Talk:Alberto Gonzales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Alberto Gonzales is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Please place new discussions at bottom of page.

Contents

[edit] Is POV an issue?

Is it a negative POV issue to ask for anyone to provide the pronunciation of (attribution / verification for)... GW Bush's (rumor on many blogs only?) nickname of "Fredo" for the Attorney General? I would be glad to 1) verify it's authenticity, 2) know how to pronounce this nickname Millerik 17:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is so much Negative POV in this article. It needs to be deleted unless someone can give a good reason... 90% of this stuff is just bashing Gonzales (and by proxy, bashing Bush) -- 130.74.138.53 20:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the negative POV. --Brooks 20:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd assume those 2 paragraphs weren't by the same person. So, I don't think what Brooks said has any importance in this discussion. NPOV should always be about gathering the information on both sides, not about determining which side is more favorable. The suggestion to delete is tempting, but the preferred method around here is only to remove that which is found irrelevant or innaccurate, and to not remove the one-sided argument but balance it out with whatever can be argued on the other side. Right? --Al Fox 21:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Al Fox. Is the material factually incorrect? I don't think it's POV to document that someone has taken actions that were controversial. How about adding something to balance. What has been done that you think should be highlighted as a positive accomplishment? It's always easier to find negatives about political figures in the news, which is where most of this article comes from. Gwimpey 21:04, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Let's not wave the NPOV flag unnecessarily. If something is libelous or factually incorrect, then we are obligated to correct that. If it is noteworthy about the person, it belongs here. Otherwise (and yes, this is the worst analogy possible but it makes a point) we should all be heading straight over to the Hitler article to try to "balance" that out too. Give me a break. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I removed the npov tag from this article. I think it's too early. I don't think any of what is in the article is actually disputed, in that it was reported and is widely available. Gwimpey 00:40, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I think the NPOV questions are due to the fact that only the first paragraph in the Texas Career section deals with non-controversial items. This is a bit skewed - just gleaning from the .gov site:
prior to 1994
He was a board director of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston during this same period.
1994-97
In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice University.
He was chosen as one of the Five Outstanding Young Texans by the Texas Jaycees in 1994

member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995

Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent.
1997-1999
1999 Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association
I'd put this info in myself, but I don't trust my English skills as of yet. :-) Rmann

I have added the information mentioned above by RMann. Thanks! Gwimpey 01:26, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Good info. That helps to balance the article out quite a bit. (And I say that as an avid Gonzales-hater.) – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 02:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I removed parts of the article that were based on op-ed journalism. Sure it's in the news, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. For Example: "In 2004, when this memo was leaked to the press, Gonzales said about the memo in Senate confirmation hearings that "... I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the department." This indicates that, despite the Bush administration's withdrawal from the memo, Gonzales still believes that the Justice Department was correct in its reasoning about torture. " That section in bold is clearly opinion based and tries to make readers think that Gonzales is some kind of evil sadist by insinuating that he supports torture.~pete6982 3/27/07

Whether he believes that the legal reasoning about torture was correct is a matter of fact. The assertions that he therefore supports torture or that such support makes him "some kind of evil sadist" are entirely your judgments. -- Jibal 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed this bit from the first paragraph: "Both his parents were children of immigrants from Mexico with less than a high-school education themselves" as it's not particularly interesting, enlightening, or noteworthy that he is the granchild of immigrants. A substantial portion of the US population are the grandchild (or child) of an immigrant. 71.97.2.38 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's (obviously) noteworthy in the current political climate, with Gonzales being the chief enforcer of laws concerning illegal immigration, which is especially aimed at immigrants from Mexico -- and Gonzales says his grandparents probably immigrated illegally. The claim that it is "not particularly interesting" is false on its face. -- Jibal 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through and give you examples, but this is really one of the clearest examples of people writing with a point of view that I have seen on Wikipedia. I came here to see when Gonzales resigned because I somehow missed that story, and I was confronted with statements about how he didn't do his job in clemency recommendations for Texas (which is not supported - it was an opinion not shared by most in Texas). He said his grandparents had no papers and everyone cries hypocrisy, but I think this was before the US really regulated immigration. When you insist on writing every line with an insinuation as has been done in this article, you only obscure the real issues making people think that perhaps you have spun those as well. You also hurt wikipedia. There is enough real controversy here for you to write about without insinuating that his reason for leaving the AF Academy was to avoid further service (couldn't he have decided that a different career was for him). September, 15, 2007. H. Hoblit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.168.247 (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Executions

