Talk:John Yoo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wolfgang Kaleck page redirect?

Why does the page for Wolfgang Kaleck (if you click on the link to him under 3.3 War crimes accusations) go to the page for Donald Rumsfeld? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.109.216 (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

rel to christopher yoo?

Does anyone know whether John Yoo is the brother of law professor Christopher Yoo, who also has advanced the theory of the unitary executive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.181.226.34 (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - See Also

There is no relation that merits having Carl Schmitt in the 'See also' other than implying a comparison between John Yoo, a modern American legal professor and jurist, to Nazis. That is a opinion one is entitled to, but it does not belong in the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmidtr1 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2006 June 10

Carl Schmitt was a German jurist, political theorist, and professor of law with similar opinions as John Yoo. Two peas in a pod. The link is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.192.246 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 2007 April 21

sounds like you are playing the "Hitler Card" - that is, The Nazis accepted idea I. Therefore, I must be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.226.76 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 2007 May 7

actually, its more like, idea "I" is wrong, AND the Nazis accepted the idea. That should be worthy of noting.

I removed some see alsos that are already linked in the article per GTL. Thanks, --Tom 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Korean name

What is his Korean first name? Badagnani 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unitary Executive Theory does not equal "Yoo Doctrine", other issues

The section discussing the so-called "Yoo Doctrine" is extremely problematic. This is partially because it suggests that Yoo himself is somehow exceptionally in his beliefs in the separation of powers; yet the belief for a firm separation required in Constitutional law is not unique to Mr. Yoo (see for example Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson. The term "Yoo Doctrine" is indeed apparent a negative term intended to deride Mr. Yoo and his opinions and certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia as an an objective fact.

Also there is little explaining why Mr. Yoo has reached the legal conclusions he has. The entry states that he has opinions X, and that various people object to them, and does only a cursory job of explaining his understanding of the Constitution and the law considering the amount of writing that he has done (which is rather extensive).JimServo (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It would also appear from a Google search of the term "Yoo Doctrine" that the term is almost exclusively used on left-wing websites. That being the case, it is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia unless prefaced by something along the order of "liberal critics of Yoo have coined the phrase 'the Yoo Doctrine' to describe. . ."Jvward (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New Talk Entry January 17, 2008: However it is "named," whether it be the "Yoo Doctrine" or "the Torture Memoranda" (the latter being the common named applied to his work), Yoo's opinions on the so-called unitary executive have been explictly rejected by the Supreme Court in the Hamdi opinion and Yoo's opinions on torture law were (1) rejected/challenged almost immediately by large numbers of lawyers in the Justice Department and in the various military judge advocate corps, and (2) withdrawn by Goldsmith (the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel after Bybee, Yoo's boss, was confirmed as an appellate court judge -- see below for additional information) because they were wrong. The most elegant elucidation of the contemporaneous firestorm of legal opposition to the Torture Memoranda I have seen is in a law review-type essay by Hatfield at Lewis and Clark obtainable in pdf form here: http://www.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB10_3_Hatfield.pdf If anything, the Wikipedia entries on Yoo pose the problem of being too reserved. Yoo is directly responsible for the creation of a population of Americans who believe that a U.S. citizen can properly/Constitutionally be held indefinitely in the continental U.S., tortured, denied habeas corpus relief, convicted on evidence without the ability to confront the source of the evidence, etc., etc. These are extraordinarily dangerous beliefs. And, as one sees in the Hatfield essay, some of the most relevant citations are to Nazi war crimes cases against Nazi lawyers responsible for authorizing torture and imprisonment. The problem of silence and politesse regarding Yoo is best illustrated by the fact that because the Torture Memoranda written by Yoo were hidden by a veil of secrecy, Judge Bybee of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the person who ultimately signed the memos, was nominated and appointed to his lifetime position on the bench without being questioned in Senate hearings about the Torture Memoranda. Thus, the Senate's Constitutional role was evicerated and the faith in the judiciary severely eroded. (Who could argue against the proposition that Bybee must forever recuse himself from any consideration of any case involving torture claims, habeas corpus, etc., etc.?) The absence of outrage over this sequence of events is the remarkable thing. Indeed, one could argue that so far the Wikipedia entries on Yoo fail to adequately expose the error and criminality of his activities (cf. Hatfield, above). Waltbenjbro (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect sir, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to "expose the error and criminality" of individuals when that error is far from obvious. Mr. Yoo's positions are subject to debate, and he has not been convicted of any crime. His is held in respect by mainstream American conservative publications such as Commentary. In essence, apparently he is a criminal for putting forward his honest opinions as to his beliefs on constitutional law. That may be wrong, sir, but it is not criminal.

(OT) As to Bybee, the fact that a judged is not questioned is not unusual because of Senate negotiations. I think that if there was a strong feeling in the opposition of the Senate's role being diminished then it can be placed on the appropriate page as an opinion. JimServo (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the POV term "left-leaning bloggers" as the source for the term "Yoo doctrine." Ref 5 quotes Paul M. Barrett as writing in the Wall Street Journal "The Yoo Doctrine, as it might be called, fits with the broader Bush-administration view that pursuing American interests is best for the country and the rest of the world." (The WSJ is behind a paywall). Google scholar shows [1] 'Legislating the Fourth Amendment: Can Congressional Legislation Make the Unconstitutional Legal' by KA Burdge - Howard Law Journal, 2006 - HeinOnline ... 2007]as saying Yoo is the 'most noted proponent of the unitary executive theory,247 sometimes also referred to as the "Yoo Doctrine."' The Howard Law Journal also can hardly be called a "left-leaning blogger." Edison (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Smear?

See this. utcursch | talk 07:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This biography of a living person has significant WP:NPOV and WP:SYN problems. Jas public (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No matter how obvious it may seem I would encourage contributors to offer specific instances of the perceived lapses from WP:NPOV that trigger their concern. Nothing is obvious.

Regarding the note from the PowerLine blog... just because Powerline is a blog from the extreme doesn't mean we shouldn't consider any valid points it makes, here in our talk page discussion.

Was Padilla tortured? Actual proof of torture remains unconfirmed, I believe.

However, haven't his attorneys stated that his mental health was so damaged by the conditions of his interrogations and incarceration that his mind had snapped? that he was unable to participate in his own defense? that he did not seem aware of what was going on during his trial? If I am not mistaken his attorney's account is verifiable. The standard the wikipedia aims for is "verifiability, not truth".

This article should not be smearing Yoo. Powerline complains that a passage from the wikipedia was editorializing. I'll agree, that passage could do with a bit of improvement. But it doesn't seem to be nearly as bad as Powerline pretends. Powerline is just an opinion blog, so there is nothing wrong with it editorializing. Powerline's characterization of Padilla's lawsuit as "frivolous" is editorializing. Wikipedia contributors should discount this characterization, and rely on informed opinions on this case from more authoritative sources.

