Talk:Eric Holder/Archive 1

Archive 1

WP:COPYVIO

This article has very serious WP:COPYVIO problems. The middle two-thirds of it are copied and pasted from Contemporary Black Biography, published by Gale Research.

Here is an April 2006 print-out of that biography. This article wasn't created until May 2008. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: the COPYVIO problem was resolved in June. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Attorney General nomination

How will Holder be the first African-American to serve as Secretary of State when both Condoleeza and Colin served previously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.195.2 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He'd be the first African American Attorney General. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He is not going to be sec. of state, he is going to be Attorney General DegenFarang (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Prominent" member of the presidential cabinet is a POV perspective of the author. There have been many African Americans in the cabinet of the Presidents of both parties (Alphonso Jackson, Roderick Paige, Ron Brown, Mike Espy,Hazel R O'Leary, Louis Sullivan...)StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this sentence:

• Holder's ascension to the Cabinet will follow the paths of General Colin Powell, who served as Secretary of State in the administration of George W. Bush, and Condoleezza Rice, Powell's successor at State under President Bush, as prominent African-American members of a presidential cabinet.

I don't think it's necessary at all. There've been enough African American cabinet members that it's not worth listing them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur, even though I made the Powell and Rice links to their articles. I think the consolidation of those points with Holder being the first to occupy the USAG position (like his being the first as DCDA and Dep. USAG) might be more apporiate. Lestatdelc (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it for the time being, on account of being weak and unsourced. Perhaps it'd be better to say something like "Other African Americans who've served in the cabinet include Jackson, Paige, Brown, Espy, O'Leary, Sullivan, Powell, and Rice." Or, more simply, "Holder would be the Xth African American to serve in the cabinet". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Holder and DC v. Heller

"The issue about Holder and DC v. Heller is not doubt about whether he joined the brief, but that including it as such is undue weight to a fairly minor thing - filing an amicus brief. The appropriate weight given to this is very little b/c its significance in the context of the rest of his life is small. If you still want to discuss this, let's do so at Talk:Eric Holder. Thanks.--chaser - t 01:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)"

I understand your point; I disagree and believe it is important. Gun control is a prominent theme surrounding the coming Obama administration, and while the act of joining an amicus brief was itself small, what it represents is not. Now that Holder is likely to be nominated by Obama to be Attorney General, his opinions on our constitutional rights will be of great concern to many Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macros73 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but have the press covered it? The way we determine what weight is appropriate to give certain details is what weight reliable sources give it. I can't find much [1] (it's mostly about his work when he was in the Clinton administration).--chaser - t 01:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been covered by at least one paper. [2] I imagine that with more attention focused on Holder, he'll quickly see more attention in the media, including regarding this issue. --Macros73 (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

General views?

These "views" need to be integrated with the body of the article, referenced, and the monster quotes accompanying them either pared down or completely removed. Perhaps a Holder entry on Wikiquote would be appropriate for them, but I don't think they belong here. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all both of the quotes are referenced. Secondly I'd like to know in which section you'd like them to be integrated. Thirdly why do you think, that Holder's views on those important issues don't belong to this article? --Raphael1 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with his views being included. Rather, I'd like to see the views incorporated into the article, as putting them in a separate section, with such long quotes, gives it the feel of a quotefarm. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In which section you'd like to see those views be incorporated?--Raphael1 19:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We could easily work on adding the quotes into the Private Practice section of the article, since those quotes were offered while Holder was with Covington & Burling and advising the Obama campaign. I'm thinking of something along the lines of, "While still working in private practice, Holder was invited on news programs as an analyst for important legal issues of the day. He voiced his unequivocal opposition to the Bush Administration's policy on torture, saying..."Seanherman (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. However, I'm not certain we need such large quotes, when a summary of the views would suffice. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I added Holder's views to the Private Practice section as Seanherman suggested and included only very short quotes, though I don't think its sufficient.--Raphael1 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I tweaked some minor wording, but otherwise it looks good. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Raphael1 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to put that Holder will e taking office on Jan. 20, 2009, when it is not know whether he will be confirmed and sworn in by then or if he will even be confirmed by the Senate. I suggest removing that part from the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.216.77 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think that it is strange to list him as "acting" Attorney General, when he is neither acting as such now, nor certain to act as such in the future. Tjcrone (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of his views?

Eric Holder is a strong supporter of censorship and restriction. He has said this many times. Why not mention it? YVNP (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Find some sources for his views and add them. But do try to give a balanced discussion of all of his views, not just a couple of random ones. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a few Internet censorship http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/21/new-ag-appointee-advocated-stifle-speech-web gun control http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/holder_gun_control/2008/11/21/153808.html He's well known for heavy support of regulation on most everything possible. 75.6.142.248 (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have to hear the full clip and context of the NPR exchange before I personally put any stock in what NewsBusters or Newsmax, both right-wing nut-ball websites, spins it as. If either of those organizations said there is a thing called the law of gravity, things would begin levitating the next day. Lestatdelc (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What Did Eric Holder Do About the Draft?

You can't write a complete biography and say Holder was in college from 1969 to 1973 and then not mention how he avoided the draft and service in Vietnam. It is like ignoring context -- what was going on at the time.

Sure you can. The liberal wikipedia actively censors articles. If the subject of the article is liberal then there are no mentions of "controversies". If the subject is conservative not only are there individual sections devoted to any minor controversy...everything the person did "wrong" is listed in the very first paragraph.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.68.180 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide any sources? --Tom 16:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The liberal wikipedia actively censors articles.