Why is the GW Bush, execution thing relevant? Its a known fact that the state of texas (read: not Bush) executed a lot of people... and continues to do so. That sentence just seems out of place and anti Gonzales and anti-Bush. I'm gonna delete it, unless someone gives me a good reason. (edit: I'm changing it to read, the state of texas and leave out Bush... anyone disagree?)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.74.138.53 (talk • contribs) November 11, 2004.
As the person who wrote that sentence, I agree that your version of the sentence is better (more accurate). – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 02:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I edited this part too. I think it's ironic that Gonzo is criticized for attempting to uphold the integrity of the gubernatorial pardon by removing the governor from jury duty and criticized for not second guessing the verdicts of juries in death penalty cases. Once again the piece criticizing him here is an op-ed which uses its opposition of execution of the mentally retarded to attack the non-pardons of then Governor Bush. ~pete6982 3/27/07

This is clearly POV: "Only one death sentence was over-turned by Governor Bush, and the state of Texas executed more prisoners during Gonzales' term than any other state". It's not atypical for Texas to perform the most executions. The sentence implies that it is atypical and that Gonzales was responsible for this. Objectively, Gonzales is only marginally responsible for Texas's number one in executions status. I would edit the article but wikipedia is not a wiki anymore and you have locked the page :( --221.217.37.214 03:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judge?

OK, I may be wrong, but wasn't Al also a judge for a time? This isn't mentioned in the article at all currently. --NightMonkey 21:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Check out the Texas section... mentions he was on the TX Supreme Court. Gwimpey 21:57, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Wow, I really need to not let my caffine level get too low. However, this would seem to point out that this article is less about Alberto Gonzales and more about George W. Bush and his relationship to him. His actual life history is given very short shrift in this article. --NightMonkey 22:15, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
The reason is, there are hundreds of Google hits about Gonzales's various controversies, and very few pro-Gonzales sites. It's just easier, in this case, to find the unpleasant facts than the pleasant ones. I'm glad the article has more to say now than just "here are the controversial facts about this man". – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 02:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I am as well; and Quadell hits exactly the reason why the article was so anti-Bush at first; that's the information that was out there, and that's the information that the media was focused on (and will continue to be through the confirmation process) Thanks, folks, for continuing to dig and include the commendable things about him that are harder to find. -- Seth Ilys 15:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's mentioned that he was on the TX Supreme Court... but wouldn't it be a better article if we talked about some of the opinions and dissents he wrote? I'll start looking for some of those, but surely it would be best if I weren't the only person doing that. The Literate Engineer 7 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)


Alberto Gonzales was never a judge per se. He was an attorney here in Texas, then became friends with Bush. He was then APPOINTED, NOT ELECTED, to the Texas Supreme Court, which would technically make him a Justice, and not a Judge. He was never elected to serve on any judical bench and was appointed by Bush to all of his offices, which were Texas Supreme Court, and Texas Secretary of State. Popeyecub77 00:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle name?

There's been a bit of apparent secrecy regarding his middle name. Does anyone have a source for it? 66.159.150.86 00:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Checks?

Hullo in here...

I'm new to this game... am I in Freeper Land? The reason I'm asking is that Freepers would likely let the following comment in this article stand without oposition:

"Not mentioned is the fact Texas is the largest state by population, by far, so it would naturally have excecuted more inmates. Texas[3] [4]"

That just doesn't seem right. (Do you really want me to cite a source here? Ok... try this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

I won't even begin to mention an exectutions/population ratio.
Maybe that's a good thing to some of you.
Maybe you WANT this guy enforcing your laws. Including those he'll probably find "quaint"... like the Bill of Rights. Good luck to you.

Reguards, Paulie

I would rather have someone who upholds the justice system and supports the convictions and failed appeals. ~pete6982 3/27/07

No one cares what misrepresentations of fact a freeper would rather. -- Jibal 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His position vs. position of his critics

Let's provide a bit more information about his position on the applicability of (1) Geneva Convention and (2) the U.S. Constitution to the "enemy fighters" locked up in Guantanamo. The article should clarify WHY Gonzales concluded as a lawyer that certain provisions are inapplicable; i.e., it should summarize the grounds that he provided. The cute quote about it being "quaint" strikes me as having been chosen more to portray Gonzales in a bad light than to shed any actual light on his reasoning.

Also, about the so-called "torture memos". Would the article please clarify what definition of torture is being used, and who advocates that definition? Moreover, could the article clarify the distinction between (A) traditionally proscribed modes of torture (i.e., banned by the West and most other countries in the civilized world) and (B) rough interrogation techniques which aren't allowed on U.S. citizens in the U.S.?

I'm a reader here - not just an editor. I don't know the answers to any of these questions, or I'd simply edit the article and insert them. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 18:08, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to provide as clear a view of the memo while removing the POV in it. What specificaly would you like clarified? TDC 05:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "far right"

"...the far-right base of the party would never allow a pro-choice Republican to be appointed to the Supreme Court"

The term "far-right" is used solely as a pejorative here. Abortion is pretty much a 50-50 issue in the US; it is ridiculous to say that opposition to Roe makes one far-right. I don't see anyone claiming that support for Roe is "far-left".