I doubt whether either the Consortium News Powerline criticizes the article for using, or Powerline itself, would make the cut to be considered a reliable source.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Section deleted

I deleted the section "War crimes accusations" because it had only one external link and no inline citations, as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The lawsuits are of encyclopedic interest, but should only be written citing reliable sources. Andjam (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing sourced info is a bit silly, especially a wellknown fact as this.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The external link doesn't even link to a valid page. Even if it weren't an invalid page, by itself it wouldn't satisfy reliable sources, especially for a biography of a living person. Wikipedia:BLP#Well_known_public_figures gives court-related documents as a specific example of something to avoid using as a primary source about individuals unless a secondary source has already cited them. Andjam (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've listed this article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Yoo. Andjam (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Will add RS so your objedction will be moot.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored the sourced material and trust no valid argument exists to continue deleting it.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do the inline citations include the nazi comparisons? (Please try to use a reliable source rather than an activist outlet to support such a claim) Andjam (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Andjam is absolutely correct that WP:BLP requires reliable sources for any such statement in the article. Unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory information must be removed. Edison (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure the numerous legal sources supporting alost each sentence (hyperbole) are not part of your comment. Actually, none of the sources in that section can even remotely be said to fail WP:RS or WP:V.~~

Reliability of After Downing Street article

Can an article that mocks Asian accents from a web site that features 9/11 truthers be considered a reliable source? Or is this only intending to illustrate an example of anti-Yoo sentiment? Andjam (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources sometimes also include lapses of good journalism. The Wall Street Journal is usually considered a reliable source, but it has also printed fringe anti Bill Clinton material. Most newspapers have had examples of phony reporting or ill considered editorial policy. A source should be considere in balance, and also in terms of how it is look at by other reliable sources. Edison (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nazi comparisons (again)

Please stop it with the Nazi comparisons in a living person's biography without citing a sufficiently reliable source. Someone who has appeared in antiwar.com, which also features a certain stormfront-lover, doesn't seem awfully reliable. Andjam (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop removing sourced material as you were told before by others. Nowhere does it say Nazi. Clearly your POV is not suuuuperior to material that adheres to WP:V and WP:RS.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone seriously think that Yoo based his opinions on those of the Nazis in WWII? If so that should be stated explicitly in the article, cited from RS's of course. If not the essay comparing the two is kind of out of place in a bio of Yoo. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the provided refs (they are at the end of the statements and section in case you missed them) and then we can discuss further.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did that. They seem to be one person presenting a fringe theory. This is kind of going off on a side track from the topic of the article, which is Yoo himself, his work, and his theories. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW the arguments which the Nazis presented to justify their actions on the Eastern Front: "We are defending our people from an evil force that wants to destroy us", "The other side does worse things", "The rules are outdated", etc. are quite common thoughout history and are much the same as lots of parties involved in wars use. There is nothing special about Yoo using them that proves he got them from the Nazis. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this section is inappropriate. It is gratuitous editorializing and politicizing. It is certainly possible to show that Yoo's Justice Department memos were controversial without bringing in the fringe elements and implying he is a Nazi. While it this section may conform to WP:V (true) and WP:RS (I have my doubts here), it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT and should be removed from the article. --Paul (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Nazi's also read and spoke. Does that mean that everyone discussing this can be compared to a Nazi? Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.160.136 (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Having been away I see the sourced marterial is removed. In the mean time I found numerous nother legal sources, as such there is no reason to nexclude what certainly is valid material.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Declassified

The latter (2003) memo has now been declassified, and should be discussed here and uploaded to Wikisource. See the Washington Post article. Superm401 - Talk 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates of birth

See Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_personal_information. Yoo is marginally notable - if he were highly notable, there wouldn't have been an Alex Jones article on him added (like there was last night) - so we shouldn't publish his date of birth. Andjam (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can people please discuss the issue here, rather than reverting without an edit summary and marking the edits as minor? Andjam (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion please? Andjam (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One concern I have is that people may use Yoo's date of birth to obtain other information such as his home address. I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Abuse_of_date_of_birth, for those interested in formulating general policy. Andjam (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The WHO's WHO entry on Yoo begins: born **** **, 1967. Anyone can go to a good library and find it there or in other public sources. It's on the Internet too. Other Wikipedia articles begin with the date of birth. His address is not there, and knowing he what day he was born 41 years ago South Korea is not possibly going to tell you his address today in the United States. That's just silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrible typist (talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the book, which Who's Who is it? Is it a reliable source? What is its ISBN? With regards to the use of dates of birth, if DOB can help with identity fraud, why can't it help with physical address? Andjam (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people." A Google search for Yoo's name and birthdate, exclusive of Wikipedia and its mirrors only turns up "brainyhistory" and "brainyquotes." When his birthdate is written in the date-month-year format it shows up at two more sites. Thus publishing it in Wikipedia would augment the online access to it and diminish his privacy. In this respect, Yoo seems to fall outside the category of "well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published." By comparison, a similar search for sites with Clarence Thomas's birthdate shows that it appears at 2730 sites,and John Ashcroft's appears at 445 sites, so it appearing in Wikipedia has little effect on their privacy. Even José Padilla's birthdate appears online over at over 100 sites,as it does in Wikipedia, but that may be influenced by the sites pointing out he is a native-born U.S. citizen who was imprisoned without due process and allegedly tortured. Edison (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yoo's full birthdate also appears in Gale's Contemporary Authors Online, a standard library reference work. He is far from marginally notable. He played a significant role in the Bush administration and is central to a leading controversy about the legality of torture. He's also the author of a widely reviewed book and a prominent law professor. There's nothing about him that is marginal. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course he's notable, but we're not talking about deleting the article. Above all else, we should do no harm to the subjects of BLPs, and with this individual it seems there's a reasonable argument we shouldn't list the date of birth. Most professors do not seem to have birth dates, while most politicians, judges, and pop stars do. That's not an irrational line to draw. It's not clear whether he's more like a professor or more like a cabinet-level official. This is debatable, and I'm mildly in favor of removing the date. Cool Hand Luke 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm stressing the notability because Yoo isn't even close to being marginally notable. I suspect some of the editors here are simply not familiar with him or his importance. The birthdate removal policy wasn't intended to cover major public figures like Yoo, but people like minor actors, authors, etc. who are barely public figures, not a significant presidential appointee. The policy simply isn't being applied correctly in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think not. "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth."