I take it you haven't seen John Kerry military service controversy, Chappaquiddick incident, Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy, MoveOn.org ad controversy, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, Michael Moore controversies, Criticism of Noam Chomsky or any other such articles? --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 12:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Robert Eric Wone

I removed his comment about this per relevance. Thanks, --Tom 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion

For the personal information box, Mr Holder self-identifies as an Episcopalian in a June 2008 issue of American Lawyer: http://www.cov.com/files/upload/Article%20-%20Making%20History.pdf (page 5). The Original Historygeek (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding

I removed the left and right reactions to Holder's statement about waterboarding, that came from blogs (not reliable sources). Readers should draw their own conclusions from the text. In particular.--KarlFrei (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

Regarding some of the above comments about Holder's advocacy of censorship, and some other issues, I have added the POV template in hopes that some of these cases can be explored further. I know someone also mentioned above that the fact that because Holder is a liberal, and Wikipedia is apparently a liberaly lopsided project, I have to agree somewhat, but as a libertarian myself, I do think this article excludes a lot of Holder criticism. Jason (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

What is an NPOV dispute?

Probably the only grounds on which there could be an NPOV dispute over an article that actually conformed to the NPOV is when one or both of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one POV had actually been said. For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough.

How to initiate an NPOV debate

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

-RoBoTam^ice 05:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the tag for now. If folks have a specific "problem or issue" please just start a new section below and lets work it out :) Cheers, --Tom 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

African-American/Black American

The introduction to the article specifically explains that Holder is not the first African-American attorney general, but the later section Biography>>Attorney General says "he became the first African-American Attorney General of the United States." Which is it? 71.221.255.110 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no source for the statement in the opening section. The source given said nothing about him being from the Carribean. Even if his family came to American from the Carribean, his ancestors still came from Africa and given that he's a U.S. citizen, he is an African-American. I think the connotation is that if his family was from the Carribean, it's either Spanish or Portugese. Regardless of what nation practiced slavery in the islands, the slaves were brought over from Africa so saying that he is somehow not an African-American because his most direct family was raised speaking Spanish or Portuguese or French doesn't hold much water, in my opinion. As anyone, I can be mistaken.--RossF18 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say about it? Maybe just stick to that, novel I know, but effective. --Tom 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There were no reliable sources cited that had him as a Hispanic American. If you find some, please add. But all sources I've seen note that he's the first African-American in the post. --RossF18 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversial Comments

Why no mention of his comments that the US was "essentially a nation of cowards" on issues of race?

It should be noted that where Mr. Holder portrays himself as someone who promotes racial harmony, his comments have been perceived at best as divisive and at worst hate mongering.Krankin (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion. If you find a source, put it in, but points will have to be balanced. While you say that "his comments have been preceived at best as divisive and at worst hate mongering" I've heard his speech refered to as one of the most amazing government speeches ever heard on the topic of race and black history. But unless it's sourced, these opinion statements are not suited to be added. --RossF18 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If your interested in sources of support for the fact that AG Holder's comments are corrosive I reference an article on Forbes.com by a Democratic gentleman named Tunku Varadarajan, a professor at NYU's Stern Business School and a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution who feels the same as other common sense unbiased Americans. Abusive racial attacks from a person (irrespective of color), as AG Holder's comment "America is a Nation of Cowards", was and is divisive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.188.81 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, my interest in any sources related only to editing this article. My interest is irrelevant, considering the need for a balanced article. I'm glad you found a source to support your point of view and I do not take it upon myself to comment on how this one gentleman from NYU represents the viewpoint of all "unbiased Americans" since any viewpoint is by definition biased. I also will go ahead an agree that "abusive racial attacks from a person (irrespective of color) . . . was and is divisive." However, your definition and NYU's genteleman's definition of abusive racial attacks may be different than other peoples, regardless of your passion for his point of view. The point, however, nothing in your post change the fact that this is still your opinion and a key to a balanced article is to present several experts in their field to comment on a point with rational arguments, even the arguments are opposing. I am just not sure how being a professor at a business school makes this gentleman you share you opinion with an expert in the field of race relations in America (aside from the fact that you agree with him and apparently some "other common sense unbiased Americans.")--RossF18 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ross, aren't we assuming your opinion of what it means to be "balanced" in this debate? Is this definition based off your own personal opinion or does it includes others as well? In fact it is difficult to tell from your responses. We need more information in order to accept your personal opinion of what this "balance" is. Otherwise, what you see as "balanced" and what I see as "balanced" may be two COMPLETELY different things. There are--after all-- a great variety of experiences which can impact a person's opinion of what a word means (if it is based on subjective belief, rather than a concrete definition) For example: Do you get out much or do you get most of your information from the internet? What type of crowd do you run with? Do they read the Atlantic or the New York Times or the National Review? Do you have any statistics which you can cite which support your view of this "balance"? Can you provide any citations which would allow you to dismiss the cites this gentleman was kind enough to provide as "imbalanced", or is this requirement for citations applicable only to others' arguments and not your own? Additionally, are we talking about a definition of "balance" which is nationwide? Worldwide? Limited to a certain group? Because what is "balanced" in Tehran is different than what is "balanced" in New York, what is "balanced" in New York is not what is "balanced" in Texas, and what is "balanced" in Austin, Texas is not what is "balanced" in Lubbock, Texas. Of course you might believe in an objective definition of what it is to be balanced, rather than subjective. If so, please define this objective balance so that I may review it and see if it is something I believe in as well. Thank you in advance for the time you put into your response and I look forward to receiving your--no doubt-- well considered and well cited answers. JShea44 (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Marc Rich pardon

