Talk:Michael Mukasey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a project to improve all Belarus-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Belarus-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Belarus To-do:
Michael Mukasey was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 21, 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Mukasey article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Discussion of Political Controversy in Article?

What is wrong with including this in the article? It has a reference...

"Many speculate that the motives behind Mukasey's sentence for journalist Susan Lindauer to be jailed and drugged in a Texas psychiatric facility had more to do with her knowledge of prewar diplomatic efforts to avoid war, than with her mental state. [1]"

Sincerely, Nigel Barristoat 23:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Attribution. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I should have included a better source for this speculation, like for one instance, the Seattle Weekly [2]
Sincerely, Nigel Barristoat 23:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, that seems more appropriate on the article about Susan Lindauer than it does here. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and I guess most people probably don't care and don't want to know that this is the guy who gave Larry Silverstein his billions either, so why don't you remove (or should I say "pull") that while you're at it? Nigel Barristoat 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want add information about Lindauer's case, regarding what Mukasey did in the case and how he ruled, that is fine, but lets not "speculate" about the "motives behind Mukasey's sentence." Try reading WP:NOT. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As a point of reference, the Talk page guidelines begin with a bold-font statement that "article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views". —Adavidb 13:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines' good practice section seems applicable. —Adavidb 13:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Quite right; talk pages are to be used for discussing what should or should not be included in the article. That is exactly all we have done; I have also suggested that the mention of Larry Silverstein that is already in the article right now, be removed ("pulled"?), and I have suggested a reason (i.e. because there is no real "need to know" about this.) You do not even know what my "personal views" about it are (if indeed I have any), because I haven't told anyone what they are. Nigel Barristoat 13:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Bold text effectively emphasizes one's personal views. —Adavidb 11:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Steven Andrew Miller, and also remind all of us of WP:BIO. Wikipedia articles cannot afford to have even the slightest appearance of defamation about them. Accusing a judge of being biased while on the bench is an extremely serious charge, since if it is true, then the judge could lose not only his judgeship but also his ability to practice as a lawyer. Therefore, such claims must be backed up with extremely good evidence. --M@rēino 20:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop editing one another's comments. It adds nothing to the discussion, and you've both managed to break the three revert rule over it. --Haemo 21:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Removing POV highlighting does not violate 3RR. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kimba Wood

I made a correction to take Kimba Wood out of the info box as Mukasey's successor. It was undone and I had to do it again. To be clear, Kimba Wood succeeded him as chief judge for the district. She already was a judge and continues to be one as well. But upon Mukasey's retirement, she also became chief judge for the district. The info box is about Mukasey's seat as a federal judge, not about his role as chief judge. As the White House website says, Bush nominated a "Richard Sullivan" to replace Mukasey as a judge. [3] I do not know whether or not Sullivan has been confirmed yet or not. Awbeal 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sullivan has not been confirmed. The seat is vacant. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Judge Sullivan was confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 2007. See United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Senate nominations webpage, or the court's own website. Newyorkbrad 21:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thank you for finding this. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be useful or appropriate to apply values to the 'office2', 'term_start2', etc. fields in the existing Infobox, to show Mukasey's role as Chief Judge? —Adavidb 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate. See William Rehnquist for example. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
We need to find the date Mukasey became Chief Judge. Wood apparently became Chief Judge on 01AUG06. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Per:

“ Served as chief judge, 2000-2006. Assumed senior status on August 1, 2006. Service terminated on September 9, 2006, due to retirement. ”

— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been unable to find the exact date Mukasey became Chief Judge. If anyone can find that, it would be great. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

March 12, 2000, per [4]. Newyorkbrad 18:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move?

