Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/Archive 3

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

Edits to Notable past firings by previous administrations[edit]

An edit was made to this section by anon 71.129.65.194 diff here. I decided to start fleshing it out, but now believe that while this info might be useful somewhere, so far none of these are real firings (at least not comparable to current US attorney dismissal situation). These people were replaced because they were promoted, or were interim, or died. Suggestions?? R. Baley 19:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't think it belongs in the article, I've removed it and preserved the work here. . .R. Baley 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Clinton appointed U.S. Attorneys were also replaced by Clinton in his second term with the following:


1997 — Eric H. Holder Jr. moved to the Justice Department where he was unanimously confirmed by the senate as deputy attorney general. He was replaced with Mary Lou Leary an interem U.S. attorney who, though she did not apply for the job on a permanent basis, was nonetheless the first US Attourney to serve the Washington area. Mary Lou Leary was ultimately replaced with Wilma A. Lewis.[1]

  • Jim Wiggens, who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1996, was ultimately succeeded by Beverly Martin for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. Attorney position.[2]
  • Caryl Privett resigned on September 8, 1997 and was succeeded by G. Douglas Jones as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.[3] Privett had served in an interim capacity since February 1995 when federal judges in Birmingham tapped her to fill the position until Clinton made an appointment.[4]

1998 — Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera.[citation needed]

1999 — Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee.[citation needed]

2000 — Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.[citation needed]

References

  1. ^ Miller, Bill (July 19, 1997). "Female Assistant Is Named Interim Prosecutor for D.C.". The Washington Post. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Freda, Ernie (February 15, 1998). "ON WASHINGTON: THE GEORGIA CONNECTION". The Atlanta Journal and Constitution. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "JONES CONFIRMED AS U.S. ATTORNEY". Birmingham News (Alabama). November 9, 1997. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Sanford, Peggy (August 19, 1997). "CLINTON TAPS JONES FOR U.S. ATTORNEY". Birmingham News (Alabama). {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Unprecedented...or not![edit]

Well, there is one precedent similar to the fired U.S. Attorneys affair - the Saturday Night Massacre. Though the SNM was higher up and much closer to the President, the themes are rather similar. I doubt we want to include that in the article, however. I know of no press accounts that relate the U.S. Attorneys to the SNM. Note that it was entirely "legal" for the President to fire Archibald Cox...it was just really bad public policy.

I've poked at the lede a bit. It seemed to be getting a little convoluted/redundant. I don't think we have to bend over too far backwards to make the case for "unprecedented" in the lede. The references and article make that case clearly IMO. I am happy to see "Gonzales-gate" gone from the lede - this does not seem to be a common phrase for this scandal. Bdushaw 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that exactly one person was dismissed on the Saturday night massacre, Archibald Cox, who was not a U.S. attorney; he was a special prosecutor. Not particularly interesting that one person was dismissed; it was important because A.G. Elliot Richardson and Deputy A.G. William Ruckelshaus made specific promises to congressional committees that they would not interfere with the special prosecutor's activity. The senior people resigned upon indicating they would not carry out Nixon's request. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points[edit]

1. The title of the article is Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Shouldn't this be unabbreviated to Dismissal of United States attorneys controversy?
2. The lead section calls it an unconcluded dispute. Isn't common practice to use the term "ongoing" instead of "unconcluded"?
AecisBrievenbus 15:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. There is an existing redirect from that name, so the article can be found via that means.
  • 2. It's continuing, but rather quiescent. The connotations of ongoing imply a daily activity is occuring; at this point the controversy moves as quickly as a court case, meaning, hardly at all.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note from Arizona[edit]

In the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-renzi23feb23,0,2161875.story

Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) was indicted. He had apparently been under investigation by Charlton - see the bottom of the article. Was Charlton fired because he had started investigating Renzi?

By rights, this and other related articles should come under a broader article on the politicization of the Department of Justice. That would be a monumental task, however. I suspect that this article serves as the proxy for the general article. But one of the problems this article faces is what to do with material that is related but not to the specific issue of the fired attorneys. Bdushaw (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Siegelman to testify before the house[edit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/us/29alabama.html

Noises from the appellate court sound similar to the court's reactions to some of the other allegedly political prosecutions. This wikipedia article is focussed on the dismissed USA's, but there is the broader issue of the politicization of the Dept. of Justice - the USA's issue is a symptom of that. Bdushaw (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same rationale for including the Wecht trial information as well. It is also under review by congress in conjunction with the Siegelman case for being politically motivated. Jacbo2727 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This may deserve a brief mention on this U.S. attorneys dismissal article, but the deveopment of the topic "political influence in the Department of Justice" appears to be the separate article that you desire to write. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril H. Wecht[edit]

I've deleted this long-winded section again. The relation to fired attorneys, even with the broad scope of this article, is not obvious to me. The section was repeated verbatim at Cyril H. Wecht and also at Mary Beth Buchanan. If we're going to have a section on this topic I suggest (a) the discussion be reduced to a very modest/small paragraph (use a "See Also" to guide the reader to the greater discussions elsewhere, and (b) the modest paragraph show explicitly the relation of the topic to the fired attorneys/politicization of the department of justice issue. Bdushaw (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a relation of the Wecht case to Siegelman, o.k. - I don't object to a small section on Wecht. But we've tried very hard to keep this article to manageable size. The section that has been "proposed," say, is much too long and meandering. It is also mostly repeated elsewhere as noted above. So, IMO, if you want to add a section, o.k., but please keep it brief, point out that the Wecht case is related to the Siegelman issue, and show how. You don't have to repeat the material at Cyril H. Wecht and Mary Beth Buchanan, you may merely redirect the reader there. (Even the Seigelman section is a little long, if you ask me.) Bdushaw (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not making any headway against the reverter, 75.205.XX.XXX; shall we file an incident report? In the mean time, I'll store my quote concerning Paulouse resignation here: Palouse resigned as U.S. Attorney on November 19, 2007 to work on legal policy issues at the Justice Department in Washington. [1] Bdushaw (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=38 Editing Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I've reported a 3 revert rule violation. Bdushaw (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've developed a short section on this subject, drawn from the lengthy, disputed addition. I think with that I will stand down from this discussion and let others take it from here...probably best that I recuse myself for the time being, under the circumstances. Bdushaw (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bdushaw's Cyril H. Wecht Summarization[edit]

Bdushaw's condensed section fails to capture the issues of the case and its relation to the US Attorney scandal. While I respect his or her view to keep the article concise, his/her summarization is not as clear as the one added by user 75.207.232.31 on June 9th at 12:40. Perhaps it would be better to adjust what Bdushaw has provided as a summarization to include the issues of the jury reporting that they felt the case was politically motivate after sitting through the proceedings.Jacbo2727 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2008.

Additionally, we may have not had the issues over the past few weeks with 75.xxx.xxx.xx if Bdushaw had taken the lead to summarize the Wecht article opposed to deleting it. It is unfortunate that when 75.xxx.xxx.xx did summarize the article, Bdushaw requested the information be reverted and block the user. Jacbo2727 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2008.

Your representation and argument for the history of the edits with the IP editor is unpersuasive, as the IP editor added enormous verbatim block of text from the Cyril Wecht article, The first instance was here and the IP editor re-instated the verbatim text several times more without coming to the talk page to discuss the reasons stated in the edit summaries when the verbatim text copy was removed. Instead, the IP editor re-added the text: here and here.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I speak from the point of view of bringing everyone up to speed on the history of this article and wikipedia practice. First, note that at the top of this talk page is the notice: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." This article has had massive discussion and considerable controversy, as one will note from the Archives that may be accessed at the top of this page; the IP editor stepped into that. The IP editor appeared to refuse to even bother with these Talk pages, in spite of my invitations to discuss the matter here. I was, alas, left with no other option than to seek an arbitration. (I was not the one who blocked; an administrator took an objective look at the situation and took remedial action. Those who edit wikipedia from anonymous IP addresses tend to garner a bit of skepticism generally; there are just too many anonymous trouble makers.) Lastly, one cannot paste in a huge, meandering, completely new section and expect others to take the lead to clean it up and condense it down to something manageable. I didn't really have time or want to do that, but I took the time to do so to try to alleviate the IP editor's concern as to the merit of the subject and in the interest of trying to reach a compromise. Note that it is perfectly reasonable to work on article sections either on your own home space or these Talk pages prior to uploading them to the article. The point above about the jury has merit, if a suitable reference can be found for that, so I am not opposed to a sentence to convey the notion that the case was politically motivated. I hope we can start anew constructively; welcome to wikipedia! Bdushaw (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once the article is opened for publishing, I will add the jury information which was sourced within the original submission.Jacbo2727 (talk) 8:58, 10 June 2008.