Furthermore, I'm honestly troubled that the date was being aggressively pushed by an SPA. If Yoo had held a cabinet-level position, or was appointed as an Article III judge (like John Bybee), or already had his date of birth widely known on the internet, I would agree with you. But he doesn't, so we should err on the side of doing no harm. Cool Hand Luke 21:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and because this is a BLP, we ought to leave it out until there's consensus to include it. Cool Hand Luke 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Haven't had much time to devote to this issue of late, but I agree with CHL's comment above. I believe that the ref was added by me earlier (but only in the edit summary, to prevent the removal of the year of his birth (which I thought we should keep). But then TTypist added back in the exact day and put the ref in the article. I reverted at the time, thinking that because he was a new user, he might not have considered all of the concerns. I stopped reverting once he responded to my comment at his talk page (at which time I realized we just disagreed). I'm still thinking that not much is gained by adding the exact day, but there is the potential for harm there. I still mildly support just keeping the year of birth. R. Baley (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also support the year. Cool Hand Luke 18:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the year w/o the exact date at this stage of fame for Yoo. I noted above that his exact birthdate was only found at 6 or so websites exclusive of Wikipedia and mirrors. Please check my analysis. I do not see how it improves the article to include it, and it does increase the chance of identity theft. It should be left out until there is a consensus for inclusion, even if a book somewhere includes it. If it can be shown that Yoo himself provided it to a Who's Who, then I would not object to including it here (unless he personnly objects to it via OTRS). I believe in the rights of the individual and in due process. I certainly would not want him to be tortured by inclusion of too much personal information which has little relevance to his effects on American society. Edison (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced material

After being away I readded the extensively sourced material regarding the origins of his legal opinions. Before objecting please consider the following:

1. Do numerous legal experts violate WP:RS?
2. When we have numerous experts pointing out something is there anything in WP policy stating we are prohibited from using such material?
3. Is a source discussing Yoo about the source or Yoo? I ask this because people assert that this article is not about Scoot Horton and therefore his analysis of Yoo is not allowed.
4. Is his principal and major contribution, and possibly the sole basis of his notability, not exactly his views on executive power justifying actions taken in the War on terror? Why would mentioning this violate WP:UNDUE?

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph on crushing a child's testicles.

I have removed this paragraph because:

(1) "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

(2)This transcript is not from a reliable source, rather it is from Philip Watts, a writer for the website of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, which has a definite POV on the subject involved. The citation for the transcript should refer to Philip Watts' press release [2], but instead links to an audio file on the same website, a brief excerpt whose authenticity has not been verified by a reliable source.

(3)Both the brief excerpt (0:19) cited in this Wikipedia article's notes, and the longer (5:55) one available on the RCP web page mentioned above stop at approximately the same point, right after the purported voice of Woo says, "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that." That sentence has the form of a topic sentence of some kind of explanatory paragraph, but the speaker is cut off at that point in the shorter audio clip and in the longer clip the speaker is interrupted by derisive laughter, presumably from some members of the audience. In neither case is Woo given the opportunity to make his case and perhaps revise or correct a misconstruing of his remarks. The only discussion I found of the provenance of this audio clip [3], does nothing to inspire confidence in its authenticity or completeness.

(4)Even if the transcript were to be verified and put in a wider context, it is Professor Cassel's tendentiously provoking imagery of crushing the testicles of an innocent child that disqualifies the passage from being used to characterize the subject of a Wikipedia biography. It is the verbal equivalent of insisting on displaying the crushed head of an aborted fetus in the biography of a pro-choice legal scholar, and has no place where one is expected to maintain a neutral point of view. —Blanchette (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, especially with Point 4: It may be offensive to the moral sensibilities of some, but it goes to character, the subject of an article was asked a question and he answered it: maybe he should have answered differently, but he stated what his interpretation of the law was (and, in my quite non-NPOV opinion, what his character is, but this is of course for our readers to discern themselves). That is certainly encyclopedic.

As for the reliability of the source who was witness to the event and recorded it: eyewitnesses are usually reliable, especially when they have audio recordings to back them up. The source may not be the most unbiased person in the world, but the source wasn't giving his opinion: he was recording Mr. Yoo's expression opinion. Unless he manufactured the tape and lied about its transcription? Katana0182 (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidney Blumenthal, former assistant and senior advisor to President Clinton and widely published American journalist wrote a column in Salon that substantiates the content in the paragraph on crushing a child's testicles. Terjen (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yoo article reverts

Regarding your reversion of my edit on John Yoo, respectfully, I don't understand how something can be WP:SYN, especially straightforwardly so, when there are no conclusions drawn.

The rationale of the footnote was this: 1. The quotation obliquely refers ("acting within the scope of his or her authority") to the concept of the immunity of government personnel acting in their official capacity using a phrase only used in the statutory language of the Westfall Act. (If you want to look up the act, it's online at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/2679.html - specifically section D. 2.)

2. Due to the choice of the speaker using the actual language of the statute (for rhetorical reasons), the concept behind the quotation might not be apparent to readers who haven't had the opportunity to read the Westfall Act, or investigate the concept of "official capacity" vs. "individual capacity". (I'm sure Mr. Yoo, as well as other DOJ officials, have read the Westfall Act, and would understand the quote; that's probably why it was used.)

3. Rather than stating this in a drawn out footnote, which would definitely be WP:OR, I linked to other articles so that the reader could better understand the concept behind the phrase, and maybe learn what this means.

That's why I had the footnote there. If you still feel that it is SYN, I won't cause a scene, but I'd like to understand your rationale. Katana0182 (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

With every statement in an article, there's a tacit premise that the material is relevant. By citing Bivens and other sundry law, you lead the reader into believing that's what the quote refers to. It may be, but that's your original conclusion, and jamming citations into a midsentence footnote is synthesizing the quote with your law that may or may not relate.

Perhaps he did mean that, but he doesn't say so even though he's quite familiar with the law, and cited several other cases related to international law. By citing cases that you believe he's referring to (in spite of the fact that he uses different words than employed in Bivens, the Westfall Act, ect.), you inject your own analysis into the quote, which is either original research or a non sequitur. In either case, it doesn't belong in the article.

