This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Please place new discussions at bottom of page.
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)
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
I have added the information mentioned above by RMann. Thanks! Gwimpey 01:26, 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
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)
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)
This article is one of the worst POV's articles I've seen on Gonzales and it should be deleted and replaced with a simple, factual bio. This type of flagrant POV is exactly why wikipedia will never be anything more than a joke and a source of misinformation. I'm tempted to delete the whole thing, but then again this blatant POV is on display and telling readers something about the mindset of people with a certain political attitude.
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?)
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)
Let's clear up the difference between infer and imply:
Those who write the New York Times Imply that Bush committed crimes. Those who read these words of wit Infer such things as this from it.
So when a writer offers this in the article:
"the state of Texas executed more prisoners during Gonzales' term than any other state."
I think the writer's implication is that people were executed in Texas prisons:
(a) at an unusual or frenetic pace;
(b) at a pace inconsistent with that of the previous or next administration;
(c) at a pace inconsistent with a state of its population;
(d) to the satisfaction of the administration;
(e) without due process of trial, conviction, death sentence, appeal, and so forth having occurred;
(f) because Alberto Gonzales was less than diligent in performing his job since the death penalty was applied as directed.
Texas is the third most populous state; #1 is liberal California; #2 is liberal New York; and Texas has a huge border with Mexico; it should not surprise a grown person to learn that Texas has a considerable death penalty population and considerable use of the death penalty.
To suggest that Gonzales acted wrongly, slowly, or illogically based on the fact that death penalty rates were high is substantially subjective and therefore a matter of "point of view."
Jessemckay ( talk) 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Gonzales was first appointed by Governor George W. Bush, and then elected by the people of Texas to the Texas Supreme Court, election Nov 2000.( http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/court/j4.asp) The above statement with no attribution, only opinion, shows the derelict integrity of Wikipedia and most who post here. Most of the negative comments on this page are either unattributed or the links are broken or inaccurate. Most people won't ever go deeper than to read the inaccurate comments and believe them. I hope everyone reading this takes these comments, good and bad, with a grain of salt. They are almost all universally biased to support someone's political agenda. Very limited integrity in these posts.
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)
There is no secrecy; there is no middle name. Middle initial is R., possibly standing for Rodriguez, his mother's maiden name. Do you really think you can be the White House Counsel, Attorney General of the United States, supervise the vetting process for appointments to the United States Supreme Court, as well as the FBI background checks required to hold these positions, and have secrecy surrounding your name? This is another attempt at partisan's trying to tarnish a person's reputation, over and over, with no substance, relying on nuance and innuendo. How do you people have a conscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NylIceb ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hullo in here...
"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]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
Reguards, Paulie
I would rather have someone who upholds the justice system and supports the convictions and failed appeals. ~pete6982 3/27/07
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)
"...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
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)
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)
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
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
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)
The quotations section includes this:
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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.
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)
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).
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)
Please give the DATES on the Court Opinions. 67.101.234.186 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Gonzales testimony April 19, 2007 |
---|
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)
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html?tag=tb
“ | Gonzales proposes new crime: "Attempted" copyright infringement
|
” |
Somehow fold into the article? Would also need it's own Wikipedia article.
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)
How about this solution? -- Yellowdesk 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
List of Members of Congress calling for departure |
---|
Republicans calling for Gonzales to leave:
In addition, several Republicans have been critical of Gonzales, without calling for his resignation or firing:
Republican Senators Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch have expressed support for Gonzales, although Hatch conceded that Gonzales had "bungled." [35] Others University of Missouri law professor Frank Bowman [37] has observed that Congress has the power to impeach Gonzales if he willfully lied or withheld information from Congess during his testimony about the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. [38] Congress has impeached a sitting Cabinet member before; William Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant's Secretary of War, was impeached by the House in 1876 for bribery. He resigned immediately, and by all accounts this was all that saved him from conviction and removal by the Senate.
|
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
...when the Attorney General lies to a United States Senator ... it's time for that Attorney General to go...