  • What jury information is needed besides the mistrial--an obvious indicator that the prosecution failed to make its case? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yellowdesk, thank you for stating the obvious. -- Jacob2727 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowdesk, the jury information is key in relation to the issue of the case being a politically motivated prosecution by the DOJ. The judge bared the defense and prosecution from raising the claim in court, so the jury could not have known about the accusations. Even though the jury was in the dark on the issue, the jury members released a statement to the press they felt the case was purely politically motivated and such statements have caused congress to review the case in conjunction with the Siegelman case-- Jacob2727 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also pertaining to wikipedia policy, it is a big no-no to delete or change material on Talk pages (in truth, one of my first mistakes when I started editing). Talk pages are unchanging archives of the discussion. Jacob2727 is a bit of a novice here, seems to me, so we are cutting him some slack; but a bit of caution is in order. We've established that Jacob2727 is indeed our IP editor 75.XXX.XXX.XXX whose edit practices recently led this page to be partially protected. That fact is potentially important as we proceed; the track record of an editor is an important consideration to Administrators and other editors. And pretty much nothing gets deleted once written anywhere on wikipedia, and it is fairly easy for anyone to find anything that's written; its best to assume one can't fool anyone... That said, the recent edits look fine to me, other than perhaps some minor copy edits, but we'll leave those for a rainy day. 209.91.49.190 (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (which is I, Bdushaw)[reply]

Cyril H. Wecht Minor edit[edit]

All, I would like to adjust the following point in the Wecht summarization to read as follows:

Buchanan was known for her high-profile prosecutions of prominent Democrats such as Sheriff Pete DeFazio, former mayor Tom Murphy, former mayor O'connor, a County Judge, Joseph Jaffe, and mayor Luke Ravenstahl.

There are news coverage in the local paper that reference both the Ravenstahl and O'connor investigations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob2727 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this section to copy edit, and restructure to simplify it. According to some of the references, some of the sentences were not quite accurate, ah hem. We strive for NPOV here - NPOV=Neutral Point of View; it is an essential aspect of wikipedia. It's fine to give links here on the talk pages to references such as those you describe above, indeed for the particular sentence above we are formally missing the required references. Bdushaw (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bdushaw, I like what you did with the restructuring of the passage. I adjusted it further for wording and to include a sentence you took out that would be of interest to those familiar with the federal court process. As for the NPOV, I do not see what you are insinuating. The passage currently is primarily your original summarization so if something is off, it may have been due to your actions. In the future, lets stay away from broad generalizations and focus on the specifics.
I included references to back up the information in the section. For the requested citation, I included references to the cases themselves and references to public statements about the cases being linked. Dick Thornburg's full congressional testimony last fall makes this link between these cases and the US Attorney in question as well. Jaco2727 (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that Thompson, Seigelman and Wecht sections are perhaps more related in their tone than the present organization of the larger section suggests. I toyed with combining these three sections as subsections of a section with a theme like "what other USA's did to avoid the axe" (or something like that). At the very least we might perhaps bring those three subsections together. Bdushaw (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that putting the two together in a subsection may make sense. currently, congress is asking for documents from the DOJ in both cases concurrently. Basically, congress is sending over one request that asks for information on both cases, so it is fair to view the reviews as being linked as you noted. With that said, it may make sense to keep the structure as is because the Siegelman case is obviously a higher profile one and may merit being separated as such.Jaco2727 (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bdushaw, I think when you summarized the expenses related to the charges, you misrepresented them slightly. It is my understanding that the defense claimed that the total expenses of the 84 counts was 1,778. After the 43 counts were dismissed, the defense revised this claim to a 1,600 amount. I'll attempt to find the newspaper reference to the amounts. It will take time since the numbers moved around during the proceedings of the case.Jaco2727 (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siegelman Update[edit]

Would it be beneficial to mention the congressional review of the case and the OPR investigation into the case that has been revealed? Jaco2727 (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a couple of sentences update is useful. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Jury looks at Dismissal of USA's/Politicization of Hiring[edit]

In the NY Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17attorneys.html?ref=washington It seems we might have to start thinking about the next phase of this saga, and how to approach the article organization for that. Bdushaw (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report on illegal hiring practices[edit]

New report just came out. Read about it here [2] and the report is here [3]. This information should be added. Remember (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Selective Prosecutions: Siegelman and Wecht[edit]

It appears that in the minds of congressional investigators, there is a link between the Siegelman and Wecht cases. On the 26th of June, Congress subpoenaed all the records, correspondences, etc. in the Wecht and Siegelman case. The interesting point is that in the request, congress intertwined the two cases. Here is the link:

http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Conyers080627.pdf

Perhaps we should merged the two case discussions of Wecht and Siegelman under a heading of alleged selective prosecutions to be more in line with congress' viewpoint on the cases. Jacob2727 (talk) 6:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of the converse possibility[edit]

If there are selective prosecutions, how many cases are there of "refusal to prosecute" based upon power, influence, political connections, cronyism, corruption and anarchy?

The L A Times reporter, Scott Glover detailed a story that the CA US Attorney, Tom O'Brien disbanded the Public Corruption Unit and threatened career prosecutors with retaliations if they dared to speak to the Press!

Laserhaas (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All prosecutions are selective. Many times more potential cases exist than are prosecuted. Citations to reliable sources are difficult to obtain because of the confidential nature of all preparations for (potential) prosecutions. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Iglesias speaks out; he has a new book out[edit]

On Comedy Central (perhaps the most reliable reference we have...): http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/17/fired-us-attorney-i-was-working-for-the-sith-lords/ It is interesting to hear him comment on the various aspects of the mess. We on Wikipedia go through the references and try to summarized as best and NPOV as we can; I am always a little nervous that we get it right. Mr. Iglesias nicely reaffirms our take on the situation, it seems to me. He uses "unprecedented" to describe the firings, by the way. Bdushaw (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Report on illegal hiring practices[edit]

Article on report detailing illegal hiring practices Remember (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this related article today that alleges Chiara was dismissed over a rumor of homosexuality. Goodling was also applying a sexual litmus test. (and how do we discuss that in the article, if at all?) Schmitt, Richard B. (July 29, 2008). "Sexuality bias seen at Justice Department". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-06-29. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Chiara's dismissal was always a bit of a mystery to me - we never heard much about her and why she was fired. Bdushaw (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ITS A SCANDAL NOT A CONTROVERSY....ALSO WHY IS THE ARTICLE SO HYPOCRITICAL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.234.4 (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE report even says that the justice department.... the group which is trusted to uphold the law....violated it!!!! THATS A SCANDAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.234.4 (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps you could explain in detail what exactly is hypocritical. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Special Prosecutor[edit]

Amidst all the exciting news today, a special prosecutor:

Lichtblau, Eric (September 29, 2008). "Special Prosecutor Named in Attorney Firings Case". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-29. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I believe we are justified in declaring the firings as politically motivated - our lead may be due for an overhaul.Bdushaw (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other related Bush controversies[edit]

There's something like this at the bottom, with reams of stuff that has no direct relation to the attorney firings. It makes no sense to be here. I can't see any reason not to take it out, and lots of reasons why it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IG Report, special prosecuter et al[edit]

I just tried to make improvements to this article, adding in appointment of special prosecutor, findings of DOJ report, structuring the top so that it has a real lead (instead of hundreds of words) by pushing most of that info below the table of contents (which is most attractive, most appropriate as per guidelines, and definitely most useful to readers) and started sections on the DOJ findings on this matter and the IG report. I also started to kill adjectives and add neutral language whenever i came across stuff. All were instantly reverted to the vastly inferior existing version. There are other huge problems with this article -- for instance all of the nonsesnes at the bottom about "other bush controversies;" arguably you could have links to the relevant pages on those, but large summaries of 6 or so unrelated cases should just be automaticall deleted. The ultimate no brainer. Also, the structure, with weird digressions about case law relating to the replacement of US attorneys in general before getting into the specifics of the matter at hand, is poor. The specific, relevant stuff should be higher than the general, background stuff. At any rate, take a look at my last revision. I really can't believe an objective person won't recognize those for the improvements they are.

