentences remove only them. I hardly think that analyses of the legality of the pardon are "BLP violations." I don't even know who the living person is- is it Arpaio or is it Trump who the violations are against, let alone how the statements are BLP violations.
the sock being blocked actually does have something to do with it.Again why? Galobtter ( talkó tuó mió) 08:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
References
|
@ Atsme: I was mainly agreeing on the fact that NPOV doesn't mean that false-balance has to be created. Galobtter ( talkó tuó mió) 12:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC
Because you attempted to connect it to the whole reason Trump pardoned him when he did, and that's not accurate. He pardoned him before sentencing which was most important so he wouldn't serve any jail time. Trump thinking there would be more of an audience has nothing to do with actual timing of the pardon, and everything to do with Trump grabbing airtime like he always does.
He could have done it weeks before AFAIK. So it's a relevant fact - doesn't really matter all that much, but still relevant. I wasn't attempting any sort of connection. You can add the fact he wanted to do it before sentencing. I still think it can be kept in the article. Maybe under a different heading.
Galobtter (
talkó tuó mió) 12:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter and Softlavender, I would very much appreciate your input regarding the following proposal to update named section with a bit more clarity regarding the events as they occurred. Atsme 📞 📧 22:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
After the August 25, 2017 pardon was issued, Bolton requested legal arguments from attorneys on both sides regarding how they wanted to move forward since the pardon was issued before Arpaio was convicted. [1] Bolton also requested a response from prosecutors with the Department of Justice, who stated in a court filing dated September 21, 2017, that Arpaio "is entitled to have the guilty verdict and all rulings in his criminal contempt of court case formally nullified by the court as a result of the pardon." [2] They also acknowledged in their statement the absence of any legal precedent in the Arpaio case which could answer "what should happen when someone receives a pardon after a verdict is reached (in this case by a judge) but before the conviction is officially entered." [3] Several organizations, individuals, and members of Congress had petitioned the court asking the judge "not to accept the pardon or not to dismiss the finding of guilt", several of whom considered the pardon Trump's affront to the judiciary. [1] Kathy Brody, legal director for the ACLU of Arizona said, “From our perspective, it’s very important that the findings of fact remain.” [1]
At the October 4, 2017 hearing, Bolton held the position that "she had no choice but to validate Arpaio’s Aug. 25 pardon by President Donald Trump and throw out the finding of guilt in his criminal contempt case because he had not yet been sentenced and was not afforded an opportunity to appeal the verdict." [1] Arpaio's attorneys filed a motion to "formally dismiss Arpaio's criminal case" which included removing Bolton's reasoning for the guilty verdict in her ruling. [2] With the guilty verdict dismissed, Bolton agreed to carefully consider her decision on the other rulings. [1]
On October 19, 2017, Bolton issued a 4 page order including her reasons for not vacating all the rulings in the case, including the fact that Trump's pardon did not "revise the historical facts" of the case, [4] even though the pardon may have eliminated the possibility of punishment. [5] She wrote:
“ The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial recordkeeping.” United States v Noonan, 906.F2d 952, 955 (3d Cir. 1990). To vacate all rulings in this case would run afoul of this important distinction. The Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt. [6] ” ACLU-AZ deputy legal director, Cecillia Wang, attorney for the plaintiffs agreed with Bolton's denial of the motion stating, "The court made detailed findings after a bench trial about Joe Arpaio's criminal conduct. The court’s findings and documents in the record of the case should stand and now will stand." [4]
References
- ^ a b c d e Kiefer, Michael (October 4, 2017). "Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's presidential pardon accepted by federal judge". The Republic. AZCentral.com-USA Today network. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ a b Billeaud, Jacques (September 21, 2017). "Prosecutors Chime in on Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Pardon". Associated Press. US News & World Report. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ Gerstein, Josh (September 21, 2017). "Justice Department: Trump pardon merits nullifying rulings in Arpaio case denied the motion". Politico. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ a b Cassidy, Megan (October 20, 2017). "Judge denies Arpaio's motion to erase his criminal contempt conviction". Arizona Republic. Retrieved 2017-10-21.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
:3
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ "Joe Arpaio Ruling". October 19, 2017. p. 4. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
The weekend is upon us - I added the clarification, so let's discuss if you believe there is anything noncompliant with our PAGs. Please feel free to copy-edit as needed. I worked diligently to arrive at the most neutral, dispassionate tone stating only the facts. Atsme 📞 📧 02:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Softlavender: I don't know if the material should be kept or removed but BLP applies to any statement anywhere that talks about living persons. Galobtter ::( talkó tuó mió) 12:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender - please stop edit warring. The material you keep restoring are violations of BLP - particularly the allegation of racism which is a blatant BLP violation, regardless of whose opinion or analysis it happens to be. It is defamatory and unwarranted. I have challenged its inclusion as a BLP violation, and it is up to you to seek consensus, not me for removing it. Read BLP. Also see the USA article. Now please self-revert. Atsme 📞 📧 12:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter, I trust you will make the corrections you deem proper, and compliant with PAGs. Atsme 