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)had earlier described affair as "idiocy"
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
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)
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)
The "Investigations" and "Later Career" sections have been edited by someone who was far from neutral. The sections read as though they were written by Berty himself with unsourced statements like "leaving one to wonder whether McKay, one of the fired U.S. Attorneys, was trying to smear Gonzales for political or personal gain." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.55.114 ( talk) 19:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Much of this article reads like Mr. Gonzales wrote it himself. Significant space is devoted to rehabilitating his reputation. I wonder if this article can be salvaged or should be started anew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57Telecaster ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I came to this article to find information (I'm considering a job and need honest information) and it's clear I cannot trust anything on this page. It reads like a political plant and is full of irrelevant quotes that do nothing but bolster one pov. The end result is that I don't trust anything in it. Perhaps some of you need to learn the lesson that if you slant an article too strongly one way, the reader is forced to believe theh opposite of what you are trying to convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.250.201 ( talk) 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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)
The NY Times reference needs to have an alt name, as the url is stretching the screen Le the 11:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
Shouldn't we be able to find this? john k ( talk) 20:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
All that it was was that the democrats tried to make a scandal out of it. It is OK for the attorney general to fire the district attorneys and replace them. Footballfan190 ( talk) 22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is incorporated in WikiProject Mexico. How appropriate is this? Mr. Gonzales was not born in Mexico and the article does not say that he has citizenship in Mexico. The article does say that he has ancestry in Mexico, but through his grandparents. I'd understand WikiProject Canada incorporating Mike Myers because that fellow was born in the country and raise there but I wouldn't understand WikiProject England incorporating George Bush due to it being Mr. Bush's ancestry. A more appropriate approach would follow the Winston Churchill article, which is not incorporated by some wikiproject on America even though his mum was American. Maybe some wikiproject on Mexican-Americans may be more appropriate. Unless there is some objection I think someone or myself should remove the wikiproject Mexico tag. EECavazos ( talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I placed references to a Daily News editorial against the subject. Is there any editorial in his favor, just to make this WP:NPOV? Bearian ( talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Scott Horton reported yesterday that charges were to filed today against "The Bush Six". I figure the best way to cover this material would be to a single article that dealt with the charges in detail. I started to prepare a draft here. Comments to it are welcome at its talk page. I figured the articles about the six men should each have a relatively small section that sets the context for the charges for that particular man, and then refers readers to the main article, via {{ see}} or {{ main}}. Geo Swan ( talk) 15:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably the single best biography on the market is Bill Minutaglio's The President's Counselor. Minutaglio is a Texas-based journalist with excellent sources. Though Gonzales refused to cooperate with the book, many family and friends did, and the book is detailed and even-handed. Its only "flaw" is that it only goes up to Gonzales's ascension to the Attorney General position. This article could be vastly improved with inclusion of content from Minutaglio's book. Black Max ( talk) 19:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Black Max
This section is quite biased in favor of Gonzales and the Bush administration, and skillfully so. Most of the material favors Gonzales, especially in the section that "exonerates" him, and the material that goes against him is presented in an offhand, dismissive fashion. Very POV. Black Max ( talk) 17:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Black Max
I would remove this sentence: "Gonzales's tenure as U.S. Attorney General was marked by controversy regarding warrantless surveillance and regarding whether the administration had authorized torture." I don't think that stuff was as important in getting him to resign as was the US Attorney firings. Most of the surveillance and torture/interrogation decisions were made long before Gonzales became Attorney General. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
There should be some mention of his famous congressional testimony where he answered so many questions evasively with "I Don't Recall" 96.251.137.43 ( talk) 15:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Ich, your recent edit here regarding Enhanced Interrogation Techniques smacks of POV, and, as such, I have reverted it. The official name is Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, and the lede already makes clear some people identify it as torture. It should be their opinion – not Wikipedia's. Looking at your user page, I see you live in New York City, so I'm guessing you're a liberal Democrat. You're entitled to your political views, of course. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to advocate your political views. Abandon that behavior now, please.
Redhood6889 (
talk)
16:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/washington/29gonzales.html and is not presented in a way that I'd present it in a scholarly paper without worrying about plagiarism. Mattman00000 ( talk) 04:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/17/ashcroft/index.html?source=refresh{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/701-doj-report-blasts-yoo-for-not-citing-court-case-in-torture-memo.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2624151{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ediction.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/-6-1/16/LKL.HTMLWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Please place new discussions at bottom of page.