And why "revert all" when at the very lease i am adding in important and useful information? They're just hitting the undo button, without making any effort to improve the article themselves.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I was not involved in reverting your edits, I can say it's a good idea (if an editor desires to have his or her edits last long) to discuss proposed edits on the talk page, when making major changes to a long article about a complicated topic. I also note that you cite as a rationale for many of your edits the Wikipedia Essay Wikipedia:Relevance emerges. It has no weight as a policy document. It is a persuasive essay, yet no article is beholden to its admirable views.
    It's true this article has been quiescent for some time, and does need attention, and has sufferred accretions from some editors who insist on defending their contributions. Welcome to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowdesk: Thanks for taking the time to respond. While i'm new to taking wikipedia edits seriously, i'm not new. But one of my weaknesses is lack of knowledge on policy. I'm almost certain that there is a policy that calls for stripping our irrelevant information ("kitchen sink" stuff i call it.) In this instance we have an article that's about a controversy over alleged abuse of power for political reasons by the Bush administration in the Justice Department. Someone then includes over 1,000 words about other alleged abuses of power by the Bush Administration. While all of this kitchen sink stuff might belong in an article titled "A review of alleged abuses of power by the bush administration" it seems entirely innapropriate to include in an article about the specifics of the firing of 9 federal prosecutors. Do you know what the specific guideline on irrelevant information in an article might be? I'll bet one unit of whatever currency didn't lose value today that such a guideline exists. Best and thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the article was getting overdue for an overhaul, I disagree with the "kitchen sink" characterization of the material. This article has become a proxy for the politicization of the DoJ - the issues go far beyond the original "firing" scandal. I've mentioned this point a few times - Should we have a separate new, broad article in Wikipedia on the Bush Administration's politicization of the DoJ, of which the fired attorneys are just one component? I suspect we should; I'm not willing to start it. The "abuse of power by the Bush Administration" section you refer to is actually in support of the notion that the U.S. Attorneys had been politicized - the section gave examples of USA's who kept their jobs by (allegedly...) prosecuting prominent Democrats, etc. The topics were not general "abuse of power," but examples of "politicization of the USAs of the Department of Justice". Entirely relevant to this article. So my preference is to retain much of that material in the article (but it does require a bit of reorganization/condensing IMO).
It would be a large task to reorganize the whole politicization of the Department of Justice topic - to develop a coherent set of Wikipedia articles on the subject. That this article is, not by design but by default, a proxy for the whole issue has been a recurring source of confusion for the article organization and content (IMO). Bdushaw (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking over the article again, and I am not happy - the article organization has no organization. I'd like to reorganize. There is a section of the article that summarizes the main issues which should be near the top. The chronological sections should be kept together. The discussion of the replacement history of USA's might go to the bottom above "Law references" (this is a very important section of the article). I propose expanding the summary of issues with a new subsection with a title something like "Allegations of politically-motivated prosecutions by USAs", and restoring but condensing the section that has been decimated. I was about to dive in and do that, but I should practice what we preach...post the plan for discussion first, check. Right now the article is starting to have that reverse chronology approach that newspaper articles have (i.e., most important points (resignations/fallout) up at the top) - I suspect we don't want that approach, since this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, article, but what do you think? Bdushaw (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really follow what you're proposing. Strongly opposed to information about allegations of the bush administration doing this or that that had nothing to do with this specific case. Undue weight, vilation of synth, etc... am agnostic on whether there should be another article, but such material does not belong here. You're proposing a reorganization without saying exactly what it is-- and by the way, for articles on "issues" and "controversies" the important info should be summarized at or near the top. No, some discussion of general legal background does not belong above what actually happened. This is not an article on "the legal background surrounding presidential authority over US attorneys" but about a specific subject, involving specific people. I suspect its undue weight to have more than a few sentences on that legal stuff, but don't really care if it remains. Again, if your proposed section on "allegations of politically-motivated tktkt" goes beyond these nine attorneys, you're turning this article into a coatrack for something or other.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point of view you take (the article should be specifically limited to the fired nine) has some merit. As I mentioned above, this article has become the proxy (by default, not design) for the entire DoJ mess. The article also has a long, long history, with lots of discussion on these Talk pages on many aspects of the article. Your view is (and I am not saying its wrong) inconsistent with the discussions we've had. For example, we have had many, many attempts to remove the "unprecedented" label associated with these firings, attempts to dismiss this whole thing as just a big political show. The section on the legal background to firing/hiring practices is thus an important element of this article. Similarly, the activities of some of the other USA's has been wrapped up into this same controversy (what did others do to avoid being terminated, to be crass about it) - congressional investigations of the fired attorneys scandal are also investigating these activities. To repeat, it is not "what the Bush administration did", but what USA's did. In short, I am opposed to gutting the article down to specific discussions of just the fired nine attorneys, if the supporting material to this scandal is just to be deleted. Bdushaw (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks ok to me as is. I don't care if the word unprecedented is used or not (in my opinion it probably should be but not worth fighting over), but that strikes me as a different kind of semantic dispute anyway. My concern here is what belongs in an encyclopedia article. One might have an article called "Alleged abuses of power by the bush admin" and this would seem to be a logical subset of that. But "alleged abuses of power by the bush admin" is clearly not a subset of this article. One is categorical ("alleged abuses tktk") and one is not ("Dismissal of tktktk"). At any rate, i'll re-read the article before commenting further. Regards.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bdu: Just reading over your past couple of thoughtful comments. In your first response to the edits i made, you say there should probably be a broader article on the problems at DOJ in the past 8 years. I agree with you though, like you, I probably won't start it (in my case not willing to fight the inevitable battles that will ensue, not zen enough to make the effort to write one and then not care). But my (and perhaps your) laziness on this issue doesn't seem a justification for making an article a proxy for something not yet created. I think that's my argument (and, perhaps, our disagreement) in a nutshell.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case someone gets interested in rewriting a lot of the article, there is a chronological resource in the Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy timeline, which was started in recognition of the challenge of having a thematic article in the midst of an ongoing event. It too has been inadequately updated since Spring 2008.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article reorganization[edit]

Sparked by the recent reports on Schlozman, I've carried out my earlier threat to reorganize the article. See how you like it; I won't put up too much of a fight over changes, but the organization I've implemented makes the most sense to me. The top section - Issues in brief - was meant to give the reader a quick overview of all the issues and a bit of a roadmap. It makes no sense for it to appear later on down the article. I consider the sections: 

4 Replacement of the U.S. Attorneys
5 Reactions and congressional investigation
     5.1 January 2007: Initial reaction
     5.2 February 2007: The controversy blossoms
     5.3 March 2007: Transition to scandal
          o 5.3.1 Battle resignation
          o 5.3.2 Sampson resignation
          o 5.3.3 Calls for Gonzales resignation
          o 5.3.4 Executive Privilege claims
                + 5.3.4.1 Taylor testimony
                + 5.3.4.2 Contempt of Congress charges
          o 5.3.5 Goodling resignation
6 Subpoenas and lost emails
7 Congressional hearings 
8 Status of interim U.S. Attorneys, through June 2007

to be chronologically linked, hence they should not, IMO, be broken up. It was the never ending expansion of these sections that prompted the creation of the associated timeline article.


It occurred to me that the Patriot Act reauthorization might be ported to a new article altogether, along the lines of our discussion about creating a set of articles all related to the DoJ mess. This section was originally to justify the "unprecedented" statement, but seems to me there are sufficient references now for that. Just a thought. Bdushaw (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. This article still needs a lot of clean up (and some follow-up since it sort of stops its coverage in 2007 and there has been some developments). I added the section on the Gonzales resignation. Let me know what you think. Remember (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on rendering this even less readable and more obtuse than before. I leave the field to you, simply don't care enough. Good luck.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With these stinging words in mind, I've edited some of the lead paragraphs to try to make the introduction less obtuse. While I agree that the article needs some cleaning up/sharpening, I doubt my rearranging of sections make it more obtuse! This article does need a bit of work to bring it into better focus. I'm not sure we agree yet on how to do that; perhaps these edits will be helpful in developing a plan. I am seriously thinking of spawning off the last two sections on the Patriot Act and Law References to its own article. Such an article could be linked to U.S. Attorneys, Patriot Act, and this article. Bdushaw (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory paragraph - Issues in brief[edit]

I've developed this introductory paragraph a bit more, and also brought it up to date (the Bush White House is past tense now). This paragraph seems to me to be rather important - setting the tone for the article and touching upon some, well, touchy subjects. I'm not altogether sure that I got it right, or that I got NPOV right either - I think so, but... So this is to open a review and discussion of this paragraph, and also, perhaps, the selection of "Main Issues" that we have. Are we missing anything? Could they be reorganized? etc. Bdushaw (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is huge, cant we sumerize a bit?[edit]

This article is gigantic and is only one of a series of articles related to this event, is there any way to get this down to the basic facts and either rely on one of the many sub articles on this subject or its sources. Bonewah (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have been trying to head in the direction you suggest. But it is a huge task. Ideally, for someone with a whole lot of time on their hands, a systemic review of all of these related articles should be made, followed by a complete, consistent reorganization of them all around one central article such as "Politicization of the Bush Administration Department of Justice." At the moment this article serves by default as the central article. You are to consider that almost by definition the subject is huge and sprawling, with the deliberate, extensive obfuscation strategy of the Bush Administration not helping things much. I have toyed with the idea of splitting of the last section concerning the Patriot Act into its own article. If you want to work on this, please proceed with caution. Much of the content, organization, etc. is the product of quite a few discussions/battles - be sure you have all the elements of the article in mind and why they are there before you start to reorganize (its easy to get into trouble...). If you want to get your feet wet editing this subject, you might first try the Bradley Schlozman article, which needs some help. Bdushaw (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing title[edit]

It is probably a bit late for this, but wouldn't "Controversy over the dismissal of U.S. attorneys" be a less confusing title? The current title is ambiguous as to whether it is the attorneys or the controversy that is being dismissed. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first three sentences of the article clearly indicate the intent of the meaning. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the whole point of the title is to convey the meaning independently. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the Bush administration via Gonzales and others attempted to dismiss congressional concerns and inquiries, and that non-responsiveness to Congressional subpoenas by parties to the controversy continues. This ambiguity is also visible in the lede to the article. It is also a story about the successes and failures of that administrative dismissivenes. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV in Lead of this Article Violates Wikipedia Policy[edit]

