Talk:Bradley Schlozman
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
Citations needed
- http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/11608 I don't know how to add this, but some new developments happened that confirm Schlozman's story to some extent. P. Lehey yelled at Schlozman about breaking the DOJ rules on indictments while furiously waiving the DOJ "red book" at him and accusing him of violating DOJ policy. It is noteworthy that Donsanto, the guy who wrote that book and who is known to be a straight-shooter career-DOJ attorney, ultimately seemed to be pleased with the indictment and the WSJ editorial praising the prosecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.91.38 (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- appointment as interim U.S. Attorney
- is he still a U.S. Attorney, with his residency waived, under the USA Patriot act reauthorization section 501?
--Yellowdesk 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, he works back in DC, now, in the EOUSA. See here, a bio of his replacement.
- Cite for his interim appt is here
- -- Sholom 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- where is he licensed?WRM 02:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- He stated in testimony in June 2007 he was licensed to practice in Missouri, and that is where he is from. -- Yellowdesk 17:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Consider eliminating the section on Texas Redistricting: the link to Schlozman is tenuous on its face. The paragraph is mostly about the redistricting, adding merely that Schlozman was "allegedly" involved. 149.101.1.133 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)dbartramr
- Per the Washington Post: "Bradley J. Schlozman, for example, was a deputy in Justice's civil rights division who helped overrule career government lawyers in approving a Texas redistricting plan pushed by Tom DeLay (R-Tex.)" ([1]) More than "allegedly", though probably not worth more than a sentence or two in a biography. MastCell Talk 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Recent Edits
I find myself somewhat skeptical of recent edits by Boxcutterman - this appears to be a single-purpose account. References have been deleted, and some of the edits appear to be from a POV. We do strive for NPOV and the article probably required/s a bit of clean up/organization, but a single opinion piece in the weekly standard by a conservative attorney who was not reappointed to the DoJ because of his involvment in the DoJ mess does not rise to the level of a "heavy criticism" of the Inspector General's report! The doubt the opinion piece casts on the conclusions of the DoJ report is negligible. Bdushaw (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with these concerns. I'll go a bit further. For one thing, the lead section needs to cover the various political-influence controversies. According to the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, the lead paragraph should briefly summarize all relevant aspects of the article subject. In this case, the most relevant aspect (as judged by the available reliable sources) is the existence of various political-influence controversies. Therefore, these need to be covered in the lead, despite repeated removals by Boxcutterman (talk · contribs).
Secondly, we need to use reliable sources. Reliable sources include major reputable news organizations, and major governmental agencies such as the DOJ Inspector General. Opinion pieces in lower-profile partisan journals are not particularly useful sources for an encyclopedia article. Thus, I share the concern over the undue weight being accorded Hans von Spakovsky's article. I'd welcome a response here from Boxcutterman so we can move forward. MastCell Talk 05:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am admittedly new to Wikipedia. And I don't have a problem with keeping the political-influence controversies in the lead. My concern was that the discussion was not presented fairly or neutrally. Erroneous material keeps getting returned. For example, Schlozman was never nominated to the U.S. Attorney position; he was merely an interim appointment. Thus, he was never subject to confirmation and it makes no sense to say that his "nomination" was in doubt. Also, I reviewed all the testimony and Schlozman testified that he did not hire on the basis of political affiliation; yet the edits continue to conflate political affiliation and ideology, which are very different. Moreover, removing the reference to the fact that the U.S. Attorney's Office -- an obviously very reliable source -- said it opted not to go forward only after considering evidence and using investigative techniques that the IG did not and tends to blunt some of the IG's findings. (At a bare minimum, it deserves to be mentioned in this entry and not simply stricken.) Further, it is a fair point by Bdushaw that the "heavily criticized" comment regarding the Hans von Spakovsky article may have been a bit too strong. But presenting the other side is only fair, particularly when other op-eds by other partisans have also been cited. Partisanship may be in the eyes of the beholder, but recent editorials by the likes of Iglesias and Joe Rich underscore that they are hardly apolitical figures. Finally, the point that the DOJ had definitively stated that Schlozman's actions in the Acorn case were not violative of DOJ policy is pretty significant, yet that point seems to keep getting deleted as well. Boxcutterman (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)