Talk:Archibald Cox

message: What does "often part of the 'establishment' mean?? That line ought to be removed.--Nate 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is a great article; written very clearly and has a lot of information obviously taken from a lot of sources.  I think some of these source should be cited, however.  The article has External Links and Further Reading sections, but no direct reference to any of the listed material.  I think this article should have a proper Notes or References section and make use of inline citations (either Harvard Style or footnotes).  I will try to add some myself soon, but in the meantime, I have added the Unreferenced tag.
Ukulele 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs references and citations 

message: This article suggests Robert Bork felt the decision to fire Cox was unwise but the article linked above says "Though Bork believed Nixon's order to be valid and appropriate, he considered resigning to avoid being "perceived as a man who did the President's bidding to save my job." These seem to be different things to me Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Saturday Night Massacre]] 

message: i have nominated for GA since the revscore is GA http://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/wp10/710594564/ i trust user:AnthroMimus has it in hand. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks user:Duckduckstop (I really don't know enough about the politics/practices of Wikipedia to know what this exactly means), but I have not half completed the revision I planned. Should I stop now that others presumably are going to get involved? (I normally work on stub/start articles that seem neglected so as to avoid working while there are others doing edits.) AnthroMimus (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't normally go through the WP:GA/N process because there's a 6 month backlog, but the algorithm does not fib. time to recognize your good work. an uninvolved reviewer will come along, and make a to do list. so edit per their comments, and you should have your work promoted to good. cheers on the work. i'll see if i can find a better image. Duckduckstop (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: AnthroMimus, if you still working on the article and have more planned, the GAN should be withdrawn. Nominators who have not been active editors on the article are supposed to ask the active editors first and only then nominate if there is consensus per WP:GANI. In this case, it's clear that with a half-completed planned revision, the article should not be nominated at the present time. I trust Duckduckstop will withdraw the nomination for now. AnthroMimus, you may want to read WP:GANI to see what is involved in the GA nomination process. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: BlueMoonset: I really don't involve myself in the politics of wikipedia and have no opinion one way or the other whether the article should be graded or not. (Since wikipedia is not peer-reviewed, the grading process seems odd to me in any event.) If it helps, I can say I will be finished (largely, I am never really finished) in two weeks. I didn't nominate the article so I'm not sure I can withdraw it (and don't really want to read WP:GANI, which is more turgid than regulations issued by the FTC. Cheers. !AnthroMimus (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: AnthroMimus, as you are still actively working on improving the article, it is not appropriate for it to be nominated until you have completed your (quite extensive) edits. Since Duckduckstop doesn't seem to be interested in withdrawing the nomination, and since leaving it when it could be selected by a reviewer and possibly failed due to instability would be in no one's best interest, I am removing the nomination at this time. It can be reinstated when you have finished your planned improvements. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: BlueMoonset: I am not sure why you keep addressing me on this point. As I said before, I honestly don't care what roving enforcers of WikiPolicies do. Frankly, whether an anonymous editor (who isn't required to have any background in the subject) thinks any particular article is "good" or not (or "stable" or not) and stating his evaluation formally or not doesn't seem to me to be in any "one's best interest." But if you need some response from me, rest assured I will not undo your WikiDecision, and it will not be me who requests any evaluation from anyone at any time. Thanks for stopping by. AnthroMimus (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: The following is a single sentence in this section:
This information is all well-cited, but there are at least two issues with it:
# Terrible writing quality (easily fixed)
# Very likely WP:NOR, because it seems that the editor has strung together these facts without a real citation for the conclusion
I would also suggest that the majority of the information in the extended parenthetical is not, in fact, worthy of inclusion in the article. How do people feel about removing it (as opposed to preserving the info but improving writing quality)?
JeanLackE (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , removal would be just fine. This article used to be much, much longer - I spent some time in 2017 removing paragraph after paragraph of ancillary, irrelevant, or overly detailed information. It was practically a book-length biography of the man. There was plenty I missed, though, and you found some. Go for it. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I'm killing this. It's only gotten worse as of this morning. Thanks . JeanLackE (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious issues in §3.1: Watergate special prosecutor/Terms of engagement 

message: I added information about Shapiro v. Thompson as it has significant information about Cox's oral arguments and how he was important to its affirmation in the Supreme Court. It is also a important case to the Welfare movement, which Cox had a helping hand in. I linked that that case and added relevant citations. Apeoples7 (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shapiro v. Thompson