However, polls show that less than 30% of Americans wish to see Roe overturned http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Actually, the most recent Gallup poll on your link (May 10-13, 2007) says 35% Yes, overturn, 53% no, 12% unsure. It's a little weird to say 35% of the population is far-right and another 12% are thinking about it. Djcastel 20:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acute accent

Does anyone know for sure whether he uses the spelling Gonzales or Gonzáles? I know the acute accent is correct in Spanish, but as an American he might use an anglicized spelling without it. At the moment, the article is inconsistent, using both forms, and we need to find out what's right and use it consistently. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to the rules of Spanish accentuation, he would only need the accent if his name ended in a "z". His LCSH is "Gonzales, Alberto R."[1], and his White House bio uses no accent. So I vote for moving it back.--Rockero 16:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support moving it back. Seems right without the accent. BD2412 T 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I moved it back. The modification to the redirect unlinked ~ hundred articles from this page when it was at the alternate spelling. That's been fixed. Both USDOJ and White House uses no accent, we need good sourcing before we move around major articles. NoSeptember talk 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc.

I'd like to know how a person is a "current or on going event"? I have been working on an article that chronicles the cabinet nominations and hearings. Possibley the "on going" infomation could go in there. --The_stuart 20:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing the box, as he is the nominee, not incumbent. He has yet to be confirmed by the Senate. Gwimpey 17:37, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Bill Richardson, who was secretary of energy under Clinton, would seem to be Hispanic. Thus would Gonzales be the highest-placed Hispanic ever in US Govt? Is AG considered "higher" than another Cabinet post? I don't know. Gwimpey 19:54, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

AG comes before Secretary of Energy in the presidential line of succession. So in that sense it's "higher". *shrug* 207.59.86.5 20:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, there's a very specific heirarchy - AG is higher than energy. I believe only Secretary of State is higher than AG, in the cabinet. Then Treasury, Defense, etc. -- BD2412 talk July 1, 2005 15:54 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court

Source on rumors: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050627.shtml

since this was all speculation, does it even belong in an encyclopedia? ~pete6982 3/27/07

[edit] the "quaint" quote

i made a minor edit to the sentence about gonzales's reference to sections of the geneva conventions as "quaint." the sections he was referring to are ones that allow POWs to receive parcels including the items listed, not, as the previous sentence implied, ones that require the capturing country to provide those items. --Robotica

[edit] La Raza

Is it just me, or has nobody noticed that this guy is a full member in good standing of one of the most racist organizations operating in the western hemisphere? Comments... anyone... ? Sweetfreek 19:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm hardly a booster of National Council of La Raza, but I hardly see how it counts as a racist organization, much less "one of the most racist organizations operating in the western hemisphere". I think you're reading too much into its name (which could mean "the people" as easily as "the race"--as, indeed, the word "race" used to mean in English).
Ethnocentric? Sure--but so is every ethnic advocacy organization. Is the Ancient Order of Hibernians "racist"? Narsil 21:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It says right in the introductory paragraph of La Raza's article that it adheres to the Spanish Colonialist mindset, which was intended to separate the native South American population by race, Mestizos and Natives, so that the native population would drop to the bottom of society and then die off. This native population still exists, to some extent, and still reap the destruction wrought by this policy. Look it up. ANON —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.248.151 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Presidential surveillance quote

The quotations section includes this:

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized [electronic] surveillance on a far broader scale."

I think the bracketed "[electronic]" is an error. Washington and Lincoln could not, of course, have authorized "electronic" surveillance (unless, in Lincoln's case, tapping a telegraph line is "electronic surveillance"--a real stretch).

At first read, the sentence makes Gonzalez look stupid ("Hah! He thinks there were computers in Washington's time!") until you notice that "electronic" is the editor's addition.

Can someone give me some context for this quotation? Did he really seem to be implying that he thought Washington used electronic surveillance? If not, then I'd suggest removing the bracketed "[electronic]", or perhaps changing it to "...have all authorized [domestic] surveillance..." if the context supports that. Any objection? Narsil 21:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll be danged! I tracked down video here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/06.html#a7043 He actually says "electronic surveillance", so the brackets are themselves an error--"electronic" is part of the direct quotation. Truly LOL-worthy, I say as a fire-breathing right-winger--though it's the kind of slip of the tongue anyone might make.
I'll remove the brackets from "electronic", and add a link to the video. Narsil 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] POV template (neutrality disputed) in Legal problems section

