Talk:Scott Pruitt

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Scott Pruitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927074227/http://www.elections.state.ok.us/06run.html to http://www.elections.state.ok.us/06run.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927074233/http://www.elections.state.ok.us/06pri.html to http://www.elections.state.ok.us/06pri.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081126201412/http://www.elections.state.ok.us/98reprun.html to http://www.elections.state.ok.us/98reprun.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081126201941/http://www.elections.state.ok.us/98reppri.html to http://www.elections.state.ok.us/98reppri.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Scott Pruitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141106173927/http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/11/oklahoma-supreme-court-blocks-enforcement-of-abortion-laws.php to http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/11/oklahoma-supreme-court-blocks-enforcement-of-abortion-laws.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For centuries, Euclidean geometry was the consensus, then non-Euclidean took over.   Newton was once the monarch of physics, then came the views of Riemann and Einstein and everything changed.  It was once the "consensus" that Galileo was wrong, but then he turned out to be right.   As recently as 1900, Mendel's genetics was unknown in large lands such as Russia.   Point being:  It is just a Democrat talking point that the "consensus" of science is anthropogenic global warming, thus suggesting that any other viewpoint is doltish and wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has the "Consensus" in Science Ever Been Wrong? 

message: New section would be needed. Wikipietime (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hearings for Trump administration 

message: here's a source for emails:
http://www.exposedbycmd.org/Scott-Pruitt-Missing-Emails
Victor Grigas (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  emails source 

message: I made an edit to the lead that contained a part about Pruitt intending to "distmantle the EPA". It was reverted by user:Ihardlythinkso, reverted back by user:MrX, and then reverted again. The three sources I used to support itThree Ways New EPA Head Scott Pruitt Will Dismantle Environmental Protection, GizmodoDonald Trump 'taking steps to abolish Environmental Protection Agency', The GuardianScott Pruitt Is Seen Cutting the E.P.A. With a Scalpel, Not a Cleaver, NY Times used the words "dismantle", "abolish" and again "dismantle", respectively. Now the wording could be different, but there is little doubt in these sources that Pruitt is moving to and planning to abolish/dismantle it. It also seems prominent and relevant, no? As the current head of the EPA his handling is being evaluated by observers and critics, who note that current actions along with his history suggest an effort to get rid of the agency. Washington Post is reporting he dismissed half of a "key board’s" scientific advisers and Scientific American is citing censorship over climate change material. In any case, scientists and observers are criticizing his current efforts as being destructive to the EPA. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned in my edit summary, I think your edit is a good one. Also, the relevant sections of the body should be expanded somewhat, for example with material about the contributions he received from the fossil fuel industry. I think the last paragraph of the  'Environmental matters' section should be removed, or at least trimmed significantly. The Washington Times is poor source and the National Review content drifts a bit off topic.- MrX 10:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

text: First you replaced a direct quote from Pruitt with a vaguer "at some point" statement and a claim that he "rejects the stance of the scientific community, including NASA" etc., based on an article in The Desert Sun which doesn't even mention NASA (and another that doesn't say that Pruitt mentioned NASA) -- but he didn't say he rejects anything, he said he doesn't know enough to agree. Then you destroyed Pruitt's statement entirely, and added a claim that "he intends to dismantle the EPA" citing gizmodo which, even if it was accepted as a good RS (which it doesn't look like to me), does not appear to have said Pruitt intends to dismantle the EPA, at least not in any statement that I can find. And the Guardian reference that you're adding now says Donald Trump not Scott Pruitt.  I do not believe that your edits should stand. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter Gulutzan, why don't you read all the sources I cite. Cherry picking specific sources out of the several that I clearly provide isn't going to prove your point. If I cite Gizmodo, it's because I'm also citing Time and The NY Times (I have no idea where your Desert Sun claim comes from). I have not added a single piece of information that wasn't sourced. And there was a false balance in stressing that at some point he blabbered something about climate change that happened to be right when 90% of news articles about him are about his steadfast and clear denial. Do you have any reputable source at all that disputes his climate change denial? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything I said about Prinsgezinde's editing is correct and unrefuted; observers can confirm this by actually looking at the diffs and urls mentioned in the discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part about EPA ambitions 