Does anyone have an objection to moving this to Michael Mukasey? --MZMcBride 01:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes too much difference as long as there are appropriate redirects, but it's been at the current name from inception and I don't see a need for the move. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Sort of following the pattern of most common name; e.g., Alberto Gonzales vs. Alberto R. Gonzales and John Roberts vs. John G. Roberts. Just a thought. --MZMcBride 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm just used to seeing it with the middle initial on opinions and on lists of judges (in "real life" I'm a litigation attorney in Manhattan). No strong opinion either way really. Newyorkbrad 02:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relation of the U.S. Attorneys controversy to the nomination and nominee

With this edit, (at 22:55, September 22, 2007 UTC) cited and sourced text was removed that indicated that there already is an active disccussion between Senators, the candidate, and the White house about issues consequent to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The edit summary was "Removed section about U.S. Attorneys controversy, not related to Mukasey"
It appears to me the relation has already been established, and already a part of the nomination process, which is the title of the section in question, Nomination as Attorney General. The source article is entitled "Democrats May Tie Confirmation to Gonzales Papers" For clarity I'll outline why it appears to me the issue is related to this biography article, and to that section of the article:

  • Gonzales's departure had something to do with the vacancy (and consequent nomination of Mukasey), starting with numerous Senators who are on the same committee that will take Mukasey's nomination testimony, telling Gonzales at a hearing about the U.S. attorneys that he had no credibility and should resign.
  • Documents, responses and testimony by individuals requested by the same Senators have not been produced by the DOJ or White House to the same Senate committee.
  • The Senators who are members of the committee, as stated in the referenced article, have mixed views about how hard to bargain over requested information in the process of confirming the nomination, and what kind of commitments will be requested from the candidate nominee.
  • Last, but not least, the nominee himself has responded to aspects of the U.S attorneys issue, with a promise directly related to an important aspect of the controversy.
Here's the source article: Eggen, Dan; and Elizabeth Williamson. "Democrats May Tie Confirmation to Gonzales Papers", Washington Post, September 19, 2007, pp. A10. Retrieved on 2007-09-19. 

I invite comment from editors on whether the removed text in question, and more generally the topic of the U.S. attorneys, is related to Mukasy's nomination.
-- Yellowdesk 00:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor who removed the text. As I mentioned on Yellowdesk's talk page previously, I do not believe that Mukasey has any connection to the "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" at this point in time. This article should be about Mukasey, his personal history, and his history as a judge. Not a matter in which the subject of the article has no connection. If there is some development in the course of the confirmation hearing, such as Mukasey (assuming he is confirmed) appointing an independent counsel to investigate the controversy, then it would be relevant. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not speculate about what is or is not going to happen, including reporting other's speculation. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
After reading the source article in full and the outline above, I believe it is premature to tie Mukasey's article to the attorney dismissal controversy. Mukasey met with "key members of both parties," which is common for cabinet nominees. We don't have a transcript of the content of those discussions. The source article says Mukasey will return with answers to various questions, though we don't have those answers. The agreement to ensure top-level response to political inquiries is to avoid future scandals, though doesn't tie Mukasey to the attorney dismissal case directly. —Adavidb 12:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I added a fleeting reference to the scandal in order to provide context for Mukasey's assurance regarding political inquiries. Without any mention of the controversy, the reference is awkward. I agree that devoting a paragraph to the controversy is out-of-proportion, but a brief reference to the scandal sure seems helpful for understanding why Mukasey would make such a concession--because politicians were soliciting U.S. Attorneys for particular results in cases.--Capnpitz 14:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the current reference is a good compromise. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think both references should be used, so that the significance of having two senators, Shumer and Leahy, reporting the same response/commitment may be supported. -- Yellowdesk 18:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi automatic Peer Reviewer

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
    • 1. Context - see Template:Biography
    • 2. Characterization - appearance, age, gender, educational level, vocation or occupation, financial status, marital status, social status, cultural background, hobbies, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ambitions, motivations, personality, what the biography refers to as used in the given context.
    • 3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background.
    • 4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate.
    • 5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism. need to compare to other American lawyers or attorney generals, if appropriate.
    • If the article was to become a feature article or an article chosen for a portal - only the lead would be used - does it induce the reader to desire to know what the article is about and seek further information?
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 06:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Quite a few areas start repeatedly with the name, and the sentence structure could incorporate the name to the middle or end of the sentence. Many paragraphs are one sentence long. b (MoS): See above semi automatic peer reviewer.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • Could also incorporate the articles listed in What links here into the body of the article. The wikipedia articles which link to Michael Mukasey in their prose section, could be a source of additional information as an internal wiki link.
  • The references :[1] does not exist. [2] [3]) attended the school.(Citation number 11, 12 and 17).
  • Reference :[4] needs a user name and password to see citation 20.
  • There are two links in (Belarusian) which I cannot verify, so will seek another good article reviewer.

