Jump to content

Talk:John Ashcroft

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) at 20:07, 20 May 2009 (→Inappropriate external link: good show). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[1] 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[2] 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.

Lastly, External links contains a link to an essay titled "Dead Man Winning"[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well -- I found merit in your points. Collect (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
NMSBill- i think it's great that you handled the matter as you did. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Ashcroft&oldid=291246689"