message: I'm challenging the recent edits made by User:Marquardtika, specifically these and this one (the latter was a direct cut of User:HaeB's edit). There are several problems:
* It was helpful to add the fact that he also challenges specifically "that human activities are a primary contributor to" climate change and "that carbon dioxide is the primary contributor" to climate change, instead of just rejecting climate change. Specifics are a good thing here, as merely saying he rejects it makes it seem like some sort of ideological stance instead of the fringe view that it really is.
* Sources are apparently needed in the lead because people will keep trying to change it. This way we can stick to the sources. 
* The latter, "more general representation of lawsuits" edit created a false balance where there was no need for one. The result was merely restating that he sued the EPA. The clue, and what sources are saying, is that he did it to challenge their environmental protection efforts. That he did it with the help of the fossil fuel industry is also relevant if sources state it.
Per WP:BRD, I'm reverting it for now and keeping it open for discussion. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus that human activities are a primary contributor to climate change...and that carbon dioxide is the primary contributor" to "Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" because I thought it was a pithier way of representing the same information. As far as I know, the scientific consensus on climate change is that human activities and carbon dioxide both impact the climate, so the impact of both of those elements is encompassed within the scientific consensus. It's not that big of a deal, but I thought for the lede we should summarize the big point--he rejects the consensus. Perhaps details about what the consensus is can be further detailed in the body. As for the second part, about EPA lawsuits and fossil fuel contributions, I think it's WP:UNDUE as written in the WP:LEDE. As far as I can tell, the only content we have in the article body about this is "Pruitt has been successful in raising campaign contributions from the energy industry, helping him to become chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association. The oil and gas industry has contributed over $300,000 to Pruitt's campaigns over the years." We have much more content about his lawsuits against the EPA, so I thought that should be mentioned in the lede so as to summarize the largest components of the article. As written, I think we're giving too much emphasis in the lede to these fossil fuel industry contributions, at least according to the content we currently have in the body. Marquardtika (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  did you have a response to my thoughts above? Marquardtika (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Marquardtika, I've been extremely busy irl. Carbon dioxide is also by far most commonly caused by human activities, so that falls into the same category. It's just a small inclusion but specifying what someone rejects about the consensus is usually noted in sources. It gives some more background to a view that many of them seem to adopt without fully understanding it. The fossil industry contributions wouldn't be much of a thing on their own, but they're connected with the rest of the paragraph. The thing was that whenever there was talk about lawsuits, there was also a mention of how it fit in with his views. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying. I hope these edits are clarifying. I tried to summarize per WP:LEAD while retaining the main points. Marquardtika (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRD on edits by user Marquardtika 

message: I've added a NPOV tag to this article and would suggest a roll back of a massive number of edits made recently by a sock editor.  The issues are somewhat related.  The sock editor added a large number of references that while verifiable many not present a complete picture of any particular situation.  A rapid fire of quotes from many articles isn't encyclopedic and doesn't really tell a complete story.  Even worse it can be suggestive in a way that creates false impressions.  
One example of this is this one line paragraph sourced to CNN
On May 1, 2017, Pruitt met with Tom Collier, CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership, and shortly after announced the EPA would withdraw plans to protect Alaska's Bristol Bay from the proposed Pebble Mine.[112]
The content is verifiable to CNN though the "withdraw plans" claim is very questionable.  Reason.com dug into that story a bit and noted that the telling (which is currently Wikipedia's) is very questionable[].  Per Reason the EPA didn't withdraw rather it reversed an earlier decision that simply refused to allow the company to submit an environmental impact study.  The EPA was still able to reject the project but now the company would be allowed to actually submit a plan.  Anyway, Reason goes into quite a bit of detail.  My concern is that a great many of the recently added content follows the pattern above.  One or two damning sentences sourced from an article (no telling the article author would agree with the choice of sentences).  It would be better if these stories were combined to create a more comprehensive narrative. The article can't be considered neutral so long as we don't verify there isn't are other sides to the various stories included.  
:IOW, The socker's usual MO was to overload an article with sources from a particular POV, not to add items which were obviously false.  Weeding back is probably in order, if he's done the same thing here.
:Disclaimer: haven't edited or even read this article before now, my experience is based on his actions in what should be more factually based subjects. Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If the user is a sock, then yes it's sensible to thoroughly review the content added. As for the CNN story and Reason's response, that's a Reason piece by John Stossel. John Stossel rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, and is in general an untrustworthy source on a whole slew of issues. He's not a RS on climate change, nor any issue, whereas CNN is a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  ECarlisle was found to be a sock [].  Reason is a reliable source and the claims made in the article are not related to climate change.  Unless we can show that the claim are wrong, ie, that the EPA previously blocked the mining company from submitting an impact study and that the mine location was ~100 miles from the bay (not next to) I'm not sure we can dismiss it so quickly.  More importantly, it makes the point that there is a second side to this story.  I suspect that is true of many of the other quote and run examples offered by the blocked sock editor.  Springee (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stossel is someone who is known to fabulate on topics related to climate change and the environment. He's not a RS by any stretch of the imagination. If the CNN story is wrong or the text is slanted, it should be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the removal but that is just one example.  There are many similar cases that haven't been shown to be complete or impartial telling of the events.  That is what concerns me about the majority of this article.  Springee (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Springee, if your plan is to revert the large pile of ECarlisle edits again but allow for preserving the few changes interspersed among those edits, then thanks for taking on a necessary cleanup job, and (quoting WP:BLP) "If it [i.e. material in the pile] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my understanding that edits by block-evading accounts should be removed. This seems to be what happened here--sock edits by a banned/blocked editor. We shouldn't reward block evading editors by keeping their edits. The only intervening edit that wasn't vandalism reversion looked to me to be this one, which I restored. If I missed any intervening edits by other editors, please add them back. Marquardtika (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Marquardtika.  That will largely address my NPOV concerns.  I'll remove the Bristol bay one liner as well.  I'm not sure some of the other one line statements in the same section shouldn't be reviewed but I'm not going to leave the NPOV tag up for that.  Springee (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Apparently, whatever rollbacks were made are now back.  The entire first section is blatantly, even flagrantly NPOV.  The content is not encyclopedic at all.  I strongly suggest a serious edit on the scale of a complete overhaul, eliminating the obvious defamation, regardless of how many cited references the mudslingers can dig up, followed by a lock.  Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a message forum.  The articles need to be clean and factual, not an indictment.Clepsydrae (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you be more specific? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag and other recent issues 