WP:OR applies everywhere, even footnotes. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

Restored source that according to arbcom is acceptable. See link in edit summary.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom did not rule on this source, they rules that in some instances the author of the material is as important as where it came from. You will also notice that none of the decision was relating to a biography of a living person. CENSEI (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, what exactly does BLP mean? All it says is we need to validate statements and adhere to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR. Clearly all the criteria are met in this article. If not please identify.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rampant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH

After a more detailed look at not only the sources in this article but the text they are supporting, I find many of the citations lack any reference to Yoo, only to tertiary issues. The editor who added this is making an arguement by combingin sources that are about the subject and sources that are not about the subject. That is WP:SYNTH, and will have to be reworked. CENSEI (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please elaborate on which specific statements in the article you refer to.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside input

Since BLP is being used as frivolous "trick" to remove information one disagrees with I have asked others whether there is any BLP concern, and if so whether sourced material -Marty Lederman not RS!!!??- can be used. In the mean time I restored the more than acceptable RS following the ruling by ArbCom that it is the author and not the venue that determines acceptability.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the absence of any identification of what is considered BLP I restored info. Second I fail to understand why Glenn Greenwald can be used while the same editor disallowes Marty Lederman.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom decision you refer to is only applies to non BLP articles. CENSEI (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. It identifies what constitutes a RS. Since BLP only requires the use of RS all we have to do is use RS. ArbCom implies that Marty Lederman, as renowned legal commentator, is acceptable as RS.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong.

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.

Had the arbcom ruling applied here, the policy would have been rewritten to reflect that. The policy is clear, one more time and this will go to ANI. CENSEI (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please go to AN/I. I welcome outside input as to what the BLP is is that you refuse to identify.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One last time:

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.

. Balkinization is a weblog and prohibited from use here. I dotn know how much plainer I can put it. CENSEI (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're particularly helping matters by dismissing what may very well be valid concerns as "frivolous" and a trick to avoid normal dispute resolution. Remember WP:AGF, even if it turns out the concerns are invalid (which as I later mentioned doesn't seem to be the case), you should take concerns seriously. Self-published sources by third party experts can be used in a limited set of circumstances but they generally should not be used in BLPs at all however and definitely not 4 or 5 times. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources). If you are unable to understand the difference between Salon and a self-published blog, I suggest you start reading up a bit on wikipedia policies before you accuse other editors of behaving friviolously. If the opinions of Lederman about John Yoo were sufficiently noteable, it's likely they would have been covered by a reliable secondar source. They apparently have not been so they don't belong in this article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input but how is pointing out the obvious not helping? The logic advanced is that Bill Clinton, Kofi Anan, [Neelie Kroes]], Tony Blair, etc, cannot be used as RS once they write a piece for www.blog.com. To me and to ArbCom such a notion sounds silly. Second, to claim Lederman himself is not-notable is ridiculous. He is now part of Obama's transition team![4]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

New reliable sources verify Yoo's role in dismantling civil liberties

Here is one ref[5], the original documents released by the White House should also be added. MaxPont (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced and BLPdispute tag

Gee, maybe somewhere in this WP:COATRACK someone can include John Yoo's own point of view?[6][7][8] A good third of the sources in the footnotes don't even mention Yoo, and there are a number of unreliable primary sources cited that are entirely inappropriate in a BLP. THF (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (updated with OC Register link 14:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)) (updated with WSJ link 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

See WP:WELLKNOWN on the use of primary sources in BLPs. If any are used here without a secondary source explicitly mentioning them, they should go. Jayen466 11:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

THF is talking about secondary sources that are about the Bush administration or other topics that make this bio look like a WP:COATRACK. See, for example, many of the sources on footnote 5 that don't even mention Yoo. There are also problems with primary sources, but the COATRACK issue is still striking. I should make another pass at this article (it used to be much worse), but I don't currently have time. Cool Hand Luke 18:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 5 reduced to those cites that actually mention Yoo. Jayen466 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that this article is a WP:COATRACK - even if there's enough in here to hang some...thing, say, a coat, on it. Policy does not require or favor sympathy, understanding, or compassion for a WP:BLP -- it only requires neutrality and verifiability. Mr. Yoo is obviously an enormously controversial figure in American politics and legal thought. This having been said, facts are facts and reality is reality, regardless of whether one likes or dislikes the fact or reality in question or not. This article does not represent a fringe view of Mr. Yoo. If the reader of this article draws any conclusions about Mr. Yoo from the facts presented in this article, then that conclusion is clearly theirs, not the article's. Mr. Yoo's record speaks for itself, just as any historical figure's record does -- from Joseph Stalin's record, to Mahatma Gandhi's record, to Slobodan Milosevic's record, to Abraham Lincoln's record. Katana0182 (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Weird WP:SYNTHESIS

What is the possible relevance of

For years, Yoo declined to confirm or deny that he authored the position that the President had sufficient power to allow the NSA to monitor the communications of US citizens on US soil without a warrant (see, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy).. His name and signature appear on the October 23, 2001 memo.

? THF (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The page used to report that he declined to state whether he authored it. Now (yesterday) that the memo is released, it is clear that he did. A reader can conclude that his denials were just attempts to avoid responsibility, or can conclude that he took very seriously his responsibility to protect national security (though there is no evidence that any of the memos published so far was ever classified; I've seen plenty of declassified memos and this isn't one). The article does not draw either conclusion, so it can hardly be called WP:SYN.

A different issue is whether it is relevant. Is it relevant when the author of extremely influential government memos that led to mass-scale warrantless domestic wiretapping denies responsibility for them? Gnuish (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Or it could be that he respected executive privilege and declined to answer a question about a client, like any lawyer would, especially when the memo in question is security-related. It's irrelevant. THF (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether Mr. Yoo respects the law or not. The question is whether the passage is 1. verifiable; 2. notable; 3. not OR; 4. not SYNTH. This passage of the article appears to meet all of these criteria. It does not draw any conclusion. It merely mentions what Mr. Yoo previously stated regarding warrantless wiretapping, and what his legal position was. Placing two verifiable, notable facts germane to the subject of the article next to each other is not original research or unpublished synthesis, if no conclusion is drawn from the facts. (If the conclusion is self-evident, that does not make it original research or synthesis.) You might do better arguing on the basis of UNDUE. Objection overruled.Katana0182 (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is the relevance question. UNDUE as well, given the many possible reasons for Yoo to refuse to answer questions about the memo. It wasn't like he lied about it. THF (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Verification of statement -- please establish

"Yoo suggested that since the primary task of the President during a time of war is protecting certain US citizens". I'm not sure where statement came from. Is this factually accurate? Did Yoo claim "that since the primary task of the President during a time of war is protecting certain US citizens"? Or is someone other than Yoo - such as an editor - making the statement that "the primary task of the President during a time of war is protecting certain US citizens" in order to explain Yoo's views?

If somebody other than Yoo is making this statement, such as an editor, please enlighten us all as to its source, especially with regards to the President's oath of office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign, and domestic."

No mention of citizens, is there? Please show that Yoo said this, or how you came up with this formulation, e.g. from where, and with a source, or remove it. This is, after all, a BLP. We cannot have any unsourced material in here.Katana0182 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Charges to be filed today?

