Talk:John Ashcroft/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Top

People, this should be an enclycopedia, not a political site. People quote from this website! It should be from a neutral perspective! ---

note to self (or anyone else who gets the chance to look this up before I do): the Operation TIPS page says that the U.S. post office is now considering participating in spite of having balked originally. Verify. --KQ

note to self: you forget a lot, don't you? --KQ

here's this delicious link for anyone with a keen sense of irony. [[User:Koyaanis Qa tsi|--KQ]]

Should a link to Ashcroftism be put here? It's currently an orphan.- Crenner 02:31 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

The end of paragraph 4 under U.S. Attorney General has an unlinked citation. There's no indication of where it's intended to go.

Is the "personal quotes" section necessary? Esp. given the content, it seems like just a way to smear Ashcroft. Moreover, we don't have a comparable section for other famous people, e.g. George W. Bush, Al Gore, or Janet Reno. I will remove it on Tuesday (2 days from now) if nobody objects. Meelar 04:16, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Maybe link it to Wikiquote, like George W. Bush's Page is? If no one minds, I shall do so in a few days. NerdOfTheNorth July 27, 2004

To point out that most people in govt. disagree with some laws is to miss the specific nature of the criticism of Ashcroft--disagreement with abortion laws is more contentious than most subjects. Also, the criticism is not necessarily due to his religion. I have no problems with John Ashcroft's religion; it's his views on abortion that give me the willies. All this means I'm reverting. Meelar 20:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Resignation

John Aschroft resigned on November 2, confirmed on November 9. But so will all of Bush's Cabinet members. Is Ashcorft's permanent (yet?)? How should it be worded in the article? We seem to have a quasi-revert war. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Permanent. --Wetman 21:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Never mind now, apparently. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ashcroft is still technically the Attorney General. He's announced his resignation, and a replacement has been nominated, but he hasn't yet left the position of AG. According the White House, he'll stay on until a replacement is confirmed [1]. And the Justice Department website still lists him as AG. Until he actually leaves the office, the article should say that Ashcroft "is" the AG, not "was". - Walkiped 21:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's OK now

Record as Attorney General

there is very little on what ashcroft actually did as Attorney General so far. --Wetman 21:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tainted Justice

Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft illegally contaminated Department of Justice hiring by favoring conservative applicants. By Bruce J. Einhorn

June 28, 2008

'The foundation of justice is good faith." So wrote Cicero, the great Roman philosopher. It now appears that the Bush administration chose to ignore this and to instead uproot the foundation of justice, and in particular the foundation of the U.S. Department of Justice, with its traditional grounding in fairness and nonpartisanship under the rule of law.

In a report issued this week, the department's inspector general concluded that John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, while serving as attorney general, allowed for "screening committees" that illegally used ideological rather than purely merit-based factors in the selection and rejection of applicants for career positions in the department's elite honors program.

The report found that in 2002 and again in 2006, these screening committees purposely politicized the hiring process for nonpartisan jobs at the Justice Department by "de-selecting" a disproportionate number of "seemingly qualified" applicants because of their perceived liberal or Democratic Party sympathies. In 2006, for instance, the report found that candidates whose applications betrayed "liberal affiliations" were de-selected at more than three times the rate of those who seemed conservative.

Additionally, graduates from the nation's most competitive law schools were rejected for honors program positions based on their membership in the liberal-leaning American Constitution Society. At the same time, applicants with lesser credentials who were associated with the rightward-tilting Federalist Society were more likely to be hired than de-selected, according to the report.


In other words, under President Bush's cronies at the Justice Department, a deliberate effort was made to reposition to the hard-rudder right the core of career-level government counsel. That sucking sound you hear is the submersion of good faith in the administration of justice into the mud of prohibited political dogma.

Justice Department decisions on the hiring of honors program and other career legal jobs are supposed to be governed by Title 28, Section 42.1(a) of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, which says that "political affiliation" (along with race, religion, sexual orientation and other factors) should have no place in employment decisions at the department. The Civil Service Reform Act also specifically "prohibits the department from discrimination in hiring for career positions based on political affiliation."

The bad faith shown by the illegally contaminated hiring policies of the Bush-Ashcroft-Gonzales administration at the Justice Department has corrupted the credibility of the department as the nation's law firm. It is charged with representing the American people and their government without fear or favor. Now, however, every criminal investigation and prosecution, every civil suit, every regulatory action and every piece of advice to other federal government bodies may well be subject to second-guessing because of the political pollution that has poisoned the pool of professional lawyers who conduct the day-to-day legal work at the department.