I removed the following: The reporter Joe Conason contends that the Rich's pardon was actually a favor from President Clinton to members of the government of Israel, for which Clinton hoped to gain progress in the peace talks between Israel and Palestine.[19]
as not really noteworthy and it probably belongs in the Rich article or Conason article if at all. Have any other reliable sources commented on this? TIA Tom 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom, you said on my talk page that it isn't really notable unless coverde by multiple 3rd parties. Conason is an investigative reporter and I put in the word "contends." Multiple 3d parties is more of a verifiability thing. Further you said it woulkd be more ok with you to go in the Marc Rich article than here. Why?- is it ok to have something from Salon in an article on Marc Rich but not here? Have you read Conason's column? The bulk of the article was on Eric Holder's Senate hearing, and the paragraph in this article that I inserted it in was on Holder's hearing. Conason's claim is notable because if true, it is an important international event ; and in addition would tend to restore Holder's reputation for integrity. It would be meanspirited to Holder to omit it. I reiterate, Conason is a well-known investigative reporter, we don't know his source for this, but the sentence does contain "contends." I restored the sentence. Best wishes, Rich (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This really doesn't seem that notable especially if this hasn't been covered outside of a blog. I haven't read him, but that isn't really saying much. Unless there is "more" to this than that, I will probable remove this as speculation. I will wait until you reply. Tom 21:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

blog? you mean Conason's column? I don't agree that it's merely a blog. However it was alluded to in the New York times. Best, Rich Peterson75.45.113.198 (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link, right now it is missing. Thanks, --Tom 22:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Here's an excerpt from NYT op-ed by Seth Lipsky on December 7, 2008:

"...I first perked up to the case some months before the indictments when I was foreign editor of The Wall Street Journal and federal agents intercepted a Swissair flight about to depart Kennedy Airport and seized two trunks of company documents Messrs. Rich and Green were seeking to take to Switzerland.

In the mid-1980s, when I was based in Europe for The Journal, I met both men at a petroleum conference in Switzerland. I met with them a number of times in the years after in the hope that they might be willing to go on the record to The Journal and tell their side of the story. I was not successful, but I came to like them both.

The scheme through which the two were eventually accused of moving their allegedly ill-gotten oil profits out of the country struck me in the ’80s, as it does now, as precisely the kind of transfer pricing dispute that would be better negotiated in civil court. To use alleged wire fraud in oil sales and tax matters as predicate acts for a prosecution under RICO began to look like a misuse of a law intended by Congress to be used in other situations.

Those of us who argued this point were often mocked. But when Mr. Clinton finally explained himself, in an Op-Ed essay on this page, he noted that the Justice Department in 1989 had ended the use of RICO in these kinds of tax cases. Mr. Clinton also noted that Messrs. Rich and Green had already paid approximately $200 million in fines and agreed to waive certain defenses against civil suits that might be filed.

• • ----Mr. Clinton mentioned foreign policy concerns as well: he’d been urged to pardon Mr. Rich by “many present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish communities in America and Europe.” He said they had cited Mr. Rich’s “contributions and services to Israeli charitable causes, to the Mossad’s efforts to rescue and evacuate Jews from hostile countries, and to the peace process through sponsorship of education and health programs in Gaza and the West Bank.”----

All in all, the president’s explanation struck me as the statement of a man who, whatever faults he may have shown in office, understood the pardon power in the way the founders of America intended.

The Constitution restricts the president’s use of the pardon in only one instance, cases of impeachment. It does not say that the president may not pardon a fugitive, a point that angered the prosecutors in the case. Mr. Clinton himself wrote that the process would have been better served had he spoken directly with the United States attorney in New York. But the Constitution does not say that a president must, or even ought to, consult the Justice Department or go through other channels. Why, after all, should the Justice Department be the judge of its own performance?

One of the most astonishing things about the record left by the founders is how passionately they wrestled with the pardon question. Gilbert Livingston, at the New York ratifying convention, demanded a requirement that the Congress approve a pardon for treason. George Mason, one of Virginia’s delegates to the constitutional convention, warned that a president could use the pardon to protect his own guilt. Yet, save for cases of impeachment, all calls for restrictions were rejected. It is clear that the founders understood the pardon as one of the most basic checks and balances of the constitutional system..."

Confusion of time

United States Attorney General Acting In office January 20, 2001 – February 2, 2001 President George W. Bush Preceded by Janet Reno Succeeded by John Ashcroft This is what is under: 82nd United States Attorney General Incumbent Assumed office February 3, 2009[1] President Barack Obama Preceded by Michael Mukasey which makes no sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.73.68 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's confusing. Holder is currently serving as Attorney General (incumbent). His prior official position was Acting Attorney General during the Bush administration, after Janet Reno resigned and before John Ashcroft was confirmed by the Senate. Before that, Holder was Deputy Attorney General, from 1997 through 2001. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No mention of giving Gore a free pass?

• http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWRhNzAwYmYzMWExYTBlMTM2MjI2MjA4Y2JlODIwMTg=&w=MA==
• "Gore made phone calls soliciting campaign contributions from his White House office. As Charles Krauthammer wrote at the time, “Section 607 of Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code states very clearly there is to be no solicitation of campaign funds in federal government offices. Gore broke the law as written, as understood and as practiced.” Violations of Section 607 called for a penalty of up to three years in prison... Holder found it within himself to oppose the appointment of a prosecutor." Ling.Nut (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

politician?

Would you consider him a politician as a category suggests. He has never held ELECTIVE office?--Levineps (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Eric Holders CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY in 2010 May.

Edited article twice; first, left no reference to his admission that he had not read the article. My bad.

Second time -- left reference to FOX NEWS article, guess what, there is a viral video of him admitting that he HAS NOT READ THE AZ BILL 1070,

the so-called immigration law of AZ. Apparently there is some wikipedia editor who refuses to accept facts. An attorney general who comments or states opinions on legislation WITH WHICH THEY ARE NOT FAMILIAR -- is unacceptable. As is redacting this fact from your left-leaning discussion. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.12.93 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy, from the wikimedia page. A direct cut-and-paste from your website.