message: Substituting the narrative promoted by Definers Public Affairs, the group accused in the lawsuit, for reporting by the New York Times and Politico, to mention two of the sources, is not acceptable. Among other things it glosses over Pruitt's ties to the group and the organization's role in investigating EPA employees who it believed were critical of the Trump administration.  Nor did Definers Public Affairs simply withdraw as they stated. The EPA cancelled the contract in response to the controversy.Joalkap (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you reckon that this content is "the narrative promoted by Definers Public Affairs"? It's content imported from the Wikipedia article Definers Public Affairs, but it looks more neutral to me than what was here. It is definitely better sourced than the press release that was previously in the article. There are a number of other issues with the content you added, like not providing a link to Definers Public Affairs or America Rising (not "Americas Rising"), writing "the Pruitt" rather than Pruitt, and capitalizing all of the words in a section header. The only link you provided that works is to a press release by Environmental Working Group. The Mother Jones, New York Times, and Politico links that you provided all point to "page not found" landing pages. Marquardtika (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Until you reverted it, the links worked just fine. I tried them all again this morning. The fact that a statement appeared elsewhere in Wikipedia does not make it correct or impartial. It is at best a tertiary source by an unknown party. That is not "better sourcing".  The NY Times and Politico sourcing is secondary and attributable. Further your summary artfully whitewashes Definers Public Affairs' role in the subterfuge. Thank you for correcting my typos. I would be happy to include those corrections if you would stop reverting my text. Joalkap (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Over No-Bid Contract to GOP Opposition Research Firm