Not since Watergate and the reign of Republican Atty. Gen. (and later federal felon and prisoner) John Mitchell has the integrity of the Department of Justice been placed in such jeopardy. For those men and women of quality and character who have been hired on their merits and who have struggled through the thicket placed in the way of doing their duty as America's attorneys, these must be times that truly try their souls.

I admit to a personal interest in this issue. In 1979, following a clerkship with a liberal federal appeals court judge who had been appointed to the bench by a Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was hired as an attorney in the Justice Department's honors program. For 11 years, as a career prosecutor and supervisor with the department's criminal division, I conducted business without serious partisan interference.

Although I was a registered Democrat and a liberal, my politics were never discussed on the job and were never a consideration by me or my bosses (many of them appointed by Republican presidents) in regard to the investigating, filing, trying and appealing of cases. Under the Reagan administration, I was even given the privilege of screening applications for the honors program. In deliberating with other screeners, I never once heard expressions of partisan interests in the assessment of applicants.


The principle I was taught as a Justice Department attorney -- that professionally appointed, nonpartisan government counsel should park their political prejudices on the street and not bring them as unwanted baggage into the corridors of power -- served me well as a prosecutor and later as a federal judge (appointed by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush). The disdain for that principle shown by the current President Bush and his attorneys general makes me fear for the future of a Department of Justice that to me embodied public service at its best.

Bruce J. Einhorn, a retired federal judge, is a law professor at Pepperdine University and a member of the American Constitution Society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.20.165 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Compare the Ashcroft article to the Janet Reno article

It seems that the tenor of the Ashcroft article is much more critical & tongue in cheek than the Reno article. In the Reno article there is only casual mention of the two most disconcerting events ever foisted upon the American people by a sitting Attorney General, the Koresh compound slaughter, and the Elian Gonzalez debacle. --spacebuffalo 12:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um… Palmer Raids? Carpeicthus 03:56, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Anointing with oil

Gzornenplatz added the following line:

Whenever he was sworn in to any political office, he had himself anointed with cooking oil.

I modified it to read:

Whenever he was sworn in to any political office, he had himself anointed with oil.

I used the edit summary, "Cooking oil link serves no purpose."

Gzornenplatz reverted, with the edit summary, "Well, it was cooking oil."

How do you think it should read? Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:02, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the type of oil used as relevant. The fact that he had himself annointed is the relevant fact. The only purpose I see to saying "cooking oil" instead of just "oil" would be to attempt to ridicule the annointing. I think it would be better NPOV to simply mention the annointing and let people accept or ridicule it as they wish. Kenj0418 00:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Someone unnamed has put the "cooking" back. I'm reverting to TacoDeposit's last edit. Does anyone else have an opinion on the relevance of "cooking oil" vs. "oil". I don't see how it maters whether he used Chrism, cooking oil, or motor oil. The relevant fact is the annointing itself - and that it implies that he see's his public office as a part of a religious duty. Kenj0418 22:21, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the "cooking" again. Though I think it is completely irrelevant to the article, I would would be interested in evidence that it was cooking oil every time. Of course the chrism used by sacramental church is typically olive-oil based, which is used in cooking as well. Perhaps every article that deals with anointing should changed to refer to cooking oil. Holford 4 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

I would be surprised if it were cooking oil. To be specific, it is usually olive oil that has been blessed.

I agree with Kenj0418. Chances are it was probably olive oil, and if someone can verify that then by all means insert the word "olive". – Smyth\talk 21:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Cooking oil

I have posted the question of the cooking oil on RfC. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