The lead in this article is a highly charged POV that is not accurate. Nor the is the citation valid. Dismissal of U.S. attorneys is routine with each new administration. The lead should make that perfectly clear. It was the Democratic senators who objected, and in all, only 7 attorneys were dismissed. Bush had appointed every one of them and had the legal right to dimiss them with or without cause. They all serve at the pleasure of the president. It is NOT unprecedented. It is tradition. The Democrats charged it was because these particular attorneys would not investigate ACORN voter fraud. But evidence from valid sources shows otherwise. David Iglesias being a prime example.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some of your recent edits were to direct quotations from cited articles. Since they're no longer direct quotations, should the quotation marks be removed? --Arteitle (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While dismissal is routine at the start of administration, it is usually not common during the middle of an administration. So this type of dismissal is not a tradition. In addition, we already have a section regarding the history of dismissing your own appointed US Attorneys [4]. Also, there were various allegations why each attorney was fired and many of them did not deal with ACORN investigations. We don't know why the Bush administration fired these attorneys because they claim it was all for performance based reasons when their evaluations showed that the attorneys did not have poor performance records. Please discuss further similar revisions on this talk page before making changes. Remember (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. Thanks for your comments on my edit. I think the whole thing is just politics because the President has every right to dismiss any U.S. attorney at any time for any reason since they all serve at the pleasure of the president. There is no guarantee that they will serve a full term, and all of the attorneys in question had been appointed in 2001. I think the problem with the Bush administration is two-fold. I think, and I don't have citations for this opinion mind you, that at the start of the second administration, they had complaints from various partisan quarters, but put the matter on the back burner. Then when the complaints heated up, and perhaps seeing an opportunity to put in more favorable people, they just went ahead and dismissed en masse. I think they had complaints from monetary donors to the party, frankly, because I think money talks on both sides of the aisle. Then, of course, the senators from the various states weighed in, and the whole thing was off to the races. I do think the lead should reflect that the president does have that right to dimiss at any time for any reason, and in fact, legally, the president doesn't have to give a reason. As per the positive evaluations, that doesn't mean anything. What president is going to say, "Hey, the guy I picked is a turkey?" Plus, these are already accomplished individuals, why muck up their resumes? Nobody does that, in part, I think, because it would have made Bush look dumber than his choices. I think the press went nuts and turned it into a 'scandal de jour,' (spelling?), but I do think the lead should reflect the number dismissed right off the bat, because honestly that's the only reason I looked it up, and I found the number from another source. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many of your points and disagree with some views. But I would totally agree that the lede should state clearly how many attorneys had been dismissed and the Bush administration defense that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and that he can dismiss them for almost any reason (as I recall there is some debate whether the president can dismiss attorneys to stop investigations into illegal behavior). Hope that clears things up. Thanks for discussing on the talk page. I am sure we can come up with a lede that accomplishes these points. Remember (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Yes, lets pull something together that satisfies all of the above. I'll write something up later today and post it on this talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the opening sentence should say, "the dismissal of seven U.S. Attorneys. . ." because that's what people would first want to know, how many? Also, I'd like to see comparison with other administrations. Reagan, Bush, Clinton all bounced them at each term. And the line about the other two attorneys dismissed at the same time, are they also part of the this dismissed group? If so, then it's nine attorneys, but when I Google it, it usually comes up as seven. Also, the DOJ report does question the U.S. Attorney's decisions to prosecute, specifically David Iglesias. So the line about prosecution decisions should be clarified to identify the attorneys as the subject of that line. Because as soon as Iglesias was out the door, his replacement, Larry Gomez handed down a 26 count felony indictment on Manny Aragon who then plead guilty to 3 felony counts of mail fraud and conspiracy. So coming up with a 26 count indictment isn't something you do on the fly. The evidence had to be there all along. So I can see why Iglesias got fired. Manny Aragon was a NM state senator (local politics rule) and a Democrat, so politics played a part on Iglesias' side of the equation. And that could be added in the section that mentions that it isn't clear why the attorneys were all fired. There are 93 U.S. attorneys in total, so bouncing 7 of them hardly seems excessive or unusual. It probably happens all the time after mid-term elections when a new party is in and wants to return a political favor by appointing a donors son, etc. There will always be guys who aren't performing. And possibly the Bush administration fed the scandal themselves to distract from some other thing they didn't want reporters paying attention to. Might be interesting to see what was going on in Iraq or at Gitmo on that day.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused. The first sentence of the article reads "The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is a United States political scandal initiated by the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice." What do you want it to read?
It could start off, The dismissal of seven U.S. Attorneys. . ." so the number is right up front.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you want it to read: "The dismissal of seven U.S. Attorneys controversy is a United States political scandal initiated by the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice." that doesn't really make sense because the name of the article isn't "The dismissal of seven U.S. Attorneys" it is "The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy." Remember (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article title could include it as well. It's a specific controversy. The big question is how many? And also, how many dismissed out of how many total. It's confusing not to be specific because the first thing people want to know is why is the scope of this so large? And also, it was Bush's midterm. It wasn't a midterm for the attorneys per se since they had all been appointed in 2001. They usually only get one term, so bouncing them in the middle of their second term doesn't seem so unusual. So using the term unprecedented seems a bit over the top there. It could be construed as unusual, but other presidents have dismissed attorneys at will. Once they get four years, they're fair game.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are you now suggesting that the title be revised to be "The dismissal of seven U.S. Attorneys controversy"? I would disagree with that change. Additionally, the number of attorneys dismissed is stated in the first sentence so I don't see why it needs to be moved up within the sentence. Do you have any other specific proposals? Remember (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting off topic, the article already discusses why this is considered a unique situation so I am a bit confused why you keep talking about how this doesn't seem so unusual or unprecedented. Additionally the term unprecedented is specifically supported with a citation so it doesn't seem over the top to use that term to me. As the article states: "Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice, noted in a January 9, 2006, e-mail to Harriet Miers: 'In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision" (underlining original).[170] There is no precedent for a President to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle period of the presidential term in office.[171][172]" Remember (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "unprecedented" discussion, this Talk page has been over and over that issue time and time again. See the links to the archives of this Talk page at the top of the page. There are countless references supporting "unprecedented" and I believe the article goes over that issue very carefully as a result of the extensive discussion here. While the DOJ is formally within the Executive branch, by very long tradition there have been firewalls between the DOJ and the White House to avoid the appearance of political interference in the pursuit of justice. Fundamentally, this controversy arose because that firewall was breached in many ways. The firings, established by the DOJ Inspector General to have been politically motivated, and subsequent appointees injected considerable politics (or at the very least, appearance of politics) into the DOJ. This proved to be quite damaging to the integrity of the DOJ and the some of the cases it pursues. This is not POV - there were plenty of Republican senators who were outraged over this affair. Morale at the DOJ in the middle of all this was very low, but there is no evidence that any of the 100 or so U.S. Attorneys viewed the affair as an unjust political witch hunt. Bdushaw (talk) 22:26, 20

August 2009 (UTC)

It's much ado about nothing. Unprecedented to use politics to fire political appointees? Hardly. Seven guys out of 100. That's nothing. When Clinton came into office in '93 he fired them all on Jan 20th and told them to get out of the office that day. No notice, nothing, just clear out your desks today. The media later tried to make something out of that, but it ended up going nowhere. They attorneys are all appointed by the president and they can get bounced at any time. There will always be guys who don't get the job done. David Iglesias is the biggest, loudest example. He was downright dangerous for allowing Manny Aragon to get away with bribery and mail fraud. They are all appointed for political reasons so bouncing them for political reasons hardly seems a scandal. People just don't like Bush. Who can blame them? So he gets treated more harshly. And notice Obama didn't rehire Iglesias as a U.S. Attorney. That tells you something right there. The guy is now a reserve attorney in the JAG corps, where if he doesn't do his job, he goes to jail. Obama's not dumb. He doesn't want Iglesias stinking up the place.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To Malke 2010 , you are invited to specifically explain what policy of Wikipedia is violated, which you have so far failed to do.
    • Furthermore, if it is a topic of so much "nothing", why did so many officials appear before Congressional hearings, and why did at least one senator indicate directly to the then Attorney General that he had no credibility and should resign, in response to the AG's claim that the standard of evaluation of his work should be something like "we did no criminal activities" as distinct from "highest standards of ethics"
    • Why was the US Attorneys division, with 93 U.S. attorney positions, did the division at the close of the Bush administration have only 54 USAs in office that were Senate-confirmed Bush appointees, with the astonishingly high number of 39 positions held by either career assistant USAs, performing as acting USAs, or interim appointees appointed by district federal judges or by the by the Bush administration (not confirmed by the Senate)?
    • Why did the AG and eight other senior officials resign, another variety of unprecedented history at the DOJ?
    • Why was it necessary for the next AG to see to completion several Inspector General reports on the actions described in the article?
      -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was more significant the Legality of the firings or the Political motivations?[edit]