SriMesh | talk 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I consolidated and replaced the article's first and third broken references above. —Adavidb 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I updated the remaining broken reference and removed the article's 'citations broken' template. —Adavidb 13:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The "prose" grammar improvements suggested above have been applied and I'm removing the article's 'grammar' template. —Adavidb 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Storey, Jeff (Winter 2001). Making a Real Difference in Criminal Law. Cardozo Life. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Retrieved on 2007-09-15.
  2. ^ Barrett, Devlin (September 17, 2007). Mukasey Has Long Terror Resume. via Google News. Associated Press. Retrieved on 2007-09-17.
  3. ^ Kehilath Jeshurun Bulletin (PDF) page 19. Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun (1999-06-18). Retrieved on 2007-09-17.
  4. ^ Judge Warns about Leaks in Bomb Case. New York Times (July 31, 1993).

[edit] B Class Rating

| The article meets the following five criteria:

  1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. - This article could be improved as it is suffering from some link rot
  2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
  3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
  4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
  5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
  6. Overall:
    B Pass/Fail:

Upgraded quality rating from Start to B class. SriMesh | talk 22:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AG Nomination, political issues

Some context for the hearings process and issues raised are be desirable, especially in light of the visibility of President Bush's interest, and the concerns of Senators whose assent is required for a successful nomination. The actual views of the person under discussion, Mr. Mukasey, and the reasons for the reactions to those views are necessary. Here is the text, with citations that has been the object of a recent edit war:

Leahy and the other nine Democratic committee members had indicated the week before, via letter, to Mukasey that they were "deeply troubled by your refusal to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal during your confirmation hearing..."[1]

And I have added approximatley the following:

By holding an unusual Oval Office meeting with journalists on November 1, 2007, Bush signaled his concern that the nomination which was previously judged to be a sure bet, is in peril, primarily over what is and is not considered illegal torture.[2] Mukasey has refused to state an unequivocal legal position on the interrogating techniqe waterboarding, and it appears that he was concerned about the potential pursuit of government employees or agents, and their authorizing superiors in American or foreign courts under criminal charges, when responding to the Senate Judiciary committee questions.[2]
In describing the issue's challenges to the Bush administration, the New York Times quoted Scott L. Silliman, director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University as saying about such court cases, which could ultimately reach the president: “You would ask not just who carried it out, but who specifically approved it.” Robert M. Chesney, of Wake Forest University School of Law, and other national security specialists have pointed out that prosecution within the United States, would be impeded by laws adopted since 2005 which permit safe-harbor protections to interrogators for governmentally authorized actions. It is believed that secret Justice Department legal opinions approved waterboarding, and other harsh interrogation techniques.[2]
  1. ^ Leahy, Patrick, and nine other Senators. Letter to Mukasey, Oct 23, 2007. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Retrieved October 31, 2007.
  2. ^ a b c Shane, Scot; David Stout. "Bush Moves to Save Mukasey Nomination", New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-11-01. 

Comment invited. -- Yellowdesk 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIPAC?

I saw an editor added that Mukasey is a "life long member of AIPAC" to the article, and then gave two links ([5] [6]) when asked for a cite from another editor.

The first link is an repost of a Politico.com article (Dems look to grill Mukasey) on Common Dreams. No where in the article are "AIPAC" or "Israel" mentioned, but rather they are only found in the Common Dreams reader comments. The same is true of the second link, a posting from Senator Bernie Sanders on The Huffington Post. Again, neither "AIPAC" nor "Israel" are mentioned anywhere but in the comments. Both of these obviously fail to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline for the purposes of establishing a link between Mukasey and AIPAC. I can not find a reliable sources that links Mukasey to this political group. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about swearing-in

I see several news accounts verifying the Senate confirmation Thursday, but none of them mentions if he has been sworn in yet. Isn't the office technically vacant until the moment of the swearing in? 70.105.20.208 12:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This news article says he was sworn in today, November 9, with a public swearing-in ceremony planned for next week. —Adavidb 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crack Comment Cotravertial

They are not crack is worse then powder it is like saying heroin an codiene are the same no one is much stronger and takrn by needle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.181.23 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)