I saw the request for comment, and here is my comment: I have some experience with the practice of anointing folks with oil (in both Christian and non-Christian contexts), and the act and its symbolism is what matters, not what type of oil was used. If it were up to me I would leave it out altogether, as it's not at all relevant. It also came across to me as sort of a subtle dig at him and his religion (that was my first impression). Oh, and for what it's worth, here is my POV: I don't much care for Mr. Ashcroft or Christianity, but I do care about religious symbolism and how it's presented. Hope I wasn't too long-winded here. KathL 07:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The Crisco anointing is an undoubted (he himself wrote it in his autobiography) and widely-reported fact which is just a typical example of many things which, taken together, make many people think he's a wacko. As such it is relevant, and, since the article just states the facts, anyone is still free to decide for himself if he's a wacko or not. If you think there's nothing strange with his behaviour, how can you see it as a dig? There are some people who, because they personally like him (or because they're just partisan), want to manipulate others by removing things which they know others will see as wacky. That's not acceptable. If the article is factual and you think it makes him look like a wacko, then that's maybe because he is a wacko. NoPuzzleStranger 08:26, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Please provide citations for verifiability. As Ashcroft was probably not being annointed for baking purposes, if you are going to mention the annointment and the choice of oil, you should be encyclopaedic and make the additional effort to explain why he chose to be annointed in the first place and what sacred status the oil used would have under Ashcroft's denominational or personal religious views. Saying that some people think he's a "wacko" on account of this without attempting to explain how this may make sense to Ashcroft is obscurantism employed to make an editorial point. I agree with KathL that referencing a religious act as carried out with a seemingly profane material and then saying that these are the facts is insufficient and lends itself to interpretation according to predispositions which one ought to challenge with some greater burden of fact established by research. If you're going to raise, please explicate it to indicate the larger reasoning. Buffyg 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Here's a quote from the Omaha World Herald, January 16th, 2001, describing the episode in John Ashcroft's book, with quotes:
Describing the night before he became a senator, Ashcroft said his two gubernatorial inaugurations had been like those of the Jewish kings David and Saul, who "were anointed as they undertook their administrative duties." He remarked to family and friends, "It's too bad we don't have any oil." "Let's see if there's something in the kitchen," his father suggested. Someone brought out a tiny bowl of Crisco oil. "We chuckled about that, but my father assured us, 'The oil itself isn't important, except as a symbol of the spirit of God,'" Ashcroft wrote.
There are several other reputable news sources referring to the same thing on LexisNexis. James 17:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

rfc comment - holy oil is just cooking oil that's been consecrated. The comment would be clearer if it gave marginally more context, eg said "on one occasion he used ..." (assuming it only happened once). And it would be nice to know (and note in the article) whether this anointing thing is an Ashcroft peculiarity or something his Assembly of God church advocates. Finally, putting a reference in a footnote would be good, if it's not available online. Rd232 20:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

rfc comment cooking oil is relavent. If he was annointed with holy oil, it is different than if he were anointed with lard, tallow, or ghee (which would be very Hindu). Leave the reference to cooking oil in. Klonimus 01:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

rfc comment If he's using oil that is not consistent with the doctrines of his religion, it is very relevant and appropriate to mention. Putting in the quote from the article where he states that it's the symbolism that he's after would be appropriate, and would make it seem less weird. Also, this is a very good place for either a footnote to cite a reference, or an inline reference. Unfocused 07:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's a direct report:
This is not the first time Mr Ashcroft's subordinates have realised that this attorney general is unlike ordinary politicians. Each time he has been sworn in to political office, he is anointed with cooking oil (in the manner of King David, as he points out in his memoirs Lessons from a Father to His Son).
When Mr Ashcroft was in the Senate, the duty was performed by his father, a senior minister in a church specialising in speaking in tongues, the Pentecostal Assemblies of God. When he became attorney general, Clarence Thomas, a supreme court justice, did the honours. [2]
It's from the UK's The Guardian. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalism

I disagree that it is not NPOV to add this article to Category:Christian fundamentalism. If it is, the category should be deleted in its entirety. James 22:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that Ashcroft himself and his supporters like to call themselves "fundamentalists"? Do you see that as a neutral term? /Jebur 04:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Fundamentalism is merely another word for extreme conservatism, to the point that one is more conservative than the establishment, which obviously applies in this case. Ashcroft would disaprove of being called a fundamentalist, merely because he likes to use the word pejoratively against a large section of "Islamic fundamentalists" he'd like to see disappear. "Fundamentalist radical," on the other hand, is not neutral. James 06:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
"Ashcroft would disaprove of being called a fundamentalist" - that's right, and therefor wikipedia shouldn't call him that either. /Jebur 02:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
People usually do disapprove of having negative facts about themselves noted. Wikipedia is supposed to represent facts, not opinions. John Ashcroft is a Christian fundamentalist. His bio belongs under that category. If anyone has any objections, please discuss them here before initiating reverts. In the absence of such objections, I will restore the proper categorization. Wercloud 23:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Before inserting your opinion into articles, please provide reliable sources that state Ashcroft is a "christian fundamentalist". Otherwise it would be yet another violation of NPOV. - auburnpilot talk 23:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I have never inserted my opinion in articles. Secondly, if your objection is that I've failed to provide proper sourcing, why have you waited until now to say that instead of just dismissing the entirety of my edits as POV? I can easily address such an objection, so once I provide proper sources, can I trust you won't revert when I include Ashcroft under Christian fundamentalism? Wercloud 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated many times, you cannot flat out call somebody controversial or a "Christian fundamentalist". Just like on the Reagan page, you can state that somebody sees something a certain way, but we can only present the existence of a viewpoint; it's not our job to state a viewpoint as fact. - auburnpilot talk 00:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again. You keep defining facts as viewpoints based on nothing more than the existence of opinions that dislike them, and yet only when it goes against that particular POV. Every time I've replaced "served as..." with "was...," you've reversed the change and preserved someone's uncited opinion that the politician in question did some kind of service. Please, just read the pages dealing with Fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism, and re-read the pages you yourself have endorsed by reverting to them. The sources are ample, and the categorization entirely valid, factual, and neutral. Wercloud 01:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