I'm curious mainly, I've always felt that while the firings were legal they were improper and politically motivated. Those terms show up quite frequently in the sources about this controversy. Is the legality of the situation more significant though? RTRimmel (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A matter of judgment the reader may make based on the presented information. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Should the article title be "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy"? Or should it be changed to "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys in 2006"? The former title had been in place for quite some time. An editor moved the article to the new title (the latter title) very recently. That editor thought it best to remove the word "controversy" from the article title. I reverted the move. I think such a move needs to be discussed via a Move Discussion or a Talk Page consensus. I don't think it should be done unilaterally. Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For further (background) information, the idea of using the word "controversy" in an article title created its own controversy (here at this page: Hillary Clinton email system). And it is/was being discussed at this Talk Page: Talk:Hillary Clinton email system#Rename this? (June 2015). That is how this article itself came to be moved and renamed without including the word "controversy" in the title. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for why I moved the article is given largely at WP:CRITS: "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy." Here, the midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 happened in a certain way, and for certain reasons, all of which preceded the controversy. Additionally, histrical background about dismissal of U.S. Attorneys under previous administrations, and law references pertaining to the dismissals, do not fit neatly within a "controversy". So, I support moving the article to Dismissal of U.S. attorneys by George W. Bush Administration. That is broad enough to cover everything including the controversy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would an article about "dismissals of US attorneys" be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? It would not. The very reason we have this article is because of the controversy that erupted upon the dismissals. Not the dismissals themselves. Furthermore, I don't understand why you are citing the Wikipedia policy that you did. By your own admission, that policy says "avoid having an article about ... x, y, z". Are you suggesting that we delete this article (so as to avoid having it)? Or simply keeping the entire body intact, with a new name? The policy you cited does not refer to how to name the article. In fact, Wikipedia has many categories specifically entitled "controversy". It's not the case that we need to avoid the word (if, indeed, there is a controversy). What happened is what happened. We have no authority to "rewrite" history or to "whitewash" it. A controversy erupted. We have an article about it. And the article is aptly entitled "controversy". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been entitled "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" since February 28, 2007 (when it was first created). Which is a full eight years ago. Apparently, that title has suited Wikipedia just fine for eight years. There were no Wikipedia policy violations (or concerns) for a full eight years. So, the title (fully "settled" for eight years) cannot be renamed in one fell swoop, unilaterally, by one editor. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there is a Wikipedia "rule" of WP:COMMONSENSE. The policy that you cite (WP:CRITS), in spirit, probably says "Don't make something out to be a controversy if it really is not one". The spirit of it is not: "if something actually is a controversy, we should still call it something other than controversy". The spirit of it is not: "avoid the use of the word 'controversy' at all costs, even when the incident is indeed a controversy". If were were not "allowed" to use the word "controversy", how did this title go unchallenged for a full eight years? If were were not "allowed" to use the word "controversy", why does Wikipedia have entire categories entitled "controversies"? Again, WP:COMMONSENSE. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have many biographies of living persons at Wikipedia because they are movie stars. However, the BLP includes much other information about those notable people, and the BLP title is not limited to their movie career. See the analogy?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: So, clearly, you did not answer a single one of my questions. Am I correct? I can only assume that means that you have no valid answers (or are unwilling to share them). (If I missed it, please direct me to where I can find it.) That being said ... no, to be honest. I don't "get" your analogy at all. According to your theory, then, nothing in Wikipedia can ever have the word "controversy" in its title or in its categorization. Is that correct? Option A: If that IS correct: If that is correct, that is nonsensical. Some things are, indeed, controversies. And, we should call them just that – controversies. Some things are not controversies. And, of course, should not be labelled as such. And, as I pointed out earlier, Wikipedia in fact already has several categories that are named "controversy". Option B: If that IS NOT correct: If my prior statement is not correct, then Wikipedia will have some articles that are labelled "controversies" and some not. So, who is to decide what is and what is not a "controversy"? You? No. I expect that the answer will be "reliable sources". So, if we are to continue this conversation, which "Option" are you suggesting, "A" or "B"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I write, I try to be concise. When I read, I assume that your lead point is your main point.
You previously said: "Why would an article about 'dismissals of US attorneys' be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? It would not. The very reason we have this article is because of the controversy that erupted upon the dismissals." What I am trying to get across to you is that the answer to this question is evident from the example I gave about movie stars. Those articles are only notable because of their stardom, and yet we do not mention the stardom in the BLP title, and we include a lot of other stuff in the BLP besides info about their movie stardom. Do you now see the usefulness of this analogy?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy is inapplicable and compares apples with oranges. We don't need to discuss the analogy; we'd be better served to discuss the issue at hand. What is your answer to my question above, about Option A and Option B? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best and usual practice at Wikipedia is to exclude the word "controversy" from article titles except when it has become part of the common name for the event, such as the antinomian controversy. This is because a Wikipedia article like this one will often include much information that is not controversial at all, even if it became notable because of controversy. This is merely a special case of the more general rule that titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. In this case, a title like "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys by George W. Bush Administration" is precise enough, and the word "controversy" does not really remove any ambiguity, and instead confines the scope too narrowly. Likewise if we renamed Kirk Douglas to Movie stardom of Kirk Douglas or renamed Abraham Lincoln to Political career of Abraham Lincoln or renamed Empire State Building to Height of the Empire State Building.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble understanding your response. So, are you saying that we are discussing Option "B" (above)? Namely, Wikipedia will have some articles that are labelled "controversies" and some not. So, again, I will repeat my question. So, who is to decide what is and what is not a "controversy"? You? No. I expect that the answer will be "reliable sources". So, if reliable sources call it a "controversy", we should trump that with one editor's opinion against the word? Is that what you are suggesting? I am unclear on what you are saying. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is that the "best and usual" practice when this article has remained stagnant (in its title) for a full eight years? And, I haven't even looked (yet) at the other articles that you renamed unilaterally. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, for what it's worth, your analogies are completely inapplicable and make no sense whatsoever (the Abraham Lincoln, Height of the Empire State Building, etc., examples). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To take your second point first, please think about those analogies. Lincoln is notable because of his political career just as the firing of US attorneys is notable because of the ensuing controversy. Yet we don't put "political career" in the article title, so why should we put "controversy" in this article title? The Empire State Building is notable because of its height, just like this article is notable because of controversy, but we do not put height in the article title. I am beginning to get the feeling that you think every Wikipedia article is nonanalogous to this one, except for the ones that support your position, which leads me to your first point....
Wikipedia is a very big place, and so you will almost always be able to find some examples to support your position. See WP:Other crap exists. If you want to learn about usual practice, see WP:CRITS. Not putting "controversy" in an article title is not a denial of controversy, just like not putting the names of the fired attorneys into the article title is not a denial that they were fired. I guess it's also worth mentioning that something can be controversial in its own time, but not controversial in historical retrospect, like Galileo's assertion that the Earth moves; but even something that always has been controversial doesn't need the word "controversy" in the article title unless it reduces ambiguity.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure why you keep avoiding my question. (Actually, I have an idea as to why.) So, I will repeat again for, I believe, the third time. Question: So, are you saying that we are discussing Option "B" (above)? Namely, Wikipedia will have some articles that are labelled "controversies" and some not. So, again, I will repeat my question. So, who exactly is to decide what is and what is not a "controversy"? You? Me? Some other editor? No. I expect that the answer will be "reliable sources". So, if reliable sources call it a "controversy", we should trump that with one editor's opinion against the word? Is that what you are suggesting? Or are you saying that we cannot call anything a controversy – ever – even if reliable sources do (i.e., Option "A" above)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, your analogies are foolish and, if anything, weaken your arguments. Lincoln is notable for a million things, not just his "political career". That is why the article is called "Lincoln". And not "Political career of Lincoln". Now, we might (and often do) have a separate article like, for example, "the political career of Lincoln" (if that topic is notable in itself). One example that comes to mind: we have an article on JFK; then we have a separate and distinct article on "the assassination of JFK". The Empire State Building is notable for many reasons, not just its height. The dismissal of US attorneys is not notable in and of itself. I am sure they dismiss US attorneys all the time. Does this article cover every dismissal of every US attorney? It is the controversy that is notable, not the dismissal proper. Just like the Hillary Clinton email article. It is the controversy about her email that is notable. It is not her email system that is notable. This is why your analogies of Abraham Lincoln and the Empire State Building, etc., are in no way analogous. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're going to convince me by calling my explanation "foolish" or "infantile". Since we are not getting anywhere here, I suggest we continue the discussion with others at Talk: Hillary Clinton email system.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: you won't answer my valid question. And have consistently "deflected it" – what – three or four times now? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does this article cover every dismissal of every US attorney? No it does not. That is why I urged that a title indicate the time frame. I have already said this multiple times.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the question I am referring to. Which I suspect you know. Because I have repeated my question four or five, maybe six times, now. And you still have not answered it. Somehow, you keep avoiding it. Or managing to deflect and evade it? Or perhaps you did not see it, when I typed it four or five or six times? I have to assume good faith. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you mean this one: So, who exactly is to decide what is and what is not a "controversy"? I've already answered that plenty of times, both here and at the Clinton email article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point out to me exactly where you see the word "infantile" being used? Since you placed it in quotes, I assume you are directly quoting someone? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here at the Clinton email article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are jumping between two separate conversations. (I was mentally focused on this conversation, independent of that other one.) I'd have to review it. But, yes, in that other conversation, it does appear that I did use the word "infantile". Is that really the issue we are here to discuss? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, since we are not getting anywhere here, I suggest we continue the discussion with others at Talk: Hillary Clinton email system instead of extending this thread.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the "move request" at the following Talk Page (Talk:Hillary Clinton email system#Rename this? (June 2015)) has finally been resolved. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Documents[edit]