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. And we need your help. Please support the Wikimedia Foundation by donating today.

I donated facts about Mr. Holder. You seek to delete them due to your bias. This is not kindly or freely sharing all knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.12.93 (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -- attorney general section

I believe my contributions were factual and objective. The deletion of information about the knowledge basis Mr. Holder uses in his position of power, as documented by multiple sources, would certainly be considered biased by the editor of this page. Clearly, there is no NEUTRAL point of view related to this article. I would enjoy seeing another opinion regarding my contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.12.93 (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have restored your latest edit on the grounds that it is factual and objective, sourced and relevant. Without prejudice to the bias of anyone who may have reverted the material, the fact that the Senate Judiciary committee quizzed him with respect to his criticism of the new AZ law, and that was his answer. While it does reflect poorly on Mr Holder, that is no reason for us to not report it. Especially since the opposition party will not be allowing us to forget this in the coming weeks and months. It has already generated considerable ink in the press. Stellarkid (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, you know better than this. The edit is politically-motivated, it lacks any context, and it has no relevance to an encyclopedia article, which is what we're trying to write. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree. And if anything, think *you* should know better. The removal is every bit as politically motivated as its insertion. The whole section lacks context but it can easily be expanded on to provide more context for a number of issues. It is highly relevant that a man in the position of Eric Holder would criticize a law without having read it. Apparently the Senate Judiciary committee also thought so... How many references to this do you need to consider it relevant? [3] It may not be pretty but Holder is the recipient of both good and bad press, just like Palin or Cheney. We don't whitewash public figures Stellarkid (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Holder threatens to sue AZ then acknowledges that he hasn't read the law! [4] Stellarkid (talk) 6:30 pm, Today (UTC−4)

I can't believe you still haven't learned the difference between a source and an editorial. No, strike that. I can believe it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You're something else. Do you think the Attorney General himself is going to sue Arizona? Read the first sentence of the CNN article: "Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday that the Justice Department was considering a federal lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration law." The Justice Department. Rest assured that the attorneys involved in the lawsuit have pored over the Arizona law, even if Holder hasn't. Remind me again why this belongs in Holder's biography, except for the fact that it's a right-wing talking point? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Malik. FYI: "The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government." Please comment on content and not on the contributors. Editorials by regular contributors and people with columns in significant newspapers speak to importance and relevance. We are not trying to establish the "truth" here. We already have sources for that. As for biography, Holder is a public figure now. That means that he gets both praise and criticism from left and right. As the US Attorney General, all his decisions and comments are and will continue to be scrutinized to see if his judgments are unbiased and well-considered. I notice there is nothing here on the calls for his resignation, either. That would be part of his biography as well. Stellarkid (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article from the Washington Post.[5] Truthsort (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinions

Third Opinion: I think the 'controversy' has been widely reported and is therefore notable and well sourced. However it is only one small event in the life of the subject and should be given only a brief mention. Here is a suggested version (below). Ideally it would be summarized further but I find that contentious text sometimes requires quotes to satisfy all editors. But if an agreement could be reached on cutting it down to a one sentence summary that would be better in my opinion. Here's my suggested version:

• In May 2010 Holder expressed “concerns” about “Arizona’s tough new immigration law” saying that it might “lead to racial profiling”. Holder was criticized for his testimony during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, when he said that he had "not read” the Arizona law and that he had formed his opinions on the basis of news reports. [6][7][8][9]-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to sign for you but agree with your opinion. 98.215.76.115 (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

arizona immigration

wheres the info on his congressional testimony about the arizona bill, the press is kinda hounding him about it, i believe it should be in the article somewhere. noone knew of this guy before this happened, come on people lets wake up and add it in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.168.51 (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

should be added yes 98.215.76.115 (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Alma mater

Holder attended Columbia College and Columbia Law School, both of which are part of Columbia University. It's redundant to list both the University and the Law School. I'm going to change Columbia University to Columbia College. In the alternative, we can leave the University and remove the Law School. (Or maybe I'm the only person who's bothered by this?) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the new version. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Voter intimidation

Hey, how come there is no mention of Holder dropping the Black Panther case?[10] Truthsort (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Voter intimidation case