message: Quote: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."
I'm curious as to how Wikipedia's editors try to make Wikipedia's proclamation of neutrality jibe with the three (count 'em, three) photographs of protest signs strategically placed throughout this article. 
The first comes immediately under the subject's bio box. The sign reads: REMOVE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS FROM OUR GOVERNMENT … NO PRUITT. You can't actually see any protestors; the photo's been tightly cropped to show only the message. The caption tells readers: "Pruitt represented as a climate change denier." This image appears just below Mr. Pruitt's college and law school credentials.
Next, about halfway down the article, we have a smiling woman holding up another sign. This sign reads: NO PRUITT – SAVE THE EPA. The caption helpfully reads: "Resist Trump Rally, NYC, 2017." 
Finally, at the end of the article, we get a shot of the back of someone's head as they hold up yet another sign: STOP PRUITT. The caption informatively explains: "Stop Pruitt sign." This image is positioned next to Mr. Pruitt's electoral history, alongside the vote tallies for his elections as Oklahoma Attorney General. The photo is not from Oklahoma, nor is it from those elections.
Turns out, as it happens, that two of these three photos were taken in the same place, at the same time (within an hour of each other), by the same photographer: "Resist Trump Rally at Chuck Schumer's NYC Office on February 2, 2017." The third photo was taken less than two weeks later, in Washington, D.C., just before Mr. Pruitt was confirmed by the Senate to his current position. 
In other words, all three illustrate the same topic: February 2017 protests against Mr. Pruitt's Senate confirmation. Well, the photographs don't actually capture the protests as such, since the viewer can't tell much from them or learn much from those vague and redundant captions. Mostly, all three photos present Wikipedia's readers with anti-Pruitt messages, which is rather, one gathers, the intent. Any one photo would serve to illustrate the article's section describing Mr. Pruitt's confirmation as head of the EPA. Three close-up photos (all taken in February 2017) showing protest signs, however, merely serve to espouse and reinforce the POV of the signs themselves — in a way that is not "fair," not "proportionate," and certainly not indicative of a Neutral Point of View.
NicholasNotabene (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the pictures were added on February 4 by Syced, whom I hereby ping. I agree that they shouldn't be added. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

text: If we had more pictures about Pruitt on Commons, we would add them. Pruitt's birthday party, an advertisement for a Pruitt campaign, the building in which Pruitt's office is, anything really. Commons needs more diverse pictures, and I am working hard on it by developing the Commons Android app. I also spend a a lot of time adding pictures to random articles. The Pruitt article contains 5 portraits of Pruitt, so having 3 demonstration pictures is not shocking. The article is very long so I think it could use more pictures in the fifth section. I just added two more, showing Pruitt at political events. Cheers! Syced (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Neutrality and Photos 

message: Of course he was replaced as a U.S. Representative by a special election, not a gubernatorial appointment.  This is hardly remarkable as the Constitution provides for gubernatorial appointment only of Senators, not Representatives.  72.106.148.2 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Largent 

message: The long list of controversies contains some items that are biased or simply not true. I believe it is important that understandably critical claims about a public official's behavior should be substantantiated with unbiased and factual information only. As an example, there is a text saying "During one trip, Pruitt used Emirates, a costly Dubai-based airline with a reputation for luxurious service." Fact is that Emirates is an airline with relatively low rates for intercontinental flights, so the term 'costly' is not factual. The statement that they 'have a reputation for luxurious services' is irrelevant, because it's certainly not unethical to choose an airline based on its service record. I propose to update this and other non-factual information, thereby increasing the neutral informational value of the description of controversies.
:Thank you for noticing! You are right. The non-factual information has been removed. Cheers! Syced (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-factual information regarding airlines 

message: This man is killing me. I can't keep up with these scandals (at least note the pre-EPA days). Can someone incorporate this stunning but complicated NYT piece into the article?:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/us/politics/scott-pruitt-oklahoma-epa.html Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: More on pre-EPA corruption: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/scott-pruitt-lobbyist-house.html Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Actually when I saw that latest bit I thought of you right away (you said awhile back something like "this never stops!).  I'm going to put the info re mileage regs in the environmental article right now.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, please help a brother out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

text: More pre-EPA corruption: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/03/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-campaign-reimbursements/index.html?sr=twCNNp050318epa-scott-pruitt-campaign-reimbursements0545PMStory&CNNPolitics=Tw. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

text: user:Snooganssnoogans If you have such strong personal views about this article subject (from one of your edit summaries , then perhaps it would be better if you did not edit the article, per COI. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The man is scandal-ridden by the definition of the term and has been described as such on a weekly basis by RS since the start of 2018 and on daily basis in the last two months. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past you've been criticized for adding negative material exclusively to articles about right wing politicians. If such claims are so prevalent then they'll surely be added. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages are not a forum, but expressing opinions while discussing sources is not forbidden either. "per COI" <- Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. "criticized for adding negative material exclusively to X" <- Is there a Wikipedia rule against this? "If such claims are so prevalent then they'll surely be added" <- Very true. Cheers! Syced (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there is nothing in the rules that only those who don't care are allowed to edit. There is nothing wrong with disliking right-wingers. (Or liking them.) When reliable sources start to find positive things to say about this... hrrmm... person, you are free to add them. Until Snooganssnoogans' actions lead to an article at odds with what the reliable sources say, your attempt to shoo away editors who disagree with you is unjustified. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. Editors are free to edit wherever they want. My opinions have no bearing. Thanks. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-EPA ethics problems 