User:Mdeaton noted in edit summary it should be reworded. TransUtopian 22:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure about the facts listed in this section - and I'm not disputing them, either. The sentence starting with "Those and other incidents . . ." should probably be eliminated because it contains no facts, but appears to be unsubstantiated filler to enhance the argument of questionable integrity. Same goes for the next paragraph starting with "When Bush was sworn in . . ." Additionally, the phrase, "lied to Congress" introduces significant bias, and could surely be reworded in an objective manner while still stating the apparent inconsistencies in his statements; it would be best to include citations. The last paragraph also needs clarification, a citation, or elimination. I do not feel comfortable editing this section because as I stated, I do not know the facts discussed.Mdeaton 12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the above-mentioned sentences ("Those and other incidents have led many to questions Gonzales' integrity and his perception of justice. Others, however, regard these accusations as politically motivated attacks," AND "When Bush was sworn in as President of the United States in 2001, he appointed Gonzales White House Counsel. In this position, Gonzales has been already party to controversial legal matters involving the Bush administration. As a result, he has become a lightning rod for criticism of the administration's actions in these affairs.") Neither contains any facts and introduce bias. Also removed the statement, "Gonzales has avoided further investigation surrounding his testimony, partly because Republican Senator Arlen Specter refused to swear in Gonzales, but also because confirmation hearings testimony was ruled as off limits as a precondition to questioning Gonzales," because it badly needs clarification and obviously a source if it is to be included. Mdeaton 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


This guy seems to disregard the rights which this nation was meant to guarantee. Then again, what politician doesn't? I don't personally know of any. It seems that there are two paths, left and right, but the problem is, both lead straight to totalitarianism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.6.202 (talk)

[edit] middle name

i dont think its correct on the page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.144.2 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Resignation due to U.S. Prosecutor scandal

We can't post this section yet, but anyone who wants should feel free to get to work on it. Eleemosynary 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young Turks Source

I took the liberty of removing "[The Young Turks (talk show)]] radio program, on March 19, 2007, reported that White House sources have indicated that Mr. Gonzales would be fired during the coming week, and he could be asked to step down by Tuesday, March 20, 2007." from the Attorney General Nomination and Confirmation section. It is in the wrong section, and without linking to a transcript of the show or some other source, it is not verifiable enough. --D 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy that talk show, but it is a liberal show. It is not a nuetral source.

[edit] Calls for resignation

I have a link to site that Tom Tancredo calls for him to resign i just dont know how to put it in correctly http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070320/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail;_ylt=ArIj4YEr5GCw82PEIPDuEh2yFz4D Thats the link if someone would like to put it in and also if you could message me on how to do it as well thanks Gang14 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • In general citations for each individual calling for resignation are needed. The section lacks a single citation to a source at the moment; otherwise it amounts to unsourced rumour. -- Yellowdesk 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been a week, and there are perhaps four citations for the quotations on the list of people calling for resignation. I'm taking off the quotations. The list itself is in danger of being removed without citations. -- Yellowdesk 04:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enron

Why is this not mentioned in the article?:

Gonzales, who received his law degree from Harvard and graduated from Rice University, was a partner in a Houston law firm that represented energy giant Enron Corp. (search), which has been in the center of Justice Department efforts to clean up corporate fraud. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.46.78 (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

This was once in the article under the controversies heading, but was (rightfully) edited out because there was nothing controversial about it. A former employer or business associate, even one with the ill-repute of Enron, does not qualify as a controversy. Perhaps it merits inclusion in a biographical context but must be without unsourced implication of wrong-doing. If there are reliable sources evidencing some dubious action on his part, by all means, add it and cite the source. Mdeaton 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He's the man?

Why does the first line in this article define Gonzales as "the man"? That is beyond silly.199.76.170.177 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Court Opinions

Please give the DATES on the Court Opinions. 67.101.234.186 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gonzales tesimony April 19, 2007 in U.S. Attorneys controversy

Gonzales Testimony
April 19, 2007 ( v • d • e )
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Hearing on the dismissal of U.S. attorneys
Testimony of Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General
Video
Opening Statements
Senators' Questions and A.G.'s Testimony


This template of access to Gonzales video testimony is available for use. Given that there is already the navigation template, adding this to the article appears to be a bit much. For your information. -- Yellowdesk 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scary-arse New Copyright Laws pushed by Gonzales + McNulty

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html?tag=tb

“ Gonzales proposes new crime: "Attempted" copyright infringement
  • Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place.
  • Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software
  • Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are "attempting" to infringe copyrights.
  • Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture
  • Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention regulations.
  • Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes.
  • Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when compact discs with "unauthorized fixations of the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance" are attempted to be imported.
 ”

Somehow fold into the article? Would also need it's own Wikipedia article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phish0202 (talk • contribs) May 15, 2007
  • There's reason to doubt Gonzales's above claim and McNulty may have been kept in the dark and probably was not informed of Goodling's and Sampson's secret delegation of personnel authority by the A.G., and was not informed of White House influence on creation of the dismissal list. Critical comparison of of Gonzales's claim that McNulty signed off, comparing to released documents and other testimony is desirable. Gonzales signed off too. Check Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy timeline around February 2007, and the citations there for (minimal) background.
    -- Yellowdesk 11:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calls for resignation or firing section

The "Calls for resignation or firing" section really serves no purpose. It's clear he's not popular right now. The article can read: X Senators and X Congress people have called for him to resign, and remove the list. There's is really no point in listing every name/party affliation. This is wikipedia not a political blog. While interesting and well-sourced, it is simple list-cruft, and takes away from the article as a whole. Arbustoo 01:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to Be bold and consolidate the list, but a major issue would be what to do about all the references. It seems like a waste to just get rid of them . Perhaps we should create a separate article/list? --YbborTalk 02:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a citable source that's keeping track and allows the article to dump the list, and also not create a separate list-cruft article? (If kept, these individuals should have dates next to their statements, since they all could change their veiws.) -- Yellowdesk 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this solution? -- Yellowdesk 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Now implemented on the article. -- Yellowdesk 19:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article?