2000 Senate race?

A question I always had, and maybe the article can address it, is how did John Ashcroft lose his Senate reelection? In other words, Mel Carnahan’s name won (Ashcroft stopped campaigning out of respect for his deceased opponent and there was a great sympathy vote from the Missouri electorate for their governor) but by what right did Carnahan’s wife take the seat and why did Ashcroft not contest it?

In other words, what if Mel Carnahan’s chief of staff wanted his position? Could she have taken it? Or, what about the man’s cousin? Why didn’t he get sworn in as the Senator from Missouri?

It’s not up to a given individual to decide that the seat is theirs. There has to be some protocol in place to determine who becomes Senator in that instance.

Was there a court case?

Eagle in NYC 10:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As is the case in many states, the governor appoints a replacement until a special election can be held. When Mel Carnahan died, Lt Gov Roger Wilson became governor and said that if Mel won the election, he would appoint Jean. Holford 12:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Edited to reflect this information 209.145.162.130 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The governor can appoint someone when a sitting senator dies. THAT DOES NOT mean that a governor can do what happened in 2000. Ashcroft could have contested the election saying that there was a switch of candidates, that a dead person is not a person so that Carnahan was never elected. The whole thing was a gray zone. However, he graciously did not contest the situation.TCO 22:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious views

There has been a lot of information about Ashcroft's religious views added to and removed from this article. This has ranged from straightforward and objective (Ashcroft belongs to the Assembly of God church) to the absurd (see above re: cooking oil). I think his religious views are an important part of who he is and how he has conducted himself in public life - its also part of what makes him controversial. How can we include this in the article in a thoughtful, balanced, NPOV manner? TMS63112 21:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As discussed on my user page (your posting), Ashcroft's church membership temporarily vanished as I was moving it from one section to another. And to answer your question - as a latecomer to this article - things seem pretty civil here. So perhaps the best thing is just to make an edit and see how people react to it. Or suggest certain revised wording, on this page, and see how people react to it. And if no one wants to invest time to get exactly the right nuances, then the article stays as is.
I do I agree that Ashcroft's religious views are important. For example, I seem to remember an article that implied that he felt his political career was following a path set by God, but I could well be wrong. In any case, the whole matter is extremely difficult to put objectively, and source well. John Broughton 22:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Relevance?

Publications such as workers.org refer to him as "Grand Inquisitor" Ashcroft

Is this really relevant? Ashcroft has been called names by a lot of people. I don't think it's particularly important that some website dislikes him.--Hbutterfly 00:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've deleted that and done some other editing to the section, which I think makes it more NPOV. John Broughton 03:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Threat of Terrorism

Under the examples of how Ashcroft used the threat of terrorism it says "A news conference held by Ashcroft in May of 2004, which critics claimed was an attempt to distract attention from a drop in the approval ratings of President Bush, who at the time was campaigning for re-election." How is that using the threat of terrorism? Maybe that bit should be revamped? StoopidEmu 03:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC) StoopidEmu

I've expanded the item slightly. I hope that answers your question. John Broughton 19:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Senate Record

It seems that the two pieces of legislation singled out from Ashcroft's entire term are there to critcize rather than inform. POV? Holford 18:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No. PoV is when the article says "He did this and therefore he is evil" or something. Two important pieces of legislation and how he voted does not mean it's POV if he voted in a moronic fashion both times. NPOV does not mean half good things half bad things- it means accurate information presented in an accurate non biased way. 66.83.107.214 15:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Extensive edits by 24.166.142.27

I have edited much of what was added, including removing a lot of unreferenced pro-Ashcroft POV text. The article as it was presumably represented an acceptable compromise between pro- and anti- Ashroft partisans, and so I looked for constructive additions rather than keeping "spins" on events.