message: This article is getting so unwieldy in the amount and depth of scandals that I can't identify where to put this particular lie of Pruitt's into the article: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/14/politics/epa-pruitt-security-detail/index.html. I need help, so I'm creating this talk which is separate from his pre-EPA ethics problems. I thought I could handle his EPA ethics problems, but it's just too much of a headache. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I frequently have objected to splits because they are never very well-read compared to the main article and are sometimes, IMO, used to hide away the naughty things that a corporation did--or at least it used to be corporations but with this administration it seems to have come down to individuals more frequently as well.  I can see a split of Pruitt's EPA admin info as long as this article included only a very short section.  What do you think?  Gandydancer (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I only support splits when articles become insanely long and when there is no reasonable way to trim content. I don't think this article is there yet. I get the feeling that it's easily possible to trim content and make it more concise. For example, doesn't the 'Lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency' section duplicate content from his Okie AG tenure? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go along with whatever you think.  I've experience at both the BP spill and the Ebola epidemic articles and I know it can be a difficult path to take.  It was needed in the case of BP and only made a mess of the Ebola article.  The problem is that people just do not take care of the splits but rather just keep putting new stuff in the main article.  I'll certainly support any trimming that you do.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wonder if anything could be moved to a History of the Environmental Protection Agency article (that page currently just redirects to the EPA article). Or if any could be moved to the Trump environmental policy article. Seems like in any case there will be a lot of overlap. Neutralitytalk 21:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPA ethics problems 

message: First, I want to say that I'm very, very sorry if I have stepped on a newbie's toes with my edit.  It needed a lot of fixing and what I did was to use the edit that I'd made at the Trump environmental article.  It is long, perhaps, for this article.  I would not feel at all bad if someone were to cut it.  On the other hand, this news seems to be well-publicized and it may become even more notable...and it may be something that brings a lot of readers to this article. Time will tell... Gandydancer (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, well, well...it seems that some Republicans have constituents living in chemical-ized parts of this great land of ours and are willing to speak out.  Would there be any concern if I were to delete info re this issue added yesterday under the "Rules" heading and include it all under this heading?  I did transfer some of it, though I am unable to reach the site that was used. Also, for some odd reason I am unable to correct the Brian Fitzpatrick link.  What am I doing wrong???  Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no objection so I will delete the section I mentioned.  Gandydancer (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  PFOS and PFOA study publication withheld 

message: "Why Hasn’t Trump Fired Scott Pruitt? Because Pruitt Can Fire Robert Mueller"   Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting development... 

message: He resigned today July 5, 2018 A mirrer (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated. Please note his resignation becomes effective tomorrow according to his resignation letter to Pres. Trump. Zingarese (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Therefore the opening paragraph should not say "served". He is still serving until tomorrow. Please revert that change. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Zingarese (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resignation  

message: Pruitt's resignation creates a degree of closure, which will make it easier to summarize and write more concisely. There's going to be a lot of really well-written news articles coming out that summarize Pruitt's tenure and all the scandals. It's important to capture the contemporary assessments of his whole tenure for the long-term encyclopedic value. These summaries may also help us to trim and write more concisely. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try to rewrite the article concisely 

message: Change "He has served as the fourteenth Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since February 17, 2017." to "He served as the fourteenth Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from February 17, 2017, to July 5, 2017." to update the page to reflect his resignation. Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-resigns/index.html 104.57.237.207 (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done, though with the correct dates. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2018 

message: In the fourth paragraph of the lede, EPA is rendered as "E.P.A." (with periods) and also "EPA" (without). This occurs several times throught the same paragraph.
Please read the Manual of Style and try to be consistent. Having to constantly clean up these copyediting errors can easily dampen contributors' enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Kinkyturnip (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 03:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A maddening lack of consistency 

message: "Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are a primary contributor to climate change.[3]"
Please either remove, since it isn't where it belongs in the article, or rewrite this sentence to remove its clear bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with the sentence, nor is it any indication of bias. To the contrary, it is factual. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  please remove bias 

message: This article seems long overdue for an assessment, as it's still rated "start." Activist (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for assessment

message: Caden.Schott7, I reverted your changes to the top because they did not appear to follow the sources in the rest of the article per MOS:LEADREL. Some updating may be due, but it should follow the emphasis and tone of independent WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Top