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) 15:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have to take exception to this edit (well, most of it - the addition about his law clerking and work with the Senate Judiciary Committee was good). I have a couple of concerns:

• The edit is billed as replacing "biased language" with "neutral legalese". Leaving aside the point that "legalese" is not exactly the ideal writing style for a general-readership encyclopedia, the bigger issue is "neutrality". Our role here is to accurately distill and represent what reliable sources have to say about a subject. If those reliable sources universally point out an obvious fact - for instance, that Yoo's opinions were controversial - then we convey that.

  It is not our role to softpedal or bowderlize the content of reliable sources and transform their content into "neutral legalese". It is not really complete or accurate to say that John Yoo is notable for "drafting memoranda on national security affairs", just as it would be oddly incomplete to say that Neil Armstrong was notable for "participation in the US space program." Per the sources, Yoo is notable because he drafted memoranda which provided a legal backing for extreme practices, and both those practices and his legal justification for them have come under significant scrutiny.

• The edit adds "pro-Yoo" sources. It may be a good general idea to mention Yoo's justification or response to scrutiny, but as written the sources were inappropriate. For starters, neither one mentioned John Yoo (at least, not when I control-F'd them). It seems like a minimum requirement for sources we use in this article should probably be that they actually mention John Yoo. This isn't the place to argue pro/con on extreme interrogation, except as it relates directly to John Yoo. When you start citing sources generally defending the Administration's practices which don't even mention Yoo's name, then the article starts to cross the line into a coatrack.

Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And again, this edit moves us away from what reliable sources actually say, toward one editor's conception of what is more "legally correct". The New York Times wrote that Yoo's memo asserted that "the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan." ([9]). Newsweek wrote that Yoo's memo "includes a lengthy discussion of the War Crimes Act, which it concludes has no binding effect on the president." ([10]). If Newsweek and the Times are printing things that are "legally incorrect", then by all means we should contact their respective corrections departments. But until such a correction is issued, we should rely on their narration rather than substituting our own interpretations of the law - that's sort of the basic idea of how Wikipedia works. I'm willing to discuss this, but not really willing to put up with more edit-warring without discussion and with policy-ignorant edit summaries. MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we must follow WP:NOR and stick to WP:V. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We had the same problem a few weeks ago with sources that were hostile to Yoo's views (see above). It swings both ways – whether the article's tenor is supportive or critical of Yoo, we should cite those articles that mention him by name in this BLP. I also agree that we should not make unsourced departures from RS wording. If sources with a demonstrably more precise wording can be found, all well and good, but it is not up to Wikipedians to make such corrections ex cathedra. Jayen466 10:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

From RoddyMcDowell: Whatever the New York Times may say, it is absurd to claim that John Yoo believes that Geneva does not apply to the war in Afghanistan tout court. The Times is writing imprecisely, assuming that its readership understands fine distinctions. I realize that Wikipedia requires slavish devotion to any printed source available on the Internet, but this is really just too much. John Yoo's memos---by their own language---apply the terminology of the Geneva Conventions to the War in Afghanistan (i.e., the enemy combatant/prisoner of war distinction). The debate (at least as between informed individuals) is not whether Geneva applies but in what manner Geneva applies. Were the Taliban fighters to wear uniforms, Yoo would certainly agree that they warrant full Geneva treatment. To the extent that uniforms are worn in Afghanistan, enemy soldiers are covered by full Geneva treatment. Thus, I found a blanket statement--pace New York Times--that Geneva does not apply to Afghanistan to be inaccurate.

I find it extraordinary that such an eloquent exponent of Wikipedia's "neutrality" mission finds fault with the addition of sources arguing a pro-Yoo position on the flimsy grounds that they do not mention Yoo by name, despite plainly referencing the precise set of events and memoranda at issue here. To follow your NASA example, you have written an article claiming that Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon, that the moon landing was undertaken in a Hollywood soundstage, on the basis of a misconstrual of some broad language you happen to have found on a webpage. When I added some articles indicating that NASA has indeed sent astronauts to the moon--albeit without a mention of Armstrong by name--your response is that the articles are inappropriate because it's not clear to which astronaut the articles refer. This is Wiki-casuistry---the Management of Wikipedia were correct to mark this article as "potentially biased," as it has plainly been captured by a particular ideological agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddyMcDowell (talk • contribs) 14:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would advise you to research scholarly publications that cover these matters; in the eyes of most editors here, a good scholarly analysis in a mainstream academic publication or law journal will trump a newspaper article. If the newspaper account is wrong, or takes liberties with the nicer points of the matter, then this is the way to get our article here right. It is not enough for you to know that you are right; you have to demonstrate it with an authoritative source that agrees with you, so that you're verifiably right. These may help: [11][12] And if these sources, as may well turn out to be the case, take different views on the question, we have to reflect all of these views in proportion to their prevalence. Jayen466 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually fine with clarifying that Yoo argued that the Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants in Afghanistan; while this is not explicitly stated in the Times, I think it's generally agreed that this was the issue at hand, as Roddy states. I have no problem with that. At present, the lead states that Yoo argued that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured during the War in Afghanistan and held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. I'm fine with that summary; is it agreeable to others?

I agree it would be useful to include sources which describe Yoo's defense or justification of his opinions. We can go to scholarly sources; I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that quite a bit has been written about Yoo's memoranda in the literature (one source noted that debunking the legal reasoning of his memoranda has become a "cottage industry" in some legal circles). I think we can accurately represent whatever debate exists without turning the article into a complete WP:COATRACK; one important boundary is in restricting ourselves to sources that actually mention John Yoo for the purposes of this article. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a biographical article on Yoo; the Bybee memo has its own article, where the fine details and extended discussion probably belong. Jonathunder (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Continued NPOV/BLP problems

In addition to what I identify in the archive, there's no attempt to tell John Yoo's side of the story. THF (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is a bloody BLP disaster, and with so many contentious editors it will take a monsterous amount of effort to fix it. I wish editors would learn the rules of this place.--Jarhed (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend stubbing and restarting from scratch. THF (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OR

Far too much original research analyzing WP:PRIMARY sources, including unreliable sources like the OPR report that the government rejected and "democracyinaction.org." This article needs to be stubbed and started over. THF (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Professional Responsibility paragraph

Far too much original research analyzing WP:PRIMARY sources, including unreliable sources like the OPR report that the government rejected and "democracyinaction.org." This article needs to be stubbed and started over. THF (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave an explanation in my edit-summary.

First, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/498/t/3535/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1458 is not a reliable source for a BLP. (Too, anybody can file a complaint with a bar association, and politically motivated ones like this one are usually ignored, but that's a WEIGHT and NPOV issue we can address if the OR and RS problems are ever resolved.)