I removed the following, which was added by 24.166.142.27 , because it is a large chunk of new text on a matter that I'm not sure merits much, if any coverage in the article. I am leaving it here for further discussion (the opening is obviously blantant POV, but the rest is at least partly objective). John Broughton 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorism incident, in which Islamic fundamentalists loyal to Osama bin Laden murdered almost three thousand Americans, the Bush administration proposed a commission be established to shed light on some of the intelligence failures that had occured, which led to a lack of deterrence concerning such a significant act of terrorism. John Ashcroft was called to testify before the commission. During his testimony, he earned the anger and derision of Clinton administration partisans and liberal pundits for publicly accusing one member of the commission, Jamie Gorelick, of helping to build the "wall" that prevented proper law enforcement intelligence that could have prevented 9/11 [3][4][5][6]. Ashcroft described the 1995 memo that initially established the wall, which later impeded the investigations of the 9/11 hijackers and their accomplices. When frustrated field agents complained to headquarters about it in August 2001, Justice replied: "'These are the rules.' ... But somebody did make these rules," Ashcroft said. "Someone built this wall."

Then the attorney general dropped his bombshell: "Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission."

The 1995 memo by then Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick - now a member of the 9/11 commission - explains that the new rules dictated by the Clinton administration to separate criminal investigations from intelligence gathering "go beyond what is legally required." The Gorelick rules were meant to ensure that "no 'proactive' investigative efforts or technical coverages" of terrorist suspects be carried out on U.S. soil.

Daily Show

He recently appeard on the Daily Show and talked about his book Never Again. Prepare for a Daily impact on wikipedia :) Mathiastck 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fear of Calico Cats?

Should the rumor that Ashcroft has a fear of calico cats be mentioned in this article?

Amanojyaku 10:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to to the talk page first, to discuss, and providing links. I think the answer is "no", for several reasons. First, the snopes article pretty clearly debunks the rumour. Second, it might be worth a mention (as a rumour that has been debunked), except that the snopes debunking is more than two years old, and Ashcroft is out of the limelight, so this is hardly likely to be something that most readers would expect to find discussed.
Wikipedia articles aren't intended to be all comprehensive - these are articles, not books - and putting something like this in the article gives it undue weight (see WP:NPOV), in my opinion. John Broughton | Talk 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

recent edits

This thing is incredibly POV. Are we really interested in an article about how liberals hate Ashcroft? If so, title it that. There are many comments to the effect of "Democrats disagreed with Aschroft for X reason or liberals disliked him for Y." But the same thing could be written as REpublicans liking him for those reasons. As written, there is an implicit inference that the article is for opponents of Ashcroft only. This whole thing is non-encyclopedic. I have started to edit it.TCO 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your massive deletions. These items explain why he is controversial; they are sourced and accurate. If you want to add stuff go ahead, or if you want to tinker with the wording, but please do not delete wholesale chunks of well-sourced text. If there is something specific you think should be deleted, explain it here and we can discuss. Thanks! csloat 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. A Salon editorial arguing against confirmation is not a "good source". It's nowhere near primary and it just gives the same unexplained comment about a subcommitte chairman extending a patent (like HOW?) 2. All the "listing areas of controversy" are phrased in terms of "why liberals or Democrats dislike him". Should I add a bunch of comments about conservatives liking him for being anti-terrorist or even worse saying that liberals are being partisan and compromising security against terrorism? NO! 3. Really, just take a read through this thing. Could retitle the whole thing to be "complaints liberals have against Ashcroft". It's nonencyclopedic. Just READ IT. Don't you see that?TCO 22:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the stridency. My point remains. But I should not state it so toughly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TCO (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Sorry, I disagree. There are a few "Critics note that..." and such, but that is normal. I don't see anything that says "why liberals dislike him." Again, the issue is that this guy caused notable controversy. If you want to add the responses of defenders of Ashcroft to these issues, fine, but don't just delete what you disagree with. As for salon.com, it is certainly a reliable source, but if you have a better source on that point feel free to replace that particular quotation. csloat 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We have different standards. And I still note that you haven't explained how the heck a subcommittee chairmen extends patents. That's not just biased, it's not even explanatory. And that came from the Salon opinion piece (about what democrats should do to stop Ashcroft from being confirmed). Oh...and I have no desire to add biased comments from the right to counter the sneaky stuff from the left. And there were several places where it said "democrats" or "liberals and libertarians", not just "critics". And even that is bogus.TCO 01:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the patent thing - what paragraph are you talking about? This is not "biased" or "sneaky" -- indicateing that Ashcroft's actions were controversial is NPOV. csloat 02:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think, even with the changes csloat is putting in, that the vast majority of this (poorly-written) article reads like a brochure for Ashcroft. The guy is/was hugely controversial. IronDuke 13:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Filmmaker Josh Gilbert = Bass player Josh Gilbert?