I completely agree...this HAS to be mentioned. I put the following: "Another noteworthy action by the Department of Justice under Holder occurred when Holder dropped charges originally brought up by the Bush administration against members of a known hate group[55] (The New Black Panther Party) for what has been described as a possible voter intimidation offense.[56] This has drawn much criticism of Holder because it has been speculated by some that he did this based on racial reasons." Every statement in there is sourced by credible sources, factual, neutral, and fair. Yet it keeps being removed by Shabazz, who has shown time and time again that it is impossible for him to be neutral about anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.148.208 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, as is often the case with Murdoch owned news organizations, the facts don't match the accusations. The decision to drop criminal charges was made on Jan 7, 2010. Please look up who the AG was at that time. This is a prime reason that Murdoch news sources do not meet WP:RS requirements. MarnetteD | Talk 16:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm actually I think you need to get YOUR facts straight MarnetteD...Do me a favor, look up "New Black Panther Party" on this very site, and tell me what date you see for having the charges dropped (I'll give you a hint...it's in May 2009). Jan 7, 2010 is when charges were FILED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UGAdawgs2010 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/January/09-crt-014.html There is the link showing that Jan 7, 2009 is when charges were filed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UGAdawgs2010 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Um actually I do have my facts right per this [11] and several dozen other websites that have investigated this. May is when the "Civil" charges were dropped. January 7 is when the "criminal" charges were dropped. You may want to use wikitionary to understand the differfence between the two. Once again Fox news cannot be used as a source for wikipedia purposes. MarnetteD | Talk 16:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That source is a personal blog...clearly you're joking right? How about this one from The New York Times...or are you going to dismiss it because it contradicts your delusions? And I just revised the edits to reflect "civil" charges, instead of just "charges." I really do appreciate that you pointed out that enormous factual error though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UGAdawgs2010 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And here is the relevant JoD document. [12]. You will note that there was not enough evidence to continue a case. MarnetteD | Talk 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, and I do not know how much evidence would warrant criminal, or civil charges. All of this, however, is irrelevant. My edits just state that some people (not necessarily myself) assert that Holder dropped charges due to racial reasons...which is completely true. J. Christian Adams made this assertion (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07rights.html?_r=1) in testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights. That is what I put in my edit...and that is an unmistakable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UGAdawgs2010 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Speculation has no place on wikipedia. Especially from biased sources like Fox news. Since this is an encyclopedia we deal in reliably sourced facts here. MarnetteD | Talk 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a man that worked for the DoJ that testified in open court under oath that the charges were dropped based on race. It should at least be mentioned. And to say that Fox news is biased is in and of itself a biased opinion, because you will find over 100 million people who disagree. Just because you have an administrative account on wikipedia doesn't mean you can stifle facts that oppose your partisan viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UGAdawgs2010 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegations are not facts and that is the only thing we deal with here. It is amazing that you mock blogs and then turn around and use one in your recent edit. MarnetteD | Talk 17:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? Because this sentence is taken from the Fox News Channel page: "Several critics have accused FNC of having a bias towards the political right at the expense of neutrality." So one can put accusation of conservative bias on the Fox News channel page...but one can't put accusations of racial bias on the Eric Holder page? Why the hypocritical double standard? They are both allegations, and not necessarily "facts" as you claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UGAdawgs2011 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@MarnetteD...I'm assuming because you stopped answering you're admitting that you are wrong...and he is right? And therefore the page should be changed to represent accurate facts regarding the fact that there were allegations, then let the readers decide if the allegations are warranted or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.232.141 (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You would be wrong in your assumptions. As mentioned several times speculation has no place on wikipedia. Especially the kind that is sourced to highly unreliable and biased sources. According to the hearing sourced above the case was dropped due to the lack of evidence. that would seem to echo the Bush's justice departments choice to not pursue criminal charges. By the way sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are not the way to go in trying to achieve consensus. MarnetteD | Talk 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So it's okay to make assumptions on the "Fox News Channel" page but not on This saint Eric Holder? Don't be hypocritical, and calling the sources biased is ridiculous, and those statements are driven by your opinions, which are clearly biased themselves. You can't argue with my logic; there is no getting around it. Address the Fox News Channel double standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.110.204 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree...stop being a hypocrite MarnetteD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.52.234 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I second that...this is a glaring double standard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.200.6.49 (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am done responding to sock/meat puppets here. Wikipedia has certain requirements that need to be met for editing. I can only suggest that you search out other websites which do not. MarnetteD | Talk 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? What the hell is a sock puppet? Don't be a sore loser and admit defeat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.52.235 (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

New Black Panther Case

{{editsemiprotected}}

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/21/the-new-black-panther-party-evidence-on-voter-intimidation/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2010/07/meet-the-new-black-panther-party-member-eric-holder-wont-prosecute.html http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-former-doj-officials-stepping-forward-to-support-j-christian-adams/ These are all sources that say that not only was the voter intimidation case against the 3 members of the New Black Panther Party was basically an open and shut case, because they didn't even show up at court, and by default were found to be responsible. These sources also say that a handful of DoJ (some former) employees came out and said that the case was dropped because of race-based reasons. How does this not belong in this article?! It has been said that the reason it is not is because "Wikipedia does not speculate" (see MarnetteD's argument). To that I would give the following examples of speculation that wikipedia has made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel#Accusations_of_conservative_bias (A whole section dedicated to speculation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#2001.E2.80.932008_George_W._Bush_Administration

   "It is alleged they were fired for prosecuting Republicans and not prosecuting Democrats."  Notice the wording

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Torricelli " [Torricelli] accused of taking illegal contributions from Korean, David Chang (2002)"

Findings these flagrant examples of speculation took me about 4 minutes. There is no reason not to include the information about race being a possible reason for dismissing the case. I'm trying to get a conversation going about this which is why I didn't choose to add the information in first. Instead, I think the line "Dropping this case caused controversy because some have testified under oath that it was done based on racial reasons."JahnTeller07 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

First, blogs and opinion columns are not WP:reliable sources, so we can't use them here.

Second, perhaps you've confused this article with Presidency of Barack Obama or United States Department of Justice. Do any of those columns say that Eric Holder dropped the case? If not, why do they belong in his biography? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He is the head of the Department of Justice (the department that ultimately dropped the suit), and he is specifically mentioned in multiple people's testimony. More specifically, the testimony stated that Holder specifically dropped the civil suit because the perpetrators were black, and (a large portion or) the victims were white. JahnTeller07 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Victims? What victims? Have you seen the YouTube videos? Everybody ignores the "Black Panthers". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The victims of the voter intimidation...just because some of the videos make it seem that most people walk by without saying anything (and I can show you many youtube videos where they don't ignore the Black Panther member with the nightstick (sp?)) doesn't mean that there was nobody that was intimidated. If anything the video was damning evidence against them which should have provided for a guaranteed victory in court against them. JahnTeller07 (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also.

HILL [Shabazz] immediately started with ‘What are you doing here, Cracker?’ And he and Mr. Jackson attempted to close ranks. I went straight between them through the door to find our poll watcher, who was inside the building at the time…he was pretty shaken up…he was visibly upset.

QUESTION: What did he tell you?

