This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC 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 WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose: U.S. attorney makes me think of an attorney from the United States, not an official of the U.S. government. You look at the press releases from DOJ, even they capitalize "attorney", i.e. "U.S. Attorney Announces The Appointment Of Chief Public Information Officer", "Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Robert J. Troester as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma effective December 26, 2021.", "U.S. Attorney Troester", etc. It is the office of an official, but said official is also referred as U.S. Attorney as a title, "Rachael S. Rollins, of Massachusetts, to be United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts..." as evidenced here. Styling it as "attorney" just looks clumsy to me. Snickers2686 (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of whether you would capitalise the term when it is being used a job title in the singular (per your examples) but how it is capitalised in the plural. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But for the article title, we are talking about United States "attorneys" in the plural. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, we would say: "Joe Biden is President of the United States" but "Ronald Raegan and Richard Nixon were presidents of the United States". If we add a modifier to the title or otherwise modify the title (such as plural) we use sentence case rather than title case. Pluralisation is the distinguishing matter for capitalisation. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Snickers2686: I question whether interim or acting U.S. Attorneys should be included in this list, as interim USAs are either appointed by AG Garland or the federal district court, and acting USAs are First Assistant U.S. Attorneys who assume the position by virtue of the Vacancies Reform Act. They are not presidentially appointed. I would suggest only including those who received the advice and consent of the Senate and then are "appointed by Joe Biden", and (to my knowledge, none so far) acting USAs appointed by Biden who were holding another Senate-confirmed positions. Sierra1000 (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Snickers2686: I think this is an accuracy issue. Maybe the title of the list can be changed to reflect the fact that this would be a list about USAs appointed during the Biden administration, or something to that effect. If all acting USAs are to be included, just so you know, there would be a large number of them who assumed office around March when Trump-appointed USAs' resignations were requested. Sierra1000 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Snickers2686: I am still of the view though, that First AUSAs who assumed office by virtue of the vacancies reform act should not be included. I have no issue with including interim USAs appointed by the AG or district court under 28 U.S.C. § 546. Sierra1000 (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Snickers2686: I think none of the acting or interim ones should be included, as they are not "appointed by Biden". But my second best preference is to only include ones who are interim (i.e. appointed by Garland/District Court), but not acting US Attorneys under vacancies reform act. Just FYI, the South Carolina one you added was not appointed by Garland according to the USAO press release. Sierra1000 (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]