What does this article need to improve from a B class biography to an actual Good Article? —Gaff ταλκ 03:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view

Just to clarify what NPOV is, according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

--Jagz 03:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes Man?

The section declaring Gonzales to be a "yes man" is lifted from the Washington Post opinion page. This clearly violates the neutrality Wikipedia pages should embody and ought to be removed.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.165.116 (talk • contribs) May 10, 2007.
The article doesn't "declare" Gonzales anything, it refers to his reputation. So the quote doesn't violate anything, it substantiates the claim. If you think that the statement about Gonzales' reputation is insufficiently sourced, feel free to add others -- they are plentiful (google of "alberto gonzales" + "yes man" yields 10,800 hits). Finally, please sign your contributions. -- Jibal 10:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You get over a million hits if you google "bush" + "retard", but we don't have "reputation as a retard" under the "Criticisms of George W. Bush". I suggest you instead focus on particular controversies where Gonzales bucked public opinion to support the administration, rather than use the label "yes-man" as a controversy. Politicians get called all kinds of names by their opponents, but that isn't sufficient to constitute a substantive controversy. Djcastel 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Djcastel that having a "yes-man" section is POV. What's more, it isn't nearly as informative as a section which could describe, in non-inflammatory terms, the serious concern about having a person with close, personal loyalty to the President as the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, whose job might require him to have enough independance to investigate figures within the administration, including the president himself. (Obviously a similar concern was expressed about Harriet Miers' nomination to the supreme court). There should be planty of good refs to rewrite this section in a substative way without calling Gonzales a "yes-man". -RustavoTalk/Contribs 20:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It's completely imbalanced. Repeating something POV is still POV if you only provide one side. The section should be quickly removed unless (1) a source that explains the controversy (rather than makes an accusation) can be found to replace it, and (2) some context can be provided that gives Gonzales a fair voice in the controversy. Besides, I'm not sure this even sure this constitutes a "controversy" - it's clearly a condemnation. Smtomak 08:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section. Perhaps a more complete section on "Reputation of Alberto Gonzales" can be written from a neutral point of view later. But a critical op-ed is not an appropriate way to start it. —Smtomak 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the "yes man" section back in the article per Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy discussed in the section above. Feel free to add a dissenting viewpoint to the article if you feel it necessary. --Jagz 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm reverting this. The section's content is nothing more than a quote from a derogatory op-ed. This is unacceptable per WP:NPOV and more importantly WP:BLP. It's tantamount to saying "some say Larry King is a fascist" and supporting it with a quote that says the same. If you can find more dispassionate sources discussing Gonzales' reputation and history, I would gladly help you write an article based on them. :) --Smtomak 12:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Our government employees are just that and not kings or gods. I will put the section back in with more references. I am not going to attempt to put all available references into the article. I am not putting my views in the article, it is the published views of others. I don't care if you consider it derogatory. --Jagz 16:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I am going to flag the section as {{Unbalanced}} for now and rework and expand it. I agree that there should be material about Gonzales' close and cooperative relationship with Bush, but it needs to be presented in a more neutral way than quoting an op-ed from a critic. I'm sure we can find a compromise. (The ABC source is good, by the way. Thanks.) --Smtomak 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Did/does Gonzales really have a personal relationship (friendship) with Bush outside of work? That's what the article says now. --Jagz 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Evangelical?

Is there any basis for the statement "Gonzales had a Catholic upbringing, but now he is an evangelical Christian.[3]"? I followed the reference and read the interview, but it only mentions that he was raised Catholic.

I noticed the same thing. The statement should be removed until we can find an actual reference. —Ortchel 04:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. 24.60.152.213 22:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Documentation of Quotations Before the Senate?

Statements made by Gonzales before the sentate are public record. I believe that we should make a seperate section of factual quotations by Gonzales such as

“I went back and clarified my statement with a reporter.” “Which was that and what was the reporters name?” “Washington Post, two days later, Dan Eagan was the reporter”. “What did you say to the reporter?” “I did not speak directly to the reporter.” “Oh wait a second, you did not. Okay, what did your spokesperson say to the reporter?” “I don’t know but….”