HILL: He was called a race traitor for being a poll watcher, credentialed poll watcher for the Republican Party as a black man, and that he was threatened if he stepped outside of the building, there would be hell to pay. That was the testimony of Christopher Hill. So tell me how that poll watcher (Mr. Jackson) was NOT a victim of threats?JahnTeller07 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Threats, which are a local police matter, but not voter intimidation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Futher testimony...which IS voter intimidation

QUESTION: How were third parties reacting to the presence and the actions of the Panther members?

HILL: People were put off when – there were a couple of people that walked up, a couple of people that drove up, and they would come to a screeching halt because it’s not something you expect to see in front of a polling place. As I was standing on the corner, I had two older ladies and an older gentleman stop right next to me, ask what was going on. I said, ‘Truthfully, we don’t really know. All we know is there’s two Black Panthers here.’ And the lady said, ‘Well, we’ll just come back.’ And so, they walked away

THERNSTROM: But otherwise, did you see anybody at the polling place who obviously intended to vote, and didn’t end up voting because of the presence of the New Black Panther Party members?

HILL: It was two women and a gentleman….They stopped right at the corner of the driveway, circular drive, where I was standing on the phone, and they said, ‘What’s going on?’ Truthfully, I didn’t really have a good answer for them…But at that exact moment in time, those people were not going near that doorway, and ma’am, I’m not as well versed as you are in these civil rights issues, but they were intimidated.

That most certainly IS voter intimidation. JahnTeller07 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Look I'm just asking that this article be impartial and fair. I would do the same thing no matter who the person was if I noticed this non-inclusion in an articleJahnTeller07 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/NBPH.htm is the site that has all of the transcripts of the testimony about Holder dropping the case due to race, and all of the other transcripts which support everything written in my proposed addition. And this site is not a blog. JahnTeller07 (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I support inclusion on this article of some information about this case. It is clearly notable and as his name has come up in testimony, justified. However it does need to be backed up with reliable sources and not go overboard. All of those blog links are certainly totally unacceptable. I really do not understand how some are claiming what took place was not voter intimidation, its one of the most blatant cases of voter intimidation published with clear video evidence. The fact the American mainstream media is glossing over this story which limits the number of sources makes the situation even worse. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher, I think you're dead on here. I do agree that some of the blogs would warrant removal if they were included because...well, they're blogs. http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/NBPH.htm This website shows all of the depositions and testimonies...but you have to download the word documents so I'm not sure how to source it, or if I can source it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ive removed the Edit Request template for the time being, so people do not keep coming here to check on this request. This is something that will need more debate here. Will need to find some other sources and get an idea of the text, but will need to wait and see if others feel if this should be included in the article or not. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note: the article does mention the case.It may not include enough detail to satisfy everybody, but it isn't ignored.

Holder's Department of Justice ended a civil suit originally brought by the Bush administration against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation due to lack of evidence.[55]

Also, the use of primary sources is frowned upon. We look for quality secondary sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not enough, it doesnt explain about the controversy that has followed since it dropped the suit. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions the story, but not in the context of why it is actually in the news...it mentions nothing about the controversy involved. How many sources do you need to see in order to accept this? How is it that the direct testimony is not a good source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are open to interpretation, which is why secondary sources should be used. Please read WP:PSTS, which is part of WP:NOR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This source covers the reason for the controversy. [13]BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'm going to go ahead and put it in...I haven't seen any good arguments for leaving it out yet. JahnTeller07 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

These are serious allegations to include so its best to wait until there is agreement here before adding it. Whilst i agree the controversy needs mentioning in more detail, what exactly was the text you propose to put in? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Woops i see you added it. I am ok with something along those lines although it could probably be reworded a bit but if someone else removes it dont readd until agreement on the talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You Got it British...how would you word it? I'm not exactly the best at writing so any input from you or any other reviewer would probably be better haha JahnTeller07 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ill sleep on that, is gone midnight here. Will have to be confined to sources like the fox news article. If you can find any other coverage about the testimony and the claims from other US news sources it would make the addition more justified, although considering the clear bias of the mainstream media there i wont hold out too much hope lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I couldn't agree more haha...but I think Malik and I came to a consensus that was fair in that it mentions the story...but doesn't put any spin on it and doesn't make it too big of a deal. Cheers, and thanks to both of you for all the input JahnTeller07 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Current wording looks good and mentions why its notable, Glad this is resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

African American

Can he be considered African American if he descends from Barbados, an island close to South America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.88.181.72 (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion for this article

I see that this article mentions the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, which is good, but I think it would be appropriate to also mention some of the other controversies that exist involving Eric Holder's Department of Justice. There are two in particular that I'm thinking of:

• The Department of Justice's refusal to enforce the law that they remove people ineligible to vote (such as dead people and felons) from voting rolls. A Washington Times article discussing this is here.

• The Department of Justice's general inactivity in enforcing Civil Rights laws, to the extent that attorneys in the voting section frequently spend their time watching videos and playing computer games. This discussed in this open letter in the Washington Examiner.

My suggestion is to create a new section of the article titled "controversy" which would include both of these things, and the material discussing the Black Panther case that's currently in the "Attorney General of the United States" section would also be moved there. Is it all right with other people if I do that? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, that "article" in the Washington Times is an editorial, and you acknowledge that the Examiner column is an open letter. Any reliable sources? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here’s an article discussing the ineligible voters issue in the Wall Street Journal: [14]

I think the open letter is a reliable source. According to WP:RS: “When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others.” The author of this letter is Hans von Spakovsky, one of the DOJ attorneys who’s submitted testimony to the Civil Rights Commission to corroborate the accusations made by J. Christian Adams and Christopher Coates. If Spakovsky’s viewpoint is not notable enough on its own, similar accusations about inactivity have also been made by J. Christian Adams in this article. As one of the two main witnesses who testified against Holder in the Black Panther Case, I think it’s hard to argue that Adams’ viewpoint isn’t notable. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, that's not an article from the Wall Street Journal, it's an op-ed column. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think John Fund’s opinion isn’t notable enough to satisfy the criterion of RS policy that I quoted? If you really think it doesn’t, I guess this particular element of controversy doesn’t have to be included. It’s more about the DOJ in general than Holder specifically, in any case.