Just noticed that Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents was WP:PRODded. It does look to be a strange article for Wikipedia. Posting here not so that someone will deprod but in case those involved with this page have an idea for what to do with the material, if anything. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have responded to the proposer on their talk page, and removed the {{prod}} pending further discussion and negotiation. The proposer had the generous courtesy and liberality to inform me on my talk page, which I fully and genuinely appreciate and commend. It is uncharacteristic of the average editor to take this effort, and I wish to recommend this effort to any other editor that takes this point of view.
    I hope the conversation on the topic will continue. Note that the proposer has made signifiant edits on some of the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy articles, in case others care to comment and participate.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming suggestion[edit]

Per WP:CRITS: "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy." I dont believe that the dismissal of US attorneys under Bush has become commonly know as a controversy so i propose that this article should be renamed Dismissal of U.S. attorneys under George W Bush or Dismissal of U.S. attorneys in 2006 or something similar and neutral. Bonewah (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It actually was a singular controversy. The deprecation of various "controversy" articles and sections is mostly related to leading figures, such as presidential candidates, and the typical Wikipedia editor creation of a "controversies" section or article in relation to that person, and the utter failure to integrate such "controversies" into the the text and narrative of the article itself. This is not such an occasion, and there is not a particular figure, persona, or institution that this is attached to, as is typical of, for example, presidential candidates.

    As such, I strongly reject the suggestion that the well-settled article name be renamed and revised.
    This set of articles has had a variety of discussions, which the proposer may explore, that have allowed this article to stay settled upon this particular name.
    --Yellowdesk (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that there is an extensive discussion of this above. Give me some time to digest what was said and ill let you know if i still think the article should be renamed. Bonewah (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive coverage for an event that amounted to very little[edit]

This article series seems overly long and in depth for an event that turned out to be mostly a footnote of history. I have not had a chance to pour over these articles just yet but i propose that an effort be made to trim down this series to just the essential facts while still providing the coverage one would expect from an encyclopedia. Im not saying that information should be deleted per se, but that only a certain level of detail is needed, and any more than that is a distraction. I will provide more detailed examples as i have time to review this series. Bonewah (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has sufficient information for a dozen graduate students to write a Masters or Doctor of Philosophy thesis (PhD) about the various processes and political science perspectives, or United States history theses and articles about Congress, the United States Federal government, the Presidency, and the Federal Constitution and the willingness and effort to support and implement the Constitution and its laws, and the slow failure and weak response to the assault on the law, history, and traditions of Federal government by particular individuals, a number of whom ultimately resigned from office, without professional future, except as a mere academic.
    The topic and sources within the article is capable of being a multi-year effort and thesis and book by the diligent scholar. As such, the system of articles related to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy amount to a beached whale in that (as any graduate researcher may know, that all major libraries are beached whales, that have more "stuff" than resources to deal with the "stuff" (archives, documents, books, recordings, videos, buildings, and staff costs)), given that more than a dozen books have been written by key participants on the topic, some of whom (for example, James B. Comey, whom as head of the FBI will not publish anything until he is either out of office or dead), which have yet to be incorporated into the afore-mentioned Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy aka "beached whale".
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link dump from removed content[edit]

I am starting this section to keep track of any links which end up getting removed due to my efforts to trim down this article down.

here is a copy of the article before I began. Ill try and recover any citations that are now orphaned. Bonewah (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats all of them from the main page. Ill add more as i edit further. Bonewah (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December edits by single editor[edit]

I noted the quite vigorous changes in December 2015 to this article by a single editor. I write to express several concerns about these changes. While I noted that Bonewah is a senior and experienced editor, this article was forged in considerable, long-term discussion among several dedicated editors - I think I object to a single editor taking to the article some years later with disregard for the careful compromises, language selections, etc. that built the original article. The initial sentence used the word "unprecedented," for example, which is not only correct, but was discussed considerably both on this page and in the news reports. The recent article revisions have greatly blunted the essence of the controversy - it was unprecedented and the actions undermined the integrity and impartiality of US Attorneys. Meanwhile, this article is a political article and it (an other such articles) have been regularly attacked by those (on either side, to be fair) wishing to spin the article in favor of their side - (is this what Bonewah is doing?). I will not claim that Bonewah is not acting in good faith, I tend to give experienced, long-term editors the benefit of the doubt, but I do make the point that it is important to approach articles like this with a degree of sensitivity and caution (I made this mistake when I first began with this article; see the early Talk discussions!). I worked with Yellowdesk, the long term caretaker of this article, for quite a while on this article and I am sure he is not happy with Bonewah's changes. He can speak for himself, though he may have tired of the fight. It is not POV to make clear and explicit what the essence of the controversy was - the unprecedented firing of US attorneys that undermined the integrity and impartiality in the performance of their jobs with the extraordinary power that they wield. This article has had regular inquiries along the lines of "what's the big deal? (c.f., above) - It was a big deal (unprecedented, politically-motivated personnel changes, lengthy hearings, numerous resignations, damage to US Attorney's integrity, etc.) and the article should make clear why it was. Bdushaw (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in discarding the work or consensus of other editors. However, i dont feel particularly bound by them either, especially when an article so clearly needs a re-examination. I read the article several times and still couldnt answer the questions you yourself pose, Whats the big deal? What was this all about? The article covered a lot of detail but did little to explain why that detail mattered to anything. That is the bulk of what i removed, what i feel is extraneous detail that adds little to the article. Im happy to go over the changes ive made if you want me to explain my thinking, and i certainly feel that the article needs more work, which i will be happy to discuss with you. If this is agreeable to you, let me know what the best format is for discussion. Thanks Bonewah (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I know where to begin - your edits/views are in line with the POV of the administration officials, or alternatively the word "obtuse" comes to mind (c.f. Shawshank Redepmtion :) ). Actions can be scandalous, if not outrageous, and still be legal. Since you have dived into the article, I think you will have to work a bit harder to understand the issues and problems to represent them accurately in the article. I'll believe that you have good non-POV intent. I am, however, not willing to reargue this article again. As an example, you removed the word "unprecedented" in the lead sentence (I assume that was you?), despite the masked Cassandra warning there not to do that - I won't reargue that issue again, which was settled. The article should convey that information - the firings were highly unusual - in some way; the word "unprecedented" was a key word frequently used in cited references. It is not correct to call them "midterm" firings - examples go back several months, and the normal pattern when asking for such resignations is for them to occur after the new congress or administration is sworn in, not the December prior. You removed text highlighting why US Attorney positions, which carry enormous power, have to be apolitical and impartial, and how and why the firings (and political replacements) served to undermine or discredit the positions. The politicization of the US Attorney positions was just really bad policy. I think that's as far as I am willing to go; I'd rather not be sucked into this article again. Bdushaw (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, I filed an incident report: Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Perhaps premature, but I am worried about the integrity of this article after the effort we put into it and the passage of nine years. I have contemplating reverting the article back to what it was before Bonewah's edits - but the article has had regular comments to the effect that revisions were needed. So the incident report was to seek some expert attention on how to handle the issue. From Bonewah's article now, IMO it would be quite a lot of work to get it back to a state that honestly reflected the nature of the political scandal that these firings engendered. Bdushaw (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that i "will have to work a bit harder to understand the issues and problems to represent them accurately in the article" then i would suggest that the article itself is in clear need of a rewrite, as i cant really understand the issues from simply reading it. As you can see, another editor restored some of the material i removed, and ill be happy to discuss those points with whomever chooses to talk about it. As for the unprecedented part, i will leave it alone for now, but the mere fact that some editors reached a consensus 9 years ago does not mean that the article is set in stone. Take it as an opportunity to rethink our wording given the passage of time, as articles written in the heat of a "moment" tend to age poorly, this one especially. Bonewah (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to stress that I had not at all concluded that you specifically had attacked the article, but that I am supersensitive out of experience that that could occur. I do not know you, or if you do or do not have an agenda; part of my point above was that because of the history of this article, a certain amount of sensitivity in approaching the article was necessary. Perhaps it was poorly or badly written, but as noted above there are large quantities of material now available to support the article - whole books, etc. and explain the problem. Several of the USAs in question wrote books on the subject. In at least two instances above you noted that you were having a hard time seeing what the main issues/importance of this controversy was - this does raise my suspicion inasmuch as that has been a common line of attack (c.f., Talk Archives). These and other issues were the quandaries I was facing - my apologies if I've gone about replying to your efforts badly; merely the history of this article and that I don't have the time right now to sort through it all again. Your edits raised the question in my mind as to whether we would have to defend the article for all eternity! Best regards in any case, Bdushaw (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've restored large amounts of the deleted text (although not quite everything; there was a section at the end that definitely really was an unnecessary digression into the law, and a few references to blogs and the like that really were WP:UNDUE.) As far as I can tell, most of it was well-sourced and at least met the bare standard for inclusion. Let's go over things a bit more piece-by-piece where there's more specific objections. --Aquillion (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP problem rumors that such and such is a lesbian[edit]

