Talk:John Ashcroft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Ashcroft article.

Contents

[edit] Top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Resignation

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

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

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

[edit] Record as Attorney General

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

[edit] The "moderate/dead skunk" quote

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

[edit] Compare the Ashcroft article to the Janet Reno article

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

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

[edit] Anointing with oil

Gzornenplatz added the following line:

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

I modified it to read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] bad

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

[edit] Ashcroft's Changing Position

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

[edit] Neutrality

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

[edit] Cooking oil

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


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

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

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

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

[edit] Christian fundamentalism

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

Do you think that Ashcroft himself and his supporters like to call themselves "fundamentalists"? Do you see that as a neutral term? /Jebur 04:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Fundamentalism is merely another word for extreme conservatism, to the point that one is more conservative than the establishment, which obviously applies in this case. Ashcroft would disaprove of being called a fundamentalist, merely because he likes to use the word pejoratively against a large section of "Islamic fundamentalists" he'd like to see disappear. "Fundamentalist radical," on the other hand, is not neutral. James 06:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
"Ashcroft would disaprove of being called a fundamentalist" - that's right, and therefor wikipedia shouldn't call him that either. /Jebur 02:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 Senate race?

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

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

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

Was there a court case?

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

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

[edit] Religious views

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

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

[edit] Relevance?

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

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

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

[edit] Threat of Terrorism

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

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


[edit] Senate Record

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

[edit] Extensive edits by 24.166.142.27

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

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

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorism incident, in which Islamic fundamentalists loyal to Osama bin Laden murdered almost three thousand Americans, the Bush administration proposed a commission be established to shed light on some of the intelligence failures that had occured, which led to a lack of deterrence concerning such a significant act of terrorism. John Ashcroft was called to testify before the commission. During his testimony, he earned the anger and derision of Clinton administration partisans and liberal pundits for publicly accusing one member of the commission, Jamie Gorelick, of helping to build the "wall" that prevented proper law enforcement intelligence that could have prevented 9/11 [3][4][5][6]. Ashcroft described the 1995 memo that initially established the wall, which later impeded the investigations of the 9/11 hijackers and their accomplices. When frustrated field agents complained to headquarters about it in August 2001, Justice replied: "'These are the rules.' ... But somebody did make these rules," Ashcroft said. "Someone built this wall." Then the attorney general dropped his bombshell: "Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission." The 1995 memo by then Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick - now a member of the 9/11 commission - explains that the new rules dictated by the Clinton administration to separate criminal investigations from intelligence gathering "go beyond what is legally required." The Gorelick rules were meant to ensure that "no 'proactive' investigative efforts or technical coverages" of terrorist suspects be carried out on U.S. soil.

[edit] Daily Show

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

[edit] Fear of Calico Cats?

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

Amanojyaku 10:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to to the talk page first, to discuss, and providing links. I think the answer is "no", for several reasons. First, the snopes article pretty clearly debunks the rumour. Second, it might be worth a mention (as a rumour that has been debunked), except that the snopes debunking is more than two years old, and Ashcroft is out of the limelight, so this is hardly likely to be something that most readers would expect to find discussed.
Wikipedia articles aren't intended to be all comprehensive - these are articles, not books - and putting something like this in the article gives it undue weight (see WP:NPOV), in my opinion. John Broughton | Talk 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Ashcroft_8d40.html"