Does anyone else have an opinion on making a seperate section for Gonzalez quotes before teh senate? Should we do it? Would it get deleted? I think factual quotes are very important to Wikipedia, and Gonzalez are just a riot. Bridger.anderson 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Name

What does the "R." in his name stand for? Michaelsbll 09:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Republican? :) 24.60.152.213 22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Significant omission

This article does not once mention the word perjury (except for the title of a sourced used at the bottom). This is a significant omission that needs to be rectified. Raul654 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of significant omissions, I noted that a section of the article was deleted and renamed from "Calls for resignation, firing, no-confidence resolution, and impeachment" to "Resignation." However, when I took a look at the version before this deletion, I found the following note:
==Calls for resignation, firing, no-confidence resolution, and impeachment==
<!-- NOTE: If this section title is renamed,
please put a note on [[Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy]],
as that article links to this section
END NOTE -->
Was the Gonzales article corrected in the deleted section so this article properly links to the other one indicated in the note?
The deleted material does matter to those readers (both in and out of the U.S.) who want the history of how things got to where it is this present day, since the information was widely reported by media organizations and part of the record on the views of congressional members, regardless of whether Gonzales resigned or stayed in his post. The number of congressional members, particularly the Republicans, who called for Gonzales' resignation or leaned toward calls for his resignation is notable in itself. We can agree to disagree on that point, but for historical purposes, this information should have remained in the article. The deletion (and accompanying comments in the edit summaries) looked too much like "sanitizing" the content after the pressure was on (who decided unilaterally that readers know longer needed to know this?). The way the article reads is what he resigned out of the blue without any pressure to resign because of the controversies that swirled about him. Just my first and second impression of reading the article as a disinterested reader.
Also, I did not find anything noted on this talk page or the one for "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" about the deletion of this content about the congressional members (particularly since the deleted appears provide further information about the controversy about the dismissed attorneys); I only found a mention about changing the heading in this article, equally mentioned that content was without mentioning that the supporting content was also deleted. I expected that the deleted part of the would have remained mostly intact (with updates up to the resignation), with a separate section added, such as "Resignation from U.S. Attorney General post" or something similar, that speaks directly about the resignation itself. I hope that there's some reconsideration to retain the the fuller record for the career biography for future readers of this article. →Lwalt ♦ talk 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk page as requested. The laundry list of senators is now completely useless and just bloats an already-large article. Now that he's resigned, what's the point of quoting every single person who wanted him to resign? --Golbez 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I put the list back on. I think it is informative to see the depbth and breadth of the Congressional opposition to Gonzales as Attorney General and therefore helps inform the reader. But my feelings are not too strong on this and I am willing to defer to community consensus if people don't think this is useful. Remember 13:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the depth and breadth can be expressed - with a single sentence saying X number of senators and reps called for his ouster. I don't see why we need this large, tiny-fonted, vaguely useful list. --Golbez 13:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] resignation date

Which date is more appropriate to use? The friday discussion with the president, or the date of his official public announcement? Given that his press agent continued all weekend to deny, the press conference would be the first time he himself has said it where it can actually be attributed to him, instead of to 'unnamed officials', I wonder which is better. It's a minor point, but worth asking. ThuranX 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that today is the day he resigned (or will resign), but I agree it's a minor point. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If he submitted his resignation on Friday the 24th, as is being reported by all the news sources, then that is the date of his resignation. When it was reported to the public doesn't seem relevant. The only question is when Bush accepted the resignation, which may be discussed at AG's or Bush's press conferences today. Fireplace 14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
According to FOX News, the press conference will occur at 10:30 a.m. ET on August 27, 2007. According to that same report, an announcement will be made about Gonzales' temporary replacement. Solicitor General Paul McNulty is expected to be named as the acting Attorney General until he or another nominee has been confirmed by the Senate as the permanent replacement in this post. No longer the case, as Clements' name has been revealed as the acting AG starting about September 17. →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CNN is reporting his last day wlil be 16 September. --MathewBrooks 14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else think he timed it with John Steward and Stephen Colbert's vacations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.89.122 (talk) 20:23, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The resignation is still fresh, but I looked up this article partly to find out why there is a significant amount of time between the announcement of his resignation (today) and the 17 (or 16th) of September. Is there any legal or logistical reason for this? This question seems much more pertinent to me than the timing of the announcement being connected to any other events, such as Stewart/Colbert vacations (unlikely I think) or Democratic Primary Debates (somewhat more likely I think). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.205.53 (talk) 02:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jumping the gun?