I removed part of Goodling resignation section diff as a potential BLP problem. While we dont name names, the cited source does. This is a bit of a tough one, the rumor itself existed, i.e. its not that we are starting a rumor here, it was started in the Justice department itself. Whats more, the allegation that the subject of the rumor was fired due to the rumor is also true, i.e. that was alleged and investigated. However, the investigation concluded that the subject was not fired due to the rumor, so we have another potential BLP problem in claiming that Goodling fired this person due to the rumor. The BLP problem there is alleging that Goodling fired that person improperly. You could make an argument that this is all relevant, and that a rewrite could solve at least the second BLP problem, but my instinct is to simply follow what wp:blp says in its lede "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Suchmaterial requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:" "We must get the article right." My instinct is to simply leave it all out barring both really good sourcing and a convincing argument that inclusion of this material is actually needed to further the reader's understanding of the subject. Bonewah (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the WP:BLP issue, at all. BLP requires high-quality sources; but NPR certainly qualifies as that; it requires that the topic be notable, but the fact that someone fired a staffer over a rumor that they were gay is in my view (and, judging by the fact that NPR covered it, in the view of WP:RSes) extremely notable and therefore has to be covered in the article. We don't remove things simply because they are negative -- BLP only allows them to be removed if they are negative and irrelevant or poorly-sourced, neither of which is the case here (the fact that NPR covered the firing directly itself clearly shows it is relevant.) Do you have a source for your claim that the investigation concluded they were not fired due to the rumor? It's not stated in the source you removed. Either way, if you think there's a WP:BLP issue, I suggest you take it to WP:BLPN immediately; I definitely see no BLP concerns myself. If you feel that NPR fails WP:RS for this statement, you could also take it to WP:NPOVN. EDIT: Another source covering this to show it meets the newsworthiness standard WP:BLP requires: Here. It also confirms that the rumors were the reason she was fired. We can characterize the rumors based on sources that say whether they're true, false, or unconfirmed, but we must cover the firing (and the fact that it was due to rumors of homosexuality) itself; it sufficiently well-sourced that its exclusion would be a WP:NPOV violation, while there are clearly no valid WP:BLP issues in reporting it. --Aquillion (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
its in the Justice department's final report on the matter starting around page 289. Id agree that we should cover *if* it was found to be the actual cause of the subject's firing, but since it was not, i think we are only repeating rumors about rumors.
Can you be more specific? I just skimmed over it and I couldn't find any mention of Hagen at that point (the report mentions the other woman who was alleged to be in the affair, but that has no bearing on the reasons for Hagen's dismissal.) Even if it were there, the Justice department's report on it is a WP:PRIMARY source, meaning that we can't really rely on it over a WP:SECONDARY source like the ones I listed; if you want to argue against its inclusion, you'll need a secondary source, a retraction or update from NPR or the Grand Rapids Press, etc to avoid the risk of removing it via original research. For comparison, read both the NPR piece and the Grand Rapids Press piece, both of which were written long after the issue was mostly settled and both of which state unequivocally that she was fired because of rumors of a lesbian relationship ("The department rehired an attorney who was improperly removed from her job because she was rumored to be a lesbian."; "A former federal attorney in Grand Rapids who lost a U.S. Justice Department post over an alleged lesbian relationship is back on the job.", both writing in 2009, long after the government report and therefore when more information would have been available.) We can't simply ignore or exclude those sources because a government report disagrees with them. We could possibly mention both, but your argument that they support completely omitting any mention of the affair based on WP:BLP grounds is entirely baseless. (Although I will emphasize that the report does not seem to say what you think it does; I'm guessing you got the two instances confused.) If you do think that NPR or the Grand Rapids Press were mistaken, you can send them a letter asking them to issue a retraction, but you can't present original research to try and have them excluded as sources here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im assuming that the rumor of lesbian relationship mentioned in the NPR article and the one mentioned in the Justice department report are the same. My reading of the Justice department report is that there is no evidence that either of the two were fired based on the rumor. Im not sure what to do when sources disagree on points of fact, but i will say that the justice department report is authoritative as to the outcome of the investigation. The point being that, again, if Goodling was found to have fired the two based on the rumor, then i would say its ok to report about the rumor here. However, since the Justice department report says she did not fire the two based on the rumor, then us saying that she did is a BLP problem, even if other sources say otherwise. I say this because BLP insists that we get it right, that we use caution, that we insist on the highest quality sources. I just dont think we can say we did that if we choose ignore the official report. Primary vs secondary sources applies to article content, not to our consideration of content (edit conflict) same applies to OR. OR only happens in the article itself, editors are free to analyze sources with whatever information they like in the talk pages. Bonewah (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what it says. It says that she didn't fire Chiara due to the rumor; it doesn't mention Hagen's firing at all. Your assumption that this implies that it means that she didn't fire Hagen due to the rumor is pure speculation and original research on your part, especially when we have two reliable sources backing it up. I don't see any contradiction between the sources at this point, so for now I'm restoring the material in question to the4 article -- if you feel there's a problem, please go ahead and take it to WP:BLPN, but as far as I can tell there's neither a contradiction nor a WP:BLP issue; the sources we have unequivocally state that Hagen was fired due to rumors over a relationship, and no sources we have contradict that. --Aquillion (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looking further, i see that the final justice report @page 128 covers Goodling's firing of an unnamed AUSA, the details of which match what NPR is reporting, which, i assume is Hagen. I was confusing her and Chiara because the former was not named in the DOJ report. So, as far as im concerned, there is no real BLP problem and we can leave it as is. Thanks for working through that with me. Bonewah (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get started -- fallout section[edit]

Ok lets get to discussing specific edits. Id like to start with the "fallout" section and this diff edit. Im ok with a list of who resigned or was dismissed, although i think it should be converted from a list to prose. I think the following passage should be removed as speculative editorializing. By April 2007, the apparent politicization of the Department of Justice, the influence of politics on the appointment of some of the U.S. Attorneys, and the alleged politically motivated prosecutions by some of the U.S. Attorneys began to affect cases of public corruption and voter fraud nationwide. According to the ''[[National Law Journal]],'' <blockquote>"Just the appearance of political influence in cases related to those firings, combined with the recent, unusual reversal of a federal public corruption conviction in Wisconsin [c.f., [[Georgia Thompson]]], some say, will spur aggressive defense lawyers to question the political motivation of prosecutors in certain cases; make magistrates and judges more skeptical of the evidence before them; and perhaps even chill line prosecutors in their pursuit of some indictments."<ref name="NLJ-Coyle-2007-04-27" /></blockquote>