📞 📧 14:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTSOAPBOX which is policy - there is a lot of material in that opinion piece that better suits inclusion in this article without the need for disparaging a living person with unsupported value laden labels: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion #2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. Atsme 📞 📧 15:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I recently opened a discussion at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP_vio regarding this edit. Atsme 📞 📧 14:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm including the explanation provided by Masem at BLP/N: Atsme 📞 📧 17:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Sourced and attributed criticism of Arpaio is perfectly valid on the biographical page about Arpaio. But it is inappropriate when it is not central to the point of the page about the pardon, which is more an issue due to criticism of Trump and the pardoning process, rather than Arpaio himself. It's a coatrack issue. Per BLP we are meant to write impartially and that means in this case avoiding quotes that coatrack unnecessary opinions that are not essential to Chafetz's argument. --MASEM (t) 10:30 am, Today (UTC−6)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pardon of Joe Arpaio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Joe Arpaio was copied or moved into Pardon of Joe Arpaio with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
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 sourced must 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 page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
@ Infamia: I don't want to edit war with you. In my version the article redirects to Joe_Arpaio#Trump_Presidential_pardon, which is a much longer and better written article about the pardon. Can we keep it like that until a better article is created? Galobtter ( talk) 08:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I merged that material into the article. Some of it is good, but some should probably be fixed. Infamia ( talk) 09:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided.and
A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.That's nothing to do with whether you edited the article. I didn't say it wasn't notable. Just because something is notable doesn't mean an article has to be created right now, if the current section on it is better. Which it is. Galobtter ( talk) 09:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I've decided to simply work on the article and post on Talk:Joe Arpaio about cutting from the pardon sectoin instead of edit warring. An article anyway needs to be created. Galobtter ( talk) 10:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Animalparty: I don't think the full text is redundant. The image is very hard to read, and I personally didn't even notice that the text was there. Having the full text there is nice to have for exact context. This is similar to Dismissal of James Comey which has the full text of the termination letter. Galobtter ( talk) 18:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss before making any further changes to the article. I have removed the statements that were noncompliant with PAGs (like the character assassinations, etc. by detractors). Atsme 📞 📧 05:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no dog in this either way, it just came up on my watchpage and I make a point of reviewing edit reverts. Not even allowing two hours to go by before reverting his edit is not in the spirit of talking things out peacefully on a talk page. I don't think his intent was to blank the whole page since he didn't just cut away without trying to put some substance back in the meantime. I'm not sure what all the rush is about, wikipedia is intentionally meant to be a slow moving process. Trying to suggest a 'silent consensus' or that the two page creators agreeing one way is substantive consensus without waiting more than a couple hours to hear back from the original complainer is a bit silly. All I've stated, which I will state again is when there is point of view objections, particularly on a political page or a page that involves a BLP (which this is both), the safe bet is to remove the content and discuss it on the talk page. Thus, I'm again restoring his removals. Restoring it without giving him a chance to respond will be seen as continued edit warring. Sulfurboy ( talk) 07:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah, you have the article PP apparently because of the editing disruption that was initially caused by a now blocked editor. Can you please remove the protection so we can clean-up the policy violations, and make the lede compliant with WP:MOSLEAD, etc., which is what I had accomplished before the disruptive sock reverted? Atsme 📞 📧 17:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
removed BLP violationsI think this is third time I've asked you to explain why the content a BLP violation. It's all cited to RS - so there has to be a very good explanation. I highly doubt the entire thing is so - if it is only certain sentences remove only them. I hardly think that analyses of the legality of the pardon are "BLP violations." I don't even know who the living person is- is it Arpaio or is it Trump who the violations are against, let alone how the statements are BLP violations.
the sock being blocked actually does have something to do with it.Again why? Galobtter ( talkó tuó mió) 08:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
References
|
@ Atsme: I was mainly agreeing on the fact that NPOV doesn't mean that false-balance has to be created. Galobtter ( talkó tuó mió) 12:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC
Because you attempted to connect it to the whole reason Trump pardoned him when he did, and that's not accurate. He pardoned him before sentencing which was most important so he wouldn't serve any jail time. Trump thinking there would be more of an audience has nothing to do with actual timing of the pardon, and everything to do with Trump grabbing airtime like he always does.
He could have done it weeks before AFAIK. So it's a relevant fact - doesn't really matter all that much, but still relevant. I wasn't attempting any sort of connection. You can add the fact he wanted to do it before sentencing. I still think it can be kept in the article. Maybe under a different heading.