The article mentions Ashcroft's prosecution of Tommy Chong, and the documentary about that. It wikilinks to the director, Josh Gilbert. But it's not clear whether the linked "Josh Gilbert" is the same person -- he's a bass player from Alabama. I did some Googling, but can't find a source on that. I thought of making the link here "Josh Gilbert (filmmaker)". Then I thought, "Hey -- how relevant is it to John Ashcroft's biography who the little-known director of this documentary is?". So I'm taking the link out. If you feel differently, please get to the bottom of the Josh Gilbert situation before you re-link that bassist. 141.158.240.194 02:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Ashcroft has been requested to appear before House and Senate Intelligence Committees in a closed-door hearing, in June 2007..."

This article says "Ashcroft has been requested to appear before House and Senate Intelligence Committees in a closed-door hearing, in June 2007, to describe the incident, and circumstances surrounding the program more completely.". It is now July. What is the update on this information? Kingturtle 02:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"homeland security"

This phrase is rhetoric, and is not used as the pronoun of an agency. Propose replace with "domestic surveillance," which more neutrally expresses the context of the sentence. Wercloud 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I only see the phrase "homeland security" used twice in this article, and neither would be appropriately replaced by "domestic surveillance". That's simply not the context of those sentences. - auburnpilot talk 22:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You have a point. Nevertheless, the phrase is rhetoric. Suggestions? Wercloud 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure, but I agree it needs to be changed. I'll likely have some time later tonight to search for a few references, which will hopefully provide the proper wording for us. - auburnpilot talk 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo

It's a bit boosterist to use the guy's campaign photo with the flag in the background, isn't it? I found a much more neutral photo to replace it with, just showing his face without the flag. Wercloud 05:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing boosterist about using an official portrait, also it's in the public domain. No reason to change it. --Bongwarrior 05:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
So if the official portrait showed him with a halo and a flying eagle superimposed on the background, that would be NPOV? Wercloud 07:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The photos in the Janet Reno, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter articles all have flags in the background as well. Do you suggest we change those pictures also, in the interest of neutrality? Or doesn't your agenda pertain to Democrats? --Bongwarrior 07:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not promulgating double-standards. Clearly flags don't belong in the pictures of people for whom the inclusion has POV significance. The purpose of the photograph is to neutrally inform of the person's appearance, not create a glamour page for them. This is not John Ashcroft's MySpace page. Wercloud 07:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't say I agree the image is a POV issue, but if you can find an image that better represents Ashcroft and is also in the public domain, go for it. However, using official images of politicians is standard procedure. With the project wide war again fair use images, the only way to replace an image in the public domain is with another image that is equally free. - auburnpilot talk 12:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Various POV issues

"served": Clearly someone's opinion that this person was of "service." Propose replace with various neutral options, depending on specific sentence context--"was," "as," "to be," etc. etc.

  • this is standard English usage, does not have to imply "served well" 52.128.30.14

"American politician": I'm not really sure about this, but I think it might be undue weight to stipulate that he's an American in the lead. Perhaps it would be better to remove it, and let the fact that he was US Attorney General speak for itself.

"was educated": Whether someone was educated by their attendance in school is really a matter of opinion. Propose replace with "attended school"

  • agree this should say "earned his such and such degree at such and such institution in such and such year". 52.128.30.14

"worked": Same issue as with served, same recommendation.

"helped enact tougher standards and sentencing for gun crimes, increased funding for local law enforcement, and tougher standards and punishment for people bringing guns into schools": This sounds like a campaign commercial, and needs complete reshaping and fact-checking.

"leading opponent": What specifically does this mean?

"pivotal role": What specifically does this mean?

"president-elect George W. Bush": This title is actually a controversial stipulation, and really doesn't have any relevance to this page. Propose removing "president-elect."

  • nothing controversial about the term "president-elect" 52.128.30.14

"alleging": Based on the source material, his confirmation opponents cited specific instances where he literally opposed desegregation and abortion rights, so they aren't 'alleging' it. They're 'noting' it. Propose that replacement or something similar.

"mainstream recognition": Big POV problem. Propose "notoriety."

"tenure": Okay, but "time" would be more neutral.

Section heading "Anti-terrorism": This is a bit leading for a heading. Though it may have been a defining characteristic of Ashcroft's rhetoric, it's POV whether it defined his actions as AG, and some other POVs consider his actions terrorism in themselves. Suggest replace with "Crossing the Rubicon." Just kidding. Propose "Post-9/11 Domestic Surveillance."

  • I'll let someone else tackle this. Anti-terrorism seems like a legitimate heading to me. 52.128.30.14

"extremely disliked": While this is an accurate and neutral description, I think "feared and detested" would be more so. The level of mutual antipathy far exceeded dislike, as virtually all sources confirm.