The problem i have with this is that its loaded with weasel words because it doesnt cite any new facts. "some say, will spur aggressive defense lawyers" "and perhaps.." Oh? "some" say a lot of things, and perhaps a lot of things lets stick to facts not unnamed opinions and speculation. I propose, for now, this edit diff as it cuts to just the facts. Bonewah (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key part to me is the sentence "By April 2007, the apparent politicization of the Department of Justice, the influence of politics on the appointment of some of the U.S. Attorneys, and the alleged politically motivated prosecutions by some of the U.S. Attorneys began to affect cases of public corruption and voter fraud nationwide", which is well-cited to the National Law Journal. That sentence absolutely has to be in any summary, since it covers the core of the controversy. Even if you take issue with what the National Law Journal says, we still have to cover it accurately; they clearly pass WP:RS. Weasel words only cover what we say in text; they don't allow us to omit important sources. --Aquillion (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That NLJ source is dead and i cant find it on archive.org. Do you know of a source that is still alive or an alternate source? My concern here is not that we are using weasel words, but that we are citing an article which is technically correct, but worded in such a way as to be meaningless. Thats why i want to take a closer look at this section. I could write a article that says "some say that the moon is made of barbecue spare ribs" which is technically true, some people do say that, but so what? The mere fact that someone somewhere says something is irrelevant. Same with here, if the NLJ cites some compelling fact to back this up, we could perhaps cite the facts that they cite, if all they say is that someone says X, then Its just opinion no matter what the source is. Bonewah (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links don't automatically become bad sources, although we could search for something to replace it. I don't agree that what it's saying is meaningless; it's expressing a summary of the concerns that turned this into a scandal, which is extremely important to the article (the question of "why did people care so much?") Since they pass WP:RS, we can trust their summary as being accurate and reflecting a significant viewpoint among lawmakers. When trying to summarize viewpoints like these, finding sources that cover them is exactly the right way to source it in an article. EDIT: here it is, although it requires a LexisNexis account to access. --Aquillion (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its actually expressing one person's view of what made this a scandal. Why do you believe that this is an accurate summary of lawmakers views? My problem here is 2 fold, we are stating someone's opinion as fact, that this case had some effect on cases of public corruption and voter fraud nationwide and we are citing someones opinion simply because we like the conclusions they make. I could just as easily find an article which states that these people's dismissal/resignation was just so much political theater, and make the claim that it should be included as representative of what people opposed to the hearings felt about the issue, but i dont think that is the way to go here. We should limit greatly peoples opinions on this matter as everyone has an opinion and knowing one person's opinion tells the reader nearly nothing. The only opinions that should be cited are ones where the person in question is relevant to this subject, people involved directly, people whos opinion matters to the subject at hand, not merely ones we like. Bonewah (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an opinion piece. It is a news article in a highly-respected legal paper. Therefore, our standard policy is to treat it as factual and reliable, insofar as it says what it says. Furthermore, it is being presented as describing an opinion (that is, covering a widely-held, though not necessarily universal, opinion on why the firings were so serious.) We can absolutely cover alternative opinions, but we must present the perspective of the people who felt that the firings and their impact were important or the article is not going to make any sense (since this answers the core question of "where is the scandal? Why did some people think this was a big deal?") As a legal news journal covering the reaction directly, this is perhaps the best possible source to quote on that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If its describing an opinion, and i think it is, then we should describe it as opinion, which we dont. We say that (the dismissals) "began to affect cases of public corruption and voter fraud nationwide." as if it were a fact that cases were being affected. However, the source we quote only says that "some say" the dismissals will affect cases and that "perhaps" it will chill prosecutors. Im going to make an edit to reflect what i just said, and i think we should limit ourselves to only a very few instances of speculation and opinion, no matter how widely we believe those opinions to be held. Bonewah (talk)
Also, i dont think we really need 9 citations in this section. Im going to see if i can pare it down some. Bonewah (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unnecessary material[edit]

There is a significant amount of material in this article that is really just unnecessary detail that adds little to the reader's understanding of the subject and serves as a distraction. Id like to use this section to discuss that sort of removal, things that are problems because they are mostly irrelevant or extraneous. Bonewah (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in the "Reactions and congressional investigation" section, the line "The earliest reporting of this affair was by Josh Marshall and his associates on Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo blog" is a pointless detail. They first broke the story, so what? Bonewah (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Congressional hearings" section, the line "the two committees made public through their web sites thousands of pages of documents and correspondence that had been subpoenaed from the Department of Justice, individuals, and other organizations." is trivia. Bonewah (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merely to offer encouragement here - I think these sorts of changes are on the right track. I remember the TalkingPointsMemo sentence and why we included it - an example of what was important then, but not so much now. I will likely wander away from the article again, but best wishes and thanks for your renewed efforts with this article. Bdushaw (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! This is shaping up to be a good example of what the collaborative process is supposed to be about. Bonewah (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional hearings section -- tighten up[edit]

The Congressional hearings section is really long and basically boils down to "these people exerted executive privilege and these people were found in contempt. I think we should move the details of this to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings article and sum it up in two or three sentences in the "Reactions and congressional investigation" section above it. Get to the point in this article, interested readers can reference the sub article if they want more detail. Bonewah (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is my attempt at tightening up this section. I moved everything up to the section above, changed the wording of some of the subsection headers i thought were NPOV problems and generally tightened up the prose a bit. I will continue to trim down some extra verbage, if there is any issue with this, please respond here. Bonewah (talk)

Subpoenas and lost emails section, needs tightening up[edit]

Subpoenas and lost emails section is relevant, but needs tightening up as it is overly long and pointlessly detailed. I am removing the paragraphs:

On April 10, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for documents from Gonzales that included the full text of all documents that had been partially or completely redacted in the DOJ's previous release of documents.[1] In a letter accompanying the subpoena, Rep. John Conyers (D), the chair of the committee, wrote "We have been patient in allowing the department to work through its concerns regarding the sensitive nature of some of these materials.... Unfortunately, the department has not indicated any meaningful willingness to find a way to meet our legitimate needs...At this point further delay in receiving these materials will not serve any constructive purpose."[1] The Justice Department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, responded to the subpoena stating that the administration would like "to reach an accommodation with the Congress" but that it might not be possible. "Much of the information that the Congress seeks pertains to individuals other than the U.S. attorneys who resigned.... Furthermore, many of the documents Congress is now seeking have already been available to them for review. Because there are individual privacy interests implicated by publicly releasing this information, it is unfortunate the Congress would choose this option."[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Laurie Kellman "Panel subpoenas Gonzales for documents" AP wire, April 10, 1007
  2. ^ Dan Eggen "House Panel Issues First Subpoena Over Firings", The Washington Post, April 11, 2007

I feel that this doesnt add much to our understanding, it merely adds bulk to the article and makes it harder to read and understand. Bonewah (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status of interim U.S. Attorneys, through June 2007 section[edit]

The section "Status of interim U.S. Attorneys, through June 2007" seems mostly pointless. Maybe we could say something about what happened to the positions after all this stuff was done, but this section doesnt really do that and, i feel, that it simply distracts from the narrative, the 'controvery' around the firings. Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administration testimony contradicted by documents section[edit]

This section contains the line "In response the Inspector General's report in September 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a special prosecutor to determine if administration officials had perjured themselves in testimony to Congress" with a dead citation. Does anyone have a still good citation or know what became of this? that was 2007, we should be able to say what the special prosecutor found. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

found it. It was in another section. Bonewah (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions and congressional investigation - decruft[edit]

I removed some fluff material from the section "Reactions and congressional investigation". A line that the senate convened and has oversight over the judiciary and a line that Feinstein issued a press release. Both are mostly extraneous and so i removed them for that reason. I preserved the relevant links. Bonewah (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony of Sara Taylor: Claims of executive privilege[edit]

In the section "Testimony of Sara Taylor: Claims of executive privilege" i am removing some extra material. The line "She was granted the unusual allowance of having her attorney, W. Neil Eggleston, next to her at the witness table to advise her on which questions she could answer and remain in accord with Bush's claim of executive privilege." would need to be sourced to demonstrate relevance to this section. As it stands now, it looks like fluff. Bonewah (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promote subject to its own top-level article?[edit]

Should "United States Presidents' Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys" be elevated from a sub-category of U.S. President H. W. Bush to a more general higher-level category, or possibly its own top-level article?
The 2015 assessment of this article as a "footnote in history" was short-lived. In June 2020, the thorough cataloging of this subject matter by past editors approaches prescience in its relevance to current affairs. With U.S. President Donald Trump's apparent firing (removal from office through U.S. Presidential Executive Authority) of the U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, this subject is no longer just a sub-article of President H. W. Bush "controversies". The subject matter is of general relevance. Presidential firings of U.S. District Attorneys for allegedly improper or unlawful reasons has now escalated over three U.S. Presidents, H. W. Bush, Obama, and Trump. Further, there is significant ongoing newsworthiness in President Trump's apparent firing of a U.S. District Attorney investigating Trump's business affairs, and that this action is taking place only 135 days before the U.S. Presidential Election on 3 November 2020. ("Apparent" because the announcement, as of the time of this comment, came only from U.S. Attorney General William Barr. Should Trump disclaim direct involvement in contradiction of his own Attorney General, that only elevates the newsworthiness of the subject matter). It appears likely this subject matter will continue to be covered in both mainstream journalism and academic sources. Wikipedia users will be searching for information about the topic in general, not primarily as a historical reference to the H. W. Bush Presidency.
I acknowledge the subject matter is politically controversial and elevating the subject may be viewed as politically biased. However, addressing the issue of Presidential firings of U.S. Attorneys as its own issue across Presidencies, rather than primarily as "controversy" sub-categories in individual Presidents, may help negate concerns about political bias and "controversy-loading" individual Presidential articles. I see the primary barrier, pending community discussion, as the significant cost in time of skilled, neutral editing. Currently this subject matter is scattered.[1]. See also: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53123847 "Geoffrey Berman: Trump fires top US prosecutor who refused to quit", BBC(6 June 2020); https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/20/nyregion/trump-geoffrey-berman-fired-sdny.html, New York Times (6 June 2020; link warning: paywall); https://www.foxnews.com/politics/william-barr-trump-fired-sdny-federal-prosector (6 June 2020); https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/us-prosecutor-who-probed-trump-allies-refuses-to-quit/articleshow/76480102.cms (6 June 2020). 

 --WillisNo (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much prefer this article not get tangled up with some Trump nonsense. Also, FYI, its not H. W. Bush, its George W Bush. Bonewah (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ See, for example in addition to the current article, "2017_dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/Archive_3&oldid=1146319409"