Galobtter (
talkó tuó mió) 12:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter and Softlavender, I would very much appreciate your input regarding the following proposal to update named section with a bit more clarity regarding the events as they occurred. Atsme 📞 📧 22:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
After the August 25, 2017 pardon was issued, Bolton requested legal arguments from attorneys on both sides regarding how they wanted to move forward since the pardon was issued before Arpaio was convicted. [1] Bolton also requested a response from prosecutors with the Department of Justice, who stated in a court filing dated September 21, 2017, that Arpaio "is entitled to have the guilty verdict and all rulings in his criminal contempt of court case formally nullified by the court as a result of the pardon." [2] They also acknowledged in their statement the absence of any legal precedent in the Arpaio case which could answer "what should happen when someone receives a pardon after a verdict is reached (in this case by a judge) but before the conviction is officially entered." [3] Several organizations, individuals, and members of Congress had petitioned the court asking the judge "not to accept the pardon or not to dismiss the finding of guilt", several of whom considered the pardon Trump's affront to the judiciary. [1] Kathy Brody, legal director for the ACLU of Arizona said, “From our perspective, it’s very important that the findings of fact remain.” [1]
At the October 4, 2017 hearing, Bolton held the position that "she had no choice but to validate Arpaio’s Aug. 25 pardon by President Donald Trump and throw out the finding of guilt in his criminal contempt case because he had not yet been sentenced and was not afforded an opportunity to appeal the verdict." [1] Arpaio's attorneys filed a motion to "formally dismiss Arpaio's criminal case" which included removing Bolton's reasoning for the guilty verdict in her ruling. [2] With the guilty verdict dismissed, Bolton agreed to carefully consider her decision on the other rulings. [1]
On October 19, 2017, Bolton issued a 4 page order including her reasons for not vacating all the rulings in the case, including the fact that Trump's pardon did not "revise the historical facts" of the case, [4] even though the pardon may have eliminated the possibility of punishment. [5] She wrote:
“ The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial recordkeeping.” United States v Noonan, 906.F2d 952, 955 (3d Cir. 1990). To vacate all rulings in this case would run afoul of this important distinction. The Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt. [6] ” ACLU-AZ deputy legal director, Cecillia Wang, attorney for the plaintiffs agreed with Bolton's denial of the motion stating, "The court made detailed findings after a bench trial about Joe Arpaio's criminal conduct. The court’s findings and documents in the record of the case should stand and now will stand." [4]
References
- ^ a b c d e Kiefer, Michael (October 4, 2017). "Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's presidential pardon accepted by federal judge". The Republic. AZCentral.com-USA Today network. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ a b Billeaud, Jacques (September 21, 2017). "Prosecutors Chime in on Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Pardon". Associated Press. US News & World Report. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ Gerstein, Josh (September 21, 2017). "Justice Department: Trump pardon merits nullifying rulings in Arpaio case denied the motion". Politico. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ a b Cassidy, Megan (October 20, 2017). "Judge denies Arpaio's motion to erase his criminal contempt conviction". Arizona Republic. Retrieved 2017-10-21.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
:3
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ "Joe Arpaio Ruling". October 19, 2017. p. 4. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
The weekend is upon us - I added the clarification, so let's discuss if you believe there is anything noncompliant with our PAGs. Please feel free to copy-edit as needed. I worked diligently to arrive at the most neutral, dispassionate tone stating only the facts. Atsme 📞 📧 02:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Softlavender: I don't know if the material should be kept or removed but BLP applies to any statement anywhere that talks about living persons. Galobtter ::( talkó tuó mió) 12:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender - please stop edit warring. The material you keep restoring are violations of BLP - particularly the allegation of racism which is a blatant BLP violation, regardless of whose opinion or analysis it happens to be. It is defamatory and unwarranted. I have challenged its inclusion as a BLP violation, and it is up to you to seek consensus, not me for removing it. Read BLP. Also see the USA article. Now please self-revert. Atsme 📞 📧 12:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter, I trust you will make the corrections you deem proper, and compliant with PAGs. Atsme 📞 📧 14:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTSOAPBOX which is policy - there is a lot of material in that opinion piece that better suits inclusion in this article without the need for disparaging a living person with unsupported value laden labels: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion #2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. Atsme 📞 📧 15:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I recently opened a discussion at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP_vio regarding this edit. Atsme 📞 📧 14:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm including the explanation provided by Masem at BLP/N: Atsme 📞 📧 17:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Sourced and attributed criticism of Arpaio is perfectly valid on the biographical page about Arpaio. But it is inappropriate when it is not central to the point of the page about the pardon, which is more an issue due to criticism of Trump and the pardoning process, rather than Arpaio himself. It's a coatrack issue. Per BLP we are meant to write impartially and that means in this case avoiding quotes that coatrack unnecessary opinions that are not essential to Chafetz's argument. --MASEM (t) 10:30 am, Today (UTC−6)