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)
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
I have added the information mentioned above by RMann. Thanks! Gwimpey 01:26, 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
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)
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)
This article is one of the worst POV's articles I've seen on Gonzales and it should be deleted and replaced with a simple, factual bio. This type of flagrant POV is exactly why wikipedia will never be anything more than a joke and a source of misinformation. I'm tempted to delete the whole thing, but then again this blatant POV is on display and telling readers something about the mindset of people with a certain political attitude.
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?)
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)
Let's clear up the difference between infer and imply:
Those who write the New York Times Imply that Bush committed crimes. Those who read these words of wit Infer such things as this from it.
So when a writer offers this in the article:
"the state of Texas executed more prisoners during Gonzales' term than any other state."
I think the writer's implication is that people were executed in Texas prisons:
(a) at an unusual or frenetic pace;
(b) at a pace inconsistent with that of the previous or next administration;
(c) at a pace inconsistent with a state of its population;
(d) to the satisfaction of the administration;
(e) without due process of trial, conviction, death sentence, appeal, and so forth having occurred;
(f) because Alberto Gonzales was less than diligent in performing his job since the death penalty was applied as directed.
Texas is the third most populous state; #1 is liberal California; #2 is liberal New York; and Texas has a huge border with Mexico; it should not surprise a grown person to learn that Texas has a considerable death penalty population and considerable use of the death penalty.
To suggest that Gonzales acted wrongly, slowly, or illogically based on the fact that death penalty rates were high is substantially subjective and therefore a matter of "point of view."
Jessemckay ( talk) 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Gonzales was first appointed by Governor George W. Bush, and then elected by the people of Texas to the Texas Supreme Court, election Nov 2000.( http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/court/j4.asp) The above statement with no attribution, only opinion, shows the derelict integrity of Wikipedia and most who post here. Most of the negative comments on this page are either unattributed or the links are broken or inaccurate. Most people won't ever go deeper than to read the inaccurate comments and believe them. I hope everyone reading this takes these comments, good and bad, with a grain of salt. They are almost all universally biased to support someone's political agenda. Very limited integrity in these posts.
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)
There is no secrecy; there is no middle name. Middle initial is R., possibly standing for Rodriguez, his mother's maiden name. Do you really think you can be the White House Counsel, Attorney General of the United States, supervise the vetting process for appointments to the United States Supreme Court, as well as the FBI background checks required to hold these positions, and have secrecy surrounding your name? This is another attempt at partisan's trying to tarnish a person's reputation, over and over, with no substance, relying on nuance and innuendo. How do you people have a conscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NylIceb ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hullo in here...
"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]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
Reguards, Paulie
I would rather have someone who upholds the justice system and supports the convictions and failed appeals. ~pete6982 3/27/07
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)
"...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
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)
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)
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
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
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)
The quotations section includes this:
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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.
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)
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).
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)
Please give the DATES on the Court Opinions. 67.101.234.186 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Gonzales testimony April 19, 2007 |
---|
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)
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html?tag=tb
“ | Gonzales proposes new crime: "Attempted" copyright infringement
|
” |
Somehow fold into the article? Would also need it's own Wikipedia article.
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)
How about this solution? -- Yellowdesk 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
List of Members of Congress calling for departure |
---|
Republicans calling for Gonzales to leave:
In addition, several Republicans have been critical of Gonzales, without calling for his resignation or firing:
Republican Senators Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch have expressed support for Gonzales, although Hatch conceded that Gonzales had "bungled." [35] Others University of Missouri law professor Frank Bowman [37] has observed that Congress has the power to impeach Gonzales if he willfully lied or withheld information from Congess during his testimony about the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. [38] Congress has impeached a sitting Cabinet member before; William Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant's Secretary of War, was impeached by the House in 1876 for bribery. He resigned immediately, and by all accounts this was all that saved him from conviction and removal by the Senate.
|
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
...when the Attorney General lies to a United States Senator ... it's time for that Attorney General to go...