I'm curious as to the appropriateness of proclaiming the AG's resignation so early, because, as of this writing, he hasn't made it official yet. The evidence we're going on is a New York Times story quoting an unnamed government official. While the NYT is certainly a reliable source, as an encyclopedia and not a news outlet, I'm wondering if we are being a little over eager in proclaiming the resignation when it has not yet been formally announced. -- 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The NYT, WSJ, WaPo, CNN, BBC, etc., all confirm the resignation. Those are sufficiently reliable sources. Fireplace 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit that you have a point about it preceding his official statement (less than 30 minutes from now), but per the NYT article he submitted his resignation on Friday, and per this CNN article he resigned (past tense). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(OP here) I'm not grousing about the tense of the announcement ("will resign"/"has resigned") - I'm commenting on making statements to that imply that it is a done deal, prior to the official announcement. Sure, multiple news sources report it, but you have to be careful of the journalistic echo chamber effect, where you have the BBC reporting that CNN has reported that ... . It's alright for a news source to jump on a story - they deal with time-critical items, and rush to be first. Wikipedia is not a news source, and as an encyclopedia the key is not to be first, but to be accurate. Even though he gave the resignation to the president on Friday, it was all hearsay until he actually announced it to the press. As an encyclopedia, I'm unsure why we couldn't wait the 6 hours or so until the news was official. -- 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Acording to cnn.com his last say as AG will be September 16, acording to a "senior administration official".67.189.70.105 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Gonzales confirmed through his press conference today that he called in his resignation on Friday, August 24, and he will remain in his AG post until September 17, 2007. This same information is also reported at FOX News and The Washington Post. ?Lwalt ? talk 15:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The way to address this is to cite the source in the reference, e.g. "According to an article in the August 27, 2007, issue of The New York Times, the Attorney General plans to announce his resignation." 71.185.74.177 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who's a Fredo, what?

Innumerable journalists on msnbc, cnn, have claimed, confirmed, that George calls him "Fredo", which is a nickname f/ "Alfredo", which references each of "Al" & "Alberto".

That many of you have not seen it, heard it, does not prove that others of us had not heard nor seen.

Additionally, although that references Mr. Bush, there are other nicknames that Mr. Bush has not endorsed, that journalists frequently employ anyhow. Some examples include "Gone-zales", "Gonezo", "Gonzo", et al.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 17:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this doesn't mean that Bush will send him out on a fishing trip on a row boat on Lake Tahoe. KurdzenWeys 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] -- 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of us ignorami have poor vision, poor memory, a poor machine [computer, monitor, keyboard, interface-environment, poor brain,...]; we rely on legible signatures in order to figure what we're reading. Seeing an art illegible signature, or nonsignature, makes it all quite,.... yuk. Please do help; clean your signature.

While I'm at it, I want to add another name question:

Has anyone that you can recall written about the rare coincidence that "Alberto Gonzales" & "attorney general" are each "a. g."? Also, many German corporations. How many attorneys general have been "A. G. A. G.", nationally, state, versus state? That, also, sounds like dna.

I do wonder what subliminal effect there might be; but, there is no way to test that.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What was those picture?

Who were posting those picture of.... it on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BUNTING 1243 (talk • contribs) 00:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


it was a pair of penis pictures, likely put there by the guy who reverted it back again (T something). -Bobxii 00:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simply Amazed At the Edits of "Established" editors

I am simlpy amazed at the actions a number of "established editors" have taken regarding the resignation of General Gonzales. The page is semi-protected, but that doesn't seem to be enough. Perhaps we could explore full protection. We know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we know that Wikipedia recounts facts - not speculation, and yet some of us still make edits providing for an ending date for Gonzales' term, the name of Gonzales' successor, and other related edits. Just in the last few hours, User:Micahbrwn, User:Sparrowman980, and User:N734LQ have either ignored wikipedia policies or just refused to adhere to them. Here are the facts:

  • Alberto Gonzales is the Attorney General.
  • Alberto Gonzales has announced his resignation, effective 17 September 2007
  • Alberto Gonzales' term as Attorney General is neither completed nor expired and we do not know what the future will bring so we do not know if he will remain in office until 17 September or not.
  • Alberto Gonzales' is the incumbent in office (See #1) and thus does not have a "Successor."

For the sake of Wikipedia policies and my own sanity, please stop changing his term end date, his successor, or other related information becuase "it's a given" or "it's gonna happen" or "he resigned today."

JasonCNJ 06:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with JCNJ; wait until the resignation 'takes effect'. PS- we have this kind of trouble, everytime an 'office transition' is on the horizon; there's so many 'trigger finger' editors out there. GoodDay 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I admit to being the first one, but at the time I made the edits, it was thought he had already resigned. Since then I've been trying to keep it factual. :) --Golbez 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Hispanic Attorney General?

He is the first Hispanic to hold the position of United States Attorney General. I'm just wondering why ethnicity is prominently displayed on other politicians and White House officials' INTRODUCTION paragraphs (such as Condoleezza Rice's), advertising their position as first minority to serve as _______, whereas the simplest mention of ethnicity or minority achievement on Gonzales' page gets immediately deleted. Would I really have to cite a source saying that he's Hispanic?