  • if it's accurate and neutral, it doesn't need changing 52.128.30.14

"Bush administration": Not as controversial as "president-elect," but "administration" does imply certain things which are not in evidence, and the question isn't important to this particular page. Recommend either restructuring to avoid the reference, replacing with "Bush regime," "Bush & associates," "Bush agenda," or "Republican agenda."

  • again, huh? terms like "president-elect" and "administration" are how the American political system describes the exact situations they refer to. 52.128.30.14

Wercloud 06:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wercloud, I don't know if your comments are serious or not, but replacing things like "Bush administration" with "Bush regime" or "Bush agenda" are so completely opposite of NPOV I don't know where to begin. Please, I beg you, read WP:NPOV. "Served" is not a POV, that is what people do in the military: they serve. "American politician" is not a POV, it is where his notoriety is derived: as an American politician. Almost all of your recommendations take this article from neutral fact (even if in need of verification) to biased nonsense. - auburnpilot talk 18:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Reads Like a Brochure"

As per comment by Ironduke above. It still does, especially the pre-AG sections on his tenure in Missouri. As a UK citizen who lived in the US from 2002-5 and follows politics quite closely, I yet don't know enough to start taking these points on but it sure does "read" like a puff by an enthusiastic junior staffer - at least to this comparatively well-informed and non-partisan Brit. Plutonium27 (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reads like an ad campaign, I'm also concerned about the lack of any mention of the circumstances surrounding his resignation? Nothing about how Alberto Gonzales visited him in post-op and basically forced him to resign... 142.157.215.54 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The "moderate/dead skunk" quote

I don't think this has any historical relevance to anything. Sorry to not have a sense of humor about it, but hey, that's life...

bad

you guys cannot cite an op/ed piece as a reference.

Ashcroft's Changing Position

This was blogged on kottke.org some time ago. I think this is very much worthy of mention. Anyone want to incorporate this? Before - http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm and after - http://news.com.com/2010-1071_3-983921.html

Neutrality

I have removed a number of POV references in this article. And while it's a great pastime painting Attorneys-General as the Great Satan, be it Reno or Ashcroft, it doesn't make a neutral article and that is the point. Libertas

Famous homophobe

So why isn't Ashcroft's homophobia mentioned in the article? Hmmmm? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashcroft and the Ku Klux Klan

John Ashcroft was caught on video at a "Good ol Boys" meeting in Lone Jack, MO. The "Good ol Boys" is a known Ku Klux Klan chapter. Someone with good research skills should find reliable sources on this and post this under the controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.192.67 (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Medical Marijuana

What is your view on medical use of marijuana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.152.242.217 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for general chit-chat. Ask somewhere else. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 02:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revisions

I'm writing here to put forth a number of suggestions about fixes to this article, which I will refrain from making directly because Mr. Ashcroft is a client of my employer. Although I believe all of my suggestions are clearly line with Wikipedia's policies, given that he is a much talked-about figure I think it best to make suggestions rather than direct edits. Note that these are only a few of the problems I see with this article, and merely the easiest to resolve:

Inappropriate link in body

The longest paragraph of the section U.S. Senator contains this line:

In the Republican primary, Ashcroft defeated Marc Perkel.[2]

That "[2]" is an external link to Mr. Perkel's personal site, which runs afoul of WP:ELPOINTS ("External links should not normally be used in the body of an article") and I submit that it should be removed.

Unsupported claims

The section Council of Conservative Citizens connections has several WP:BLP issues. This section relies entirely upon a Salon column[7] by Joe Conason, which does not make certain claims included in the section. One says Mr. Ashcroft

"had extensive previous contact with Bugel between 1987 and 1993"

Conason does say that Bugel "led a white militant faction" of the St. Louis school board at this time, but does not say Mr. Ashcroft had any contact with him, only that Mr. Ashcroft -- who was then Missouri's attorney general and governor -- should have known more about Mr. Bugel than he claimed in 2001. The section also says Mr. Ashcroft

"sided with Bugel."

The section does not say what, specifically, Mr. Ashcroft sided with him about. More to the point, the Conason column does not make a similar allegation. Lastly, this section concludes with a standalone paragraph which states:

"Ashcroft had previously denounced the CofCC as racist, after a controversial interview in Southern Partisan magazine in which he expressed views that were widely interpreted as pro-Confederacy."