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)had earlier described affair as "idiocy"
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
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)
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)
The "Investigations" and "Later Career" sections have been edited by someone who was far from neutral. The sections read as though they were written by Berty himself with unsourced statements like "leaving one to wonder whether McKay, one of the fired U.S. Attorneys, was trying to smear Gonzales for political or personal gain." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.55.114 ( talk) 19:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Much of this article reads like Mr. Gonzales wrote it himself. Significant space is devoted to rehabilitating his reputation. I wonder if this article can be salvaged or should be started anew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57Telecaster ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I came to this article to find information (I'm considering a job and need honest information) and it's clear I cannot trust anything on this page. It reads like a political plant and is full of irrelevant quotes that do nothing but bolster one pov. The end result is that I don't trust anything in it. Perhaps some of you need to learn the lesson that if you slant an article too strongly one way, the reader is forced to believe theh opposite of what you are trying to convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.250.201 ( talk) 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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)
The NY Times reference needs to have an alt name, as the url is stretching the screen Le the 11:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
Shouldn't we be able to find this? john k ( talk) 20:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
All that it was was that the democrats tried to make a scandal out of it. It is OK for the attorney general to fire the district attorneys and replace them. Footballfan190 ( talk) 22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is incorporated in WikiProject Mexico. How appropriate is this? Mr. Gonzales was not born in Mexico and the article does not say that he has citizenship in Mexico. The article does say that he has ancestry in Mexico, but through his grandparents. I'd understand WikiProject Canada incorporating Mike Myers because that fellow was born in the country and raise there but I wouldn't understand WikiProject England incorporating George Bush due to it being Mr. Bush's ancestry. A more appropriate approach would follow the Winston Churchill article, which is not incorporated by some wikiproject on America even though his mum was American. Maybe some wikiproject on Mexican-Americans may be more appropriate. Unless there is some objection I think someone or myself should remove the wikiproject Mexico tag. EECavazos ( talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I placed references to a Daily News editorial against the subject. Is there any editorial in his favor, just to make this WP:NPOV? Bearian ( talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Scott Horton reported yesterday that charges were to filed today against "The Bush Six". I figure the best way to cover this material would be to a single article that dealt with the charges in detail. I started to prepare a draft here. Comments to it are welcome at its talk page. I figured the articles about the six men should each have a relatively small section that sets the context for the charges for that particular man, and then refers readers to the main article, via {{ see}} or {{ main}}. Geo Swan ( talk) 15:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably the single best biography on the market is Bill Minutaglio's The President's Counselor. Minutaglio is a Texas-based journalist with excellent sources. Though Gonzales refused to cooperate with the book, many family and friends did, and the book is detailed and even-handed. Its only "flaw" is that it only goes up to Gonzales's ascension to the Attorney General position. This article could be vastly improved with inclusion of content from Minutaglio's book. Black Max ( talk) 19:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Black Max
This section is quite biased in favor of Gonzales and the Bush administration, and skillfully so. Most of the material favors Gonzales, especially in the section that "exonerates" him, and the material that goes against him is presented in an offhand, dismissive fashion. Very POV. Black Max ( talk) 17:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Black Max
I would remove this sentence: "Gonzales's tenure as U.S. Attorney General was marked by controversy regarding warrantless surveillance and regarding whether the administration had authorized torture." I don't think that stuff was as important in getting him to resign as was the US Attorney firings. Most of the surveillance and torture/interrogation decisions were made long before Gonzales became Attorney General. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
There should be some mention of his famous congressional testimony where he answered so many questions evasively with "I Don't Recall" 96.251.137.43 ( talk) 15:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Ich, your recent edit here regarding Enhanced Interrogation Techniques smacks of POV, and, as such, I have reverted it. The official name is Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, and the lede already makes clear some people identify it as torture. It should be their opinion – not Wikipedia's. Looking at your user page, I see you live in New York City, so I'm guessing you're a liberal Democrat. You're entitled to your political views, of course. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to advocate your political views. Abandon that behavior now, please.
Redhood6889 (
talk)
16:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/washington/29gonzales.html and is not presented in a way that I'd present it in a scholarly paper without worrying about plagiarism. Mattman00000 ( talk) 04:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/17/ashcroft/index.html?source=refresh{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/701-doj-report-blasts-yoo-for-not-citing-court-case-in-torture-memo.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2624151{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ediction.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/-6-1/16/LKL.HTMLWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alberto Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)