I think the accusations about inactivity from Spakovsky and Adams are definitely notable enough to be included, though. And we also should probably include some of the controversies that have arisen from his recent meeting with a house subcommittee, described in this article and this one. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Brother

Should we add anything about his brother because it is not mentioned in this article?Coolmon54 (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Project Gunrunner Censorship

Holder is being grilled by Congress about his role in his ATF's Project Gunrunner[15] and the death of ATF agent Brian Terry [16]. This is obviously significant and is being deleted for partisan reasons. This one isn't going down the memory hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.90.184 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quoting foxnews is always dubious, however you have not added any of this information to the — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basaltmark (talk • contribs) 04:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Holder is called to testify before Congress often. This article would be monstrous if it included a paragraph about every letter sent to him by a Republican Congressmember or every time he was asked to testify. Face it, at this point in time, it isn't that important. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is being covered most major news outlets including ABC [17], NPR [18], and Bloomberg [19]. The latest revelation is that tax money may have been used to pay informants who were straw purchasers. The only people who think it isn't that important are the people who get their news from John Stewart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140 (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious but not unexpected that a sentence or two re "Fast and Furious" wouldn't show up. Does Holder need to be impeached for the national news controversy to get a mention? Liberals aren't doing themselves any favors through such OBVIOUS censorship, and Wikipedia in turn loses credibility. Let's not be cowards about news that might disparage our man! Let the clips, I mean chips, fall where they may! It's time to bite the bullet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.125.23 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Information on the career of Eric Holder that does not include the publicly well known Fast and Furious controversy, is simply not an ingenuous article on the individual by any objective measurement. Victor Grey (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

More Censorship

More than thirty congressmen are calling for Holder to resign because he lied to congress about Fast and Furious. .

"because he lied"....please. Newsmax.com as a source???? Stop this BS. You have no credibility. Next time I will source the Easter Bunny.Basaltmark (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ten Arizona sheriffs and the NRA have also called for Holder to be fired. But the hordes of liberal editors at Wikipedia just keep putting this information down the memory hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.8.239 (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

More then 40 congressmen are calling on holder to quit, but the hordes of useful idiot wikipedia editors keep deleting this information.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/15/update-42-members-of-congress-now-calling-for-eric-holders-resignation/

http://news.yahoo.com/victim-family-speaks-38-congressmen-demand-eric-holder-054321814.html

Compare this with the Alberto Gonzales page, which claims that "Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, and others called for Gonzales’ resignation", but provides no source to verify that information (don't need WP:RS to criticize a Republican!) and doesn't bother saying who the alleged "others" are. [20] Everyone knows wikipedia is biased, but this is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.241.173 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Republicans have now slanted this page by including every non-noteworthy detail they can, expanding the controversy as much as possible. Pat yourselves on the back right wingers, you continue to diminish Wikipedia's credibility!67.149.196.50 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

African American

What part of Africa? --Pawyilee (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC) What do you mean? Are you asking if he is from Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basaltmark (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Acting AG?

According to the list at United States Attorney General, Holder was Acting Attorney General from January 20 to February 3, 2001. I don't see any mention of this here. Would think it would merit at least a sentence. See specifically United_States_Attorney_General#endnote_22 --Haruo (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguments on Due Process & targeted killings

So, what about his arguments claiming that due process does not require judicial involvement? I am surprised that does not fall prominently under controversy -- http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/holder-targeted-killing/all/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.243.196 (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable?

DOJ drops case against Florida pro-life sidewalk counselor, pays her $120G

This is a huge embarrassment for Holder. 67.233.246.129 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

this should go under controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.220.10 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely notable enough for at least a brief mention in the controversies section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.218.55 (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism edits

I have attempted to insert some information about the controversial nature of Holder's tenure, and have backed it up with sources. Yes, those sources are opinion oriented because that is the nature of the controversy -- it is largely political. However, the sources prove that controversy of the nature I describe does exist about Holder. After guidance from other editors, I have not attempted to argue whether the criticism is true or not, merely to establish that it exists and provide sources that demonstrate that. I think that is reasonable information to be present in an article about Holder, but rather than continue to go back and forth with the edits, I am taking the advice of Fluffernutter and coming here to get opinions. 66.118.71.118 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As I noted on your talkpage, you should avoid praise or criticism of a subject (any subject, but particularly a living individual) in Wikipedia's voice. You can directly quote Krauthammer with direct attribution in addition to reference, but given that Krauthammer is a political opponent of Holder's and the administration in general, it must be given due weight. I'd suggest that you propose something here. Read WP:BLP and I'll look for some policy on quoting critical commentary that might help. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The conservative media-invented "controversies" are currently being given undue weight in this article. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