I hold no preference in this issue, it's just seeing Wikipedia articles this inconsistent bugs me. --Exander 07:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)T

I don't mind you adding in a sentence that says he is the first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General. My objection is you adding a sentence that says he was the first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General. He is currently in office, the announcement of his resignation notwithstanding. So it is improper to refer to his term in office in the past tense. JasonCNJ 14:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War on Terror

I would submit that the term "War on Terror" is politically loaded, and for that reason not the best section heading. I know it is something that the Bush government likes to use to, amongst other things, justify a number of questionable policies and actions. It is a term in common usage and is, in terms of describing the content of the section, a good heading. I would suggest, though, that a more politically neutral term be used, or perhaps putting the whole heading into quotes. I will leave it to someone with more qualification than I have (a citizen of the USA perhaps) to find a better section heading. Peashy 11:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation 57

The NY Times reference needs to have an alt name, as the url is stretching the screen Lethe 11:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done! Pericles899 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you :-) Lethe 14:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Regardless of the date of the photograph, it clearly depicts Gonzales being "chummy" eating dinner with Bush, so it logically belongs in the section on the controversy over his friendship with Bush...not in his resignation section. A photograph of the resignation announcement would belong there. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture was taken on the Sunday that Gonzales handed his letter of resignation to Bush, and Bush accepted it. Bush had asked him to come to the Texas ranch when Gonzales called on the Friday before, telling him he intended to depart. The announcement was the day after the picture's date, on Monday. It should all be in the citations. -- Yellowdesk 12:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] # of attorneys fired

The number of attorneys fired in the scandal is inconsistent in the article, i.e. "Controversies" says 9, while "Dismissal..." says 8. Both numbers have sources... The dismissal controversy's own page says 7 were fired in Dec 2006, with at least 2 others in 2005-2006. I generally remember hearing 9 in media coverage, but is there a current popular consensus on which number is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whirlingdervish (talk • contribs) 03:47, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

There were seven informed of their dismissal on December 7, 2006, and they actually departed from office over the next several months. One more was informed of his dismissal in June 2006, Bud Cummins, USA for Eastern Arkansas, but no date of departure had been established then. (His replacement worked in his office from August or September 2006 onward). Cummins announced his resignation in mid-December, effective one week later, upon being informed of Tim Griffin's actual appointment, so he is often lumped by media with the seven, making eight. The ninth, Todd Graves USA for Western Missouri, was dismissed in the Winter of 2006, replaced by Bradley Schlozman. The press is wildly non-uniform in its numbing of the dismissals. Later on it has been revealed that other USAs were dismissed without explanation, so it's possible to count a higher number, and further, at least 26 USAs were on various dismissal candidate lists over the prior year. Here's the dismissal listing: {{Dismissed_attorneys_table}}. You can see how it was handled in prose in the introductory paragraphs over on the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy.
-- Yellowdesk 12:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess more than actually knowing the precise number (because I know that it is disputed) I was wondering if anyone had a good reason to choose one number over another for the purposes of changing this article to make it consistent. Anyone have a good reason whether the article should uniformly say 7, 8, or 9 attorneys? The fact that the article reads 9, then several sentences later says 8, is not ok. Whirlingdervish 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would would recommend nine, with explanation/justification similar to what I state above, with citations, and mentioning that there are others--at some place in the article. (I believe that the DOJ/Gonzales never responded to Senator Feinstein's request for specific numbers in her request to Gonzales for post-hearing supplemental Cogressional testimony/documents.) Many citations are at the affiliated attorney dismissal articles. The "timeline" probably is best for citations. Here's a quick navigation box: {{Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy small}}
-- Yellowdesk 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I aligned the text with "eight" and mentioned the existence of other dismissals, and the 26 candidate dismissals. Perhaps the ninth is warrented: Graves/Schlozman, but there are enough details in this article as it stands.-- Yellowdesk 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect problem

Please fix the redirect from Alberto Gonzalez because there is a baseball player with this name on the New York Yankees active roster.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.80.175.235 (talk) September 2, 2007


Instead of saying "Alberto Gonzales” redirects here. For the New York Yankees infielder, see Alberto Gonzalez (baseball player)., shouldn't it read "Alberto Gonzalez” redirects here. For the New York Yankees infielder, see Alberto Gonzalez (baseball player)?153.104.120.150 01:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Under his picture it has 'assumed office' and succeded by incumbent. His last day of office was on Friday, September 14, 2007, not the 17th as it states in the article. This needs to be changed as well. Under his picture for term of office it should now read as February 3, 2005 - September 14, 2007. For succeded by it should say Solicitor General Paul Clement, at least until a permanent replacement is named and confirmed by the congress. Popeyecub77 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

His last business day was Friday; I think he officially leaves on the 17th. --Golbez 00:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle name, again

Shouldn't we be able to find this? john k (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something Simple

I was reading up on the attorney representing Gonzales in his criminal proceedings. It appears that the link on the page does not lead to correct person, rather it leads to a cinematographer by the same name. Placing "George J. Terwilliger III," instead of "George Terwilliger" should do the trick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwtorres (talk • contribs) 17:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)