No citation is given, but it seems clear that Conason's column again was the source, as Conason wrote: "Despite the pro-Confederate views he expressed in that interview, Ashcroft has taken pains to dissociate himself from the kind of racist and nativist positions taken by Baum and Bugel." A Google search"john+ashcroft"+"pro-confederate+views" revealed only a couple sources (none besides Conason approaching WP:RS) describing Ashcroft himself or his remarks to Southern Partisan as "pro-confederate," and Conasan's perspective alone cannot justify the phrase "widely interpreted." I suggest this be removed or rephrased to more accurately describe it as Conason's view.

Another sunsupported claim

A smaller issue occurs in the section CIA leak conflict of interest allegation, where it says Rep. John Conyers

"described this [Ashcroft allegedly being briefed on the FBI investigation of the Valerie Plame leak], and many other acts of Republicans as a 'stunning ethical breach that cries out for immediate investigation.'"

However, the source[8] makes clear that in this instance, Rep. Conyers was speaking only of Ashcroft and the investigation. Therefore, the clause "and many other acts of Republicans" should be removed.

Apparent "Coatrack" issue

Under the Controversies section there is a subsection titled Role in Alberto Gonzales resignation; however, there appears to be little controversy about Mr. Ashcroft's actions in this case. Indeed, he was in the hospital for the incident which dominates the first half of the section, and the central players were acting AG James Comey, White House CoS Andrew Card and WH counsel Alberto Gonzales. If nothing else, this does not belong in under Controversies. However, it strikes me as rather WP:COATRACK-y, in that it "ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." I submit that it be considered for removal, as it is not really about Mr. Ashcroft at all -- though it is positioned as a controversy surrounding him -- and all of this material is well-covered on the page about Mr. Gonzales.

Inappropriate external link

Lastly, External links contains a link to an essay titled "Dead Man Winning"[9] by an individual named Hugh Turley. This essay appears to be unpublished, except for being hosted on the personal website of a self-identified friend of Turley. I believe it should be removed per WP:ELNO, which states: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." Needless to say, Mr. Turley does not meet these standards.

End of requests.

That may be a lot to digest, but I think the issues are fairly straightforward. I am appending a template requesting edits to the end of this section [note: I've moved it to the top, where it apparently belongs] but if there are questions about the issues in this article, I am happy to discuss. Thanks. NMS Bill (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Following this here from the note at BLP/N. Reviewing the proposed edits, they appear to be perfectly fine and appropriate corrections. I would have no problem with NMS making these edits; I think submitting edits for review, based on a conflict of interest, is sufficient - having a third party actually make the edits is unnecessary in my view. Nathan T 19:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Nathan. I will wait a bit longer, just in case someone does have an objection, but if as I assume there are not I will proceed with the edits as described above. NMS Bill (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Well -- I found merit in your points. Collect (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Collect. I appreciate the help. I've completed the revisions as described above, removing the claims not supported by Conason's column and excising the lengthy section about Gonzales. Article still has numerous problems, but this is a good start. NMS Bill (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
NMSBill- i think it's great that you handled the matter as you did. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reeks of OR

Ashcroft's spokeswoman Mindy Tucker asserted that he had not known that Bugel was associated with the CofCC, when Bugel had been a member of the St. Louis school board vociferously defending segregation, and Ashcroft had been attorney general and governor of Missouri. During that period, Bugel's leadership of the local branch of the CofCC, the Metro South Citizens Council, was often noted in the media.[20]

This sounds like "Well, he said he didn't know, but the guy was prominent so he should have." That is textbook OR, and not appropriate.67.175.13.87 (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Ashcroft soj.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ashcroft soj.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ashcroft Group & $50 million No Bid Contract

  Former Attorney General Ashcroft has surrounded himself with many persons from the Bush Administration era, as denoted in the WikiPedia "The_Ashcroft_Group, LLC" thread (here). Members of the group include Dick Cheney, Press Secretary Juleanna Glover Weiss, former Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice David Ayres - among many others.

$50 Million No Bid Contract

 A controversial issue arose when one of former AG Ashcroft's workers (New Jersey United States Attorney Chris Christie) granted his former boss a $28 to $52 Million NO Bid contract entitled a Deferred Prosecution Agreement for the Ashcroft Group LLC relevant to Zimmer Holdings (an Indiana medical supply company). After much discussion about the apparent ethics and cronyism issues, the Department of Justice purportedly re-wrote the rules pertaining to monitors.

Laserhaas (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ashcroft Group & $50 million No Bid Contract

There appears to be no justification other than a personal opinion.

Please advise as to how to correct and re-instate this historical nationally significant item?

Laserhaas (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of AG Ashcroft $50 million no bid contract

To Whom it May;

The section added by me was deleted pertaining to the $50 million No Bid Contract of;

this was doubled posted to my newbie status Laserhaas (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Ashcroft/Archive_1&oldid=1136360084"