We wacky conservatives get upset when government corruption and incompetence leads to three-figure body counts and when the attorney general admits to lying about it. Tell me again what the Watergate body count was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.64.248 (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh please. I'm a student at one of the most liberal universities in California (therefore most liberal in the universe) - check my IP. Even people here want Holder fired. There is no "conservative invention" needed to identify Holder's history of corruption, racial bias and general incompetence as a controversy. If anything, he's become a massive and unnecessary burden to the Democrats. The section is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.218.55 (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Prove it. Corruption?, Bias? Incompetence? So easy to say, so difficult to find a reliable resource to attest. Sitsat (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And to unsigned above, I don't know about Watergate, but how many Americans died in Irag? About 4,600. For What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitsat (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) should be mentioned in this article. Possibly it should be in the criticism & controversy section, but possibly elsewhere. Neither article talks about Holder's position in the case, why Holder prosecuted, etc. Thelema418 (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources? He is not mentioned in the WP article you have cited as there is no description of the parties in the case that I can see at first glance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, neither article as presently written expresses that Eric Holder is affiliated with the case. Eric Holder was the petitioner as can be seen in the court documents: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2008_08_1498. I don't know if Holder made any statements about the case to the press. Maybe the case should be cited as a "See Also" because there should be some sort of link between the articles. (It's like having a wiki article on Attorney General (GA) Michael Bowers without linking to Bowers v. Hardwick and vice versa.) I can do those edits, but if someone knows more about Eric Holder than I (and I am far from being his biographer), I wanted to put the matter out there. Thelema418 (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Its now mentioned in both articles.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

PS Thanks for bringing this to our attention! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is an article related to controversy with Holder's recent decision to not prosecute on the CIA interrogation methods that lead to the death of a prisoner; this issue concerns the practice of waterboarding. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/holder-rules-out-prosecutions-in-cia-interrogations.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120831 Thelema418 (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

How in the hell does this resemble anything close to being objective?

"The contempt vote was polarized around Republicans and was seen as politically motivated."

I maintain that this should be stricken from the article entirely on the basis that it's extremely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RennerTeller01 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the wording so that it better reflects what was reported in the source. ... discospinster _talk 03:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I support the change, and I'm glad to see that wikipedia still has at least one impartial editor. RennerTeller01 (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I modified it to better conform with what the source says and what WP:WTW says. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that RennerTeller01's latest addition is a copy and paste from the source and should be removed on that basis. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that it is no longer copied and pasted. RennerTeller01 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, instead it's a close paraphrase. Why don't you try writing it in your own words. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No it's not RennerTeller01 (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the time stamp next to the message. When I posted it, you had merely changed a few words from the newspaper article. You have since rewritten the sentence in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This should be included

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/doj-officials-drops-appeal-pays-florida-pro-life-sidewalk-counselor/

Yet another black eye for a DOJ that has a knack for making ridiculous mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RennerTeller01 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be included? The article doesn't mention Holder. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It mentions the DOJ, which in case you didn't know is led by Eric Holder. To prove it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder here's an article showing that he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RennerTeller01 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So any news about the DOJ belongs in Holder's biography? That's a novel theory. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously including every mistake the DOJ has made under the leadership of Holder would make for a "War and Peace" type length article, but I feel like this is important enough to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RennerTeller01 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned by the bias that Renner is showing against the subject. It's hard to believe that s/he is writing from a Neutral Point of View. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that wikipedia is in and of itself biased, and that maybe having a wide range of ideologies is a good thing because wikipedia gets more perspectives. RennerTeller01 (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Every editor brings a POV to her/his editing. The important thing is that the article be written from a neutral point of view.

Back to the point at hand, regardless of how important you may think the story is, unless reliable sources indicate that Holder was involved, we don't use his biography as a dumping ground for every criticism of the Justice Department. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would echo what Malik is saying. If the source does not mention Holder specifically, its not relevant to this BLP. Please see WP:COATRACK and WP:OR,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a table on Gonzales's page on the members of Congress who called for his resignation, shouldn't we have a table on people who called on Holder to resign too?

What do you guys think? Getting an albeit partial list that would include Congress members and Presidential candidates. J390 (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If we include lists of every congressman who ever called on another politician to resign, we'd triple the size of Wikipeida. They do it every day! Mokiecoke (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We have it on his predecessor's page. A lot of people have called for his resignation. J390 (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but don't count on the libs that run wikipedia to let it in the article.RennerTeller01 (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The partisan politics on this page is getting out of hand. Many are users letting their political leanings get in the way facts and common knowledge. There is absolutely no reason why Holder's controversial nature can't be noted in the first paragraph. Beentired (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF, and see WP:BLP, WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. Yes, he is controversial, like his predecessors; what reliable sources indicate that he has been significantly more controversial than Gonzales, Ashcroft, Reno, Meese, et al? Rostz (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Eric Holder had Corzine and MF Global as a client, and he wont give O'Brien Imunity to tell what happened

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/26/REVEALED-Corzine-s-MF-Global-Was-a-Client-of-Eric%20Holder-s-Law-Firm http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/28/mf-global-justice-department_n_1713624.html http://mfgfacts.com/2012/07/09/between-freinds/

Shouldnt this be included in the controversy section? Or if it gets ignored enough it is not newsworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.45 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Beast on various FUBAR issues

Recently I had the opportunity to review [21] and was struck by some of the claims about Holder's prosecution record and affiliations. Are there any objections to using it as a source for either? EllenCT (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

AP telephone records

Currently, the write up of the AP telephone investigation consists of a short intro and a long quote. The story is now developing but the quote is too long for an encyclopedic article. Perhaps this is just recentism.Crtew (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A blatant case of WP:UNDUE. I've cut it back. Thanks for the heads up. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminder about sourcing

This is a biography of living person, and thus subject to the sourcing and coverage requirements laid out in WP:BLP. I've removed this section as a blatant violation of those requirements. There are multiple issues with the section, including:

• The section is not about Eric Holder, but about an employee of the Justice Department communication staff. Its relevance to a serious encyclopedic biography of Eric Holder is highly dubious.
• The incident appears to have attracted little or no coverage outside partisan websites, and thus seems unsuited to an entire section in a biographical article. If this incident is truly notable, then more reputable and non-partisan media will pick it up, at which point we can cite those reliable sources.
• The cited sources are mind-bogglingly inappropriate. Biographies need to use sources with excellent reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. The section in question leans heavily on Breitbart.com, a site with