Second, extensive quote-mining from a primary-source OPR report that was rejected by the deputy attorney general violates NOR and BLP.

Third, the last two sentences were violations of NOR, CRYSTAL, and SYN.

The entire two paragraphs were essentially OR; there wasn't a single secondary source cited.

I don't think this was a close call, or I wouldn't have used rollback. If you wish to discuss further, feel free to copy this to Talk:John Yoo and respond there. THF (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the critique, of which I think your objections to the second paragraph were well taken. I have removed the speculation and confined it to citing fact. Also a footnote in the first paragraph potentially infringed on Professor Yoo's privacy, so I deleted the reference. However the quotes from the Justice Department materials accurately reflect them, and Professor's Yoo's defense of himself in the Wall Street Journal (while not neutral) is given prominent placement for fairness in the last sentence. I might observe also that the assertion that Bar Association referrals are politically motivated suggests a point of view which The Justice Department Office of Professional Responsiblity and at least some who have filed complaints do not share. It would be inappropriate to have an article on Professor Yoo without a mention of the Justice Department and Bar Association proceedings which the professor himself as well as the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal considered worthy of same day editorials.ElijahBosley (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits show a lack of concern for BLP policy and your reversion of the BLP edit shows that you are ready to edit war to keep them. I do not appreciate such an attitude at any time, but especially not when the issue at question is a BLP one. So far as I am concerned, the bar investigation exhonerated Yoo and absolutely no mention of it should be made in this BLP. I could see a compromise edit that made a bare bones mention with the exhoneration prominent in the mention. Your paragraph that essentially duplicates the entire list of unproven allegations has no place in this BLP. Please review the policy before reverting anymore BLP edits.--Jarhed (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. Please forgive a gentle suggestion that the statement "as far as I am concerned the Bar proceedings exonerated Yoo" is in error: because there have been no Bar proceedings, and because it might be considered to reflect ideology. Yoo has been neither accused or exonerated. The question--and it is a good and very debatable question of which lawyers can and do easily argue either side-- was whether the Justice Department should file a Bar complaint; several have already been filed by outside parties. While I am happy to acquiesce in the positive edits, such as parts of the one by THF above, and another more recent one by Off2riorob, who suggests waiting to see if anything comes of the pending complaints and thus raises a notability in Wikipedia issue-- the BLP policy is concerned with libel. It is not a tool for use in suppressing historical truth. Having said that, I concur with Off2riorob's remark (below) that the article overall is too long, too diffuse. ElijahBosley (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yoo was exonerated in the OPR investigation, yet you use WP:PRIMARY sources to extensively repeat the shoddy allegations in the preliminary report that were overruled, without providing adequate context about the politically-motivated nature of those allegations. That's simply inappropriate. THF (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you again THF, and thanks for the earlier edit. I wonder if you might succinctly provide the outside source for: "politically motivated nature of these allegations?" If either the Justice Department Office of Political Responsibility, or Deputy Attorney General Margolis, has a political motivation surely this fact has a source we can footnote.ElijahBosley (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

[13], [14], [15], (Estrada statement). I further note the NPOV violation that no mention is made of the illegal leaks meant to smear Yoo. NB Margolis is not the deputy attorney general, David Ogden is. THF (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your "gentle suggestion" is crap. I said in plain English, "As far as *I* am concerned" which is a matter of opinion and being my opinion cannot be "in error". Once again, BLP policy governs articles such as this one for good reason and I urge you to read and try harder to follow it.

I further note that quotes from the Margolis report have been cherry-picked to smear Yoo, when in fact the report is overwhelmingly critical of the OPR draft report criticism of Yoo. THF (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is riddled with an excess of attack type comments and primary citation and an excess of quotes, i'm from the uk or I would be trimming it out right now, but I am holding back in the hope that someone else, perhaps a neutral from the USA will take the bull by the horns. Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

THF & OFF2riorob-- Thanks for the citations which I read with interest. They all seem to refer back to Miguel Estrada, Yoo's lawyer, directly or indirectly. If memory serves, THF may be an attorney (as I am) so I need hardly point out the difference between fact and opinion, let alone partisan advocacy. Not WP:NPOV Still, here is what I suggest: according to Off2riorob there is another article dealing with the various accusations. Maybe that is where all this belongs. Also I would like to suggest to Off2riorob that somebody from the UK would be ideal to redo this article. The mere mention of the name Yoo and everybody over here seems to line up with muskets primed, our version of Roundheads and Cavaliers, or Whigs and Tories--as Off2riorob may have gathered from the article itself and some of these remarks, perhaps even my own.ElijahBosley (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither The Wall Street Journal nor Ronald Rotunda is Miguel Estrada. THF (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is often easy to see the bigger picture when you are uninvolved, there are plenty of willing to work together type comments here and I have some hope that between you guys you could tidy the article, choose a section each and do a decent fair rewrite of the reported details. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob: My own scholarly interest is in partisanship as a phenomenon. I've learned that nobody is immune and that past a certain point, agreement is unlikely. Its why courtrooms come equipped with a judge & jury. Today's partisan media reminds me of the extremity of Jefferson's surrogates writing in the American Aurora and the response, the Federalist party Alien & Sedition Acts, attempting to shut down the newspaper and deport its editor. Though they failed, the Federalists remained so riled up, so frustrated that eventually they tried to get New England to secede from the union during the War of 1812. Had that succeeded New Englanders would probably be her Majesty's subjects once again, part of Canada. So you see, Off2riorob, as a Brit you really should step in and save us from ourselves. Or risk getting Vermont back, and then you'd have to shovel snow.ElijahBosley (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I didn't want to mention the elephant in the room although I had seen it, I have found your comments very open and honest and nicely amusing, we would welcome Vermont back, snow and all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

EOguy just edited the description of David Margulis to call him a "career justice department official" which I commend as a good edit.ElijahBosley (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

the lede

the lede is far too long and excessively detailed, the whole article covers the accusations that actually already have their own article, the lede should comment as to his major notabilities and a brief reporting , overview of the article. Would someone like to trim it back?, the whole article has multiple issues but the lede is always a good starting point for improvements. Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It makes my eyes bleed to read this article, but I suggest that we move anything in the lede that is not covered in the article to the article and then delete almost everything else. The lede for this article should be exactly three sentences long.Jarhed (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am with you more or less, a paragraph or two for the lede and mostly the content is well covered already in the article or elsewhere at the main articles, I would bring any content left over to the talkpage in case anyone thought it was worth replacing at another location, be bold, reverting is always an option. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lede truncated, please review.Jarhed (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a bold edit, I prefer it to what was there before, if there is any other notability defining aspects they can be added if desired, yes, an improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Three sentences long may be too short, as WP:LEAD requires mention of any notable controversies. I just wish to be consistent about that. But the edit is an improvement over the previous version. THF (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed there will need to be a couple more covering sentences, to cover the major issues a bit more. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The most notable controversy I can think of is the disbarment investigation and he was exhonorated in that. I suppose you could mention that he is under indictment for war crimes in Spain, but that looks like political grandstanding to me and not a legitimate proceeding. I was going to use a sentence to mention his books, but none of them were bestsellers so I say leave them out.--Jarhed (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's actually not true. The most notable controversy is over the torture memos, which the Washington Post correctly describes as "notorious". Yoo was the subject of a lengthy condemnation from the Office of Professional Responsibility. When you say he was "exhonorated", I assume you're referring to Margolis' memo indicating that the Justice Department would not refer his case for disbarment. It's not accurate to call that an "exoneration" - after all, Margolis concluded:

... [Yoo's and Bybee's] memoranda represent an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Office of Legal Counsel. While I have declined to adopt OPR's findings of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo's loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions which reflected his own extreme, although sincerely held, views of executive power while speaking for an institutional client. [16]

I mean, if you're going to roll with that as an "exoneration", then I'm a little leery about what's going on here. I agree the earlier lead was waaaaay too long and detailed, but let's not overcompensate and enter an alternate reality. The guy is at the center of significant political and legal controversies, reliable sources are more than plentiful (and I'm not talking about op-eds, but about actually useful, encyclopedic sources from the reputable media and legal community), and we should cover them if we aspire to produce a serious, encyclopedic biography. The lead needs to be at least a paragraph or two, possibly three at the outside, and it needs to proportionately and accurately reflect the emphases of independent, reliable sources which have written about Yoo. It doesn't do that right now, but I'm hopeful we can work on it. MastCell ^Talk 06:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the prevalent attitude of the editors on this article has been that Yoo is a monster and so anything goes. I will be satisfied if this article gets some NPOV and gets halfway into compliance with BLP, that's all.--Jarhed (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead was way too long, but it's inappropriate to remove all that material from the article under the guise of shortening the lead. I restored it into a new section "Career". Obviously some copy editing needs to be done, as there's some overlap between "Career" and the (way too terse) "Biography", but this is a reasonable start. Also, the new lead fails to capture the gist of Yoo's career, the central part of which is what mainstream media calls the "Torture memos". This needs to be fixed as well. Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Jarhed and Eubulides have both improved the article with their edits. Since THF rightly points out that "WP:LEAD requires mention of any notable controversies," I will ask here before posting it as an edit whether people think it appropriate to modify the lede to add after "enhanced interrogation" a comma and the words: "the so-called Torture Memos." That would link directly to the controversy. And I might follow up on Off2rioRob's suggestion, the Enhanced Interrogation and Torture Memos pages are really where a lot of this article belongs if anywhere. Oh-except after posting that I find that between last night and this morning a page called Torture Memos has been retitled and redirected to Bybee Memo. I disagree with that as Eubulides rightly observes the mainstream media have been calling them Torture Memos, but I will try to figure out what the right link is.ElijahBosley (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent edit, thank you. I think it would be appropriate to have a section in this article that outlines Yoo's participation in the controversy, but the bulk of the discussion about it should be in the memo article.Jarhed (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Bar

Sorry Bbb23 but removing the Pa. Bar membership was wrong. To a lawyer Bar membership is a matter of great interest and concern. It defines where a lawyer can practice. Or be sued for malpractice. (Federal and DC practice rules are special situations that need not here concern us). Several complaints were filed with Pennsylvania Bar authorities seeking Yoo's disbarment. They were separate from the Justice Department decision on referring Yoo for disciplinary action which, had it not been countermanded, would also have been a complaint to the Pa. Bar. The Pa. Bar has taken no action to date.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

But the Pennsylvania bar membership is already in its own section where it discusses those problems. Why does it need to be in two places, particularly as it has little or no relevance to the clerkship sentence?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've waited about 24 hours but you haven't responded, probably because you haven't been here, but I will remove the phrase based on the redundancy and, in my view, the non-relevance at that point in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23--Away, yes and also unable to log into the Elijah Bosley account for some reason, which is why I am here using my alternative identity usually reserved for maritime history articles. I see what you mean about redundancy and will defer to your edit on that basis. If I had my druthers though, I'd ruther Bar admisson be up early on, in the bio section. A lawyer's life starts with his admission to the Bar, then (if he is a smart lawyer) a judicial clerkship, then private practice, then whatever. Leaving it out would be as if you were describing an academic's carer and started with his already having a tenured position, rather than the necessary steps that led up to it: "B.A. and M.A. at William & Mary, then PhD. from at U. Va. . . . etc. " FrederickFolger ⚓^(talk) 22:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we agree on the outcome, but I can't agree with much of the rest of what you say. You can't practice law without a license, but a license isn't the equivalent of education credentials. Putting a lawyer's license into an article is as uninteresting as putting a doctor's license into a doctor's article. As for your sequence, it, too, is not always true. Many law school graduates clerk (the temporary one- or two-year clerkships right after school) before taking the bar.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be surprised if one could find a law firm website, or biography, or C.V., or resume, that neglects to say where the lawyer is licensed to practice law. It being required information. That Mr. Yoo "emigrated with his parents from South Korea" is irrelevant to anything that makes him notable. But it is in his biography. That he "grew up in Philadelphia" too is completely beside the point. Yet that too is in his biography. He is a lawyer? That matters. Come to think of it his biography is where the Bar admission belongs, along with the schools he attended. So I will take it out of the section down under where it really doesn't belong, and put it there. Thus: no redundancy. And the Professional Responsibility report section considerably improved by removal of the extraneous opening sentence. Problem solved. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Licensing information is generally on law firm websites because people want to hire licensed lawyers, but not because it has any other significance. The Korean part is standard background info for most articles and is not comparable to the trivia of where Yoo is licensed. Take a look at Yoo's own profile at Boalt here. Doesn't mention where he's licensed because generally academics don't much care about that sort of thing. I think it's crazy to have it in the so-called Biography section, but it's not worth fighting over. I am going to reword it and source it, though. I don't believe the PBA admits lawyers in Pennsylvania. As far as I can tell, it's a voluntary bar association. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court regulates admission to the bar.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your latest edit shortening that bar admission sentence a good stylistic edit. You are right also that in Pa. the Supreme Court oversees attorney admissions through a separate Board of Bar Examiners, and then administers (well, provides oversight for) the disciplinary system for lawyer misconduct--though the shorthand is "admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar," or for that matter "disbarred from the Pennsylvania Bar." And finding myself also in agreement with your view that we are in agreement, I retire for the evening.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 01:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Publications

Should we include a listing Yoo's published books and articles? Enthusiasmcurbed (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Books yes, articles, papers, essays - no. Span (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Added 2012 Appeals Court decision

Given the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (2011), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against Padilla in May 2012 in his suit against Yoo. Added content and cite.Parkwells (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomenclature: "Torture" vs. "Enhanced Interrogation"

Wallstreetbulls a new user (and a hearty welcome to you) for his first edit under this alias changed "torture" to "enhanced interrogation." Again. It will come as no surprise to followers of this page that the terminology is controverted. I seek consensus on substituting: "what Yoo called enhanced interrogation and what is widely regarded as torture" with footnotes to the slough, the deluge, the roaring cascade of media debating the words, the question of euphemism, and so forth, ad nauseum familiar to us all ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest using "enhanced interrogation/torture" and add a footnote to the media discussion stuff. As far as the veracity of this - having been subjected to water torture and a few near-drowning incidents - I agree with (the otherwise a bit too conspiracy-theory-ish for my taste) former Governor of Minnesota when he said "[Water-boarding] is torture... It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders." See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/12/jesse-ventura-coleman-a-h_n_202629.html As I'm not neutral I'll refrain from editing this article. Pär Larsson (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The term "enhanced interrogation" would fall under WP:WEASEL in my book. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree - Continuing to use the many euphemisms of the Bush administration distorts our language and understanding of what went on.Parkwells (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest reducing lengthy quotes re: thoughts on Clinton administration

Editors have been thorough in reflecting Yoo's thoughts on policy issues related to executive authority when he opposed a Democratic administration, but I think the quotes should be summarized rather than presented at length - we get the point; he changed his mind in support of a Republican administration. While interesting, I think giving these quotes so much space is UNDUE WEIGHT given his notability is due to his work during the Bush administration, and there is no evidence that his published opinions influenced anything (except maybe his later appointment). I don't think there has been similar treatment of any of the other attorneys or politicians involved in these policy decisions to show what positions they held earlier in their careers. Parkwells (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

War crimes conviction (in absentia) in Kuala Lumpur

I think Professor Yoo's conviction for war crimes is relevant and needs to be included. There is a whole section in the article talking about whether he might be or should be or would be convicted. Now that he has been, I think that needs to be stated. If this was some sort of moot court or mock trial I could understand ignoring it--but this was (apparently) a government tribunal, proceeding under due process with formal rules of evidence. They came to a conclusion and have forwarded their papers to the International Court of Justice for further action--if any. If reliable news sources call this a kangaroo court, that could be stated. Under these circumstances I don't think the article can ignore it. Now--personally--I confess to being puzzled both by the nature of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes tribunal and the ramifications of their decision. I am troubled more broadly by universal jurisdiction as a concept (could Yoo be tried seriatum in all 138 countries?) --about which Jack Goldmsith has pertinent things to say. Anyway dubious as I remain personally, still this is an encyclopedia and it is about facts, and this fact needs to be stated.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What happened in Kuala Lumpur affects a number of BLP articles (all the ones who were "convicted"). Because of this impact across multiple articles and the importance of our being consistent, I've opened a discussion at BLPN. Please contribute there.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I'll have a look.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is this "BPLN" discussion? Regardless of what was discussed there, you can't just not mention this. Even if you agreed it was a wrongful conviction, that's noteworthy in itself and should be mentioned here. --84.63.201.222 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP address editor: I am sure Bbb23 will let you know where to find the discussion. From my perspective the problem is that the legitimacy of the tribunal is in serious doubt. It's like you convened a tribunal in your backyard with a few of your friends and convicted your high school teacher of cruel and unusual homework. Then you put out a press release. Is that noteworthy in an encyclopedia? This Kuala Lumpur tribunal is a private enterprise, put together by one individual, and so far as I know their recommendation to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Court of Justice has gone utterly ignored. There needs to be some clout, some recognized consequence of their decision, to make it noteworthy. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm the IP from back then. I just want to note that Bbb23 never actually did let me know. Really not that impressed with the transparency of process of how you people decide what's mentioned and what isn't. --84.63.214.201 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. What I suggest is this: if the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes conviction of Yoo is noteworthy, how about taking a shot at writing a sentence or two for this article to describe it--complete with footnotes? The footnotes are key. One would need Washington Post or New York Times or Isvetia or the Guardian, some respected news source, to confirm that they take seriously what this tribunal did. You can do the drafting in your Sandbox, or here on the talk page as a prospective edit, and invite comments. Also, here are good reasons to get an account rather than simply logging in as an IP address. Best wishes, ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Why he left?

Considering the controversy surrounding some of his work, some info on why he left would be useful. E.g. did he resign? I found [17] which suggested he wanted to be promoted to Assistant Attorney General but John Ashcroft blocked his promotion, but this although on PBS, appears to be coming from an individual so probably isn't a good source for a BLP. (This source [18] also mentions some problems with Ashcroft but doesn't mention why he left.) On the other hand while I don't know about the deputies, Office of Legal Counsel seems to suggest the Assistant role at least seems to change a lot anyway in recent times. Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Yoo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050910142817/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5032094/site/newsweek/ to http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5032094/site/newsweek/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070609102551/http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?sn=CB20011220132 to http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?sn=CB20011220132

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Yoo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307223219/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/23/yoo/index_np.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/23/yoo/index_np.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728023830/http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/OPRFinalReport090729.pdf to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/OPRFinalReport090729.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINLT53678920090329?sp=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508105006/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/02/just-following-orders-doj-opinions-and.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/02/just-following-orders-doj-opinions-and.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files/2009/06/padillayooorder6-12-09.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Yoo. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINLT53678920090329?sp=true
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/world/europe/29spain.html?_r=1&hp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508193636/http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_OPRReport.html to http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_OPRReport.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508193636/http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_OPRReport.html to http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_OPRReport.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Yoo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930200148/http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/pa_attorney_info.php?id=69500&pdcount=0 to http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/pa_attorney_info.php?id=69500&pdcount=0

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Yoo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100519194648/http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/id.77/default.asp to http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/id.77/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413014313/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-23/news/36920354_1_executive-orders-detention-and-interrogation-task-force to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-23/news/36920354_1_executive-orders-detention-and-interrogation-task-force
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420170731/https://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.74,filter.all/scholar.asp to http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.74,filter.all/scholar.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208141938/http://law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty/pubs/yoo-unitaryexecinmodernera.pdf to http://law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty/pubs/yoo-unitaryexecinmodernera.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410045255/http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.997/article_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.997/article_detail.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Is anyone going to add content about Yoo accusing Vindman of being a spy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:4800:407F:165F:8505:10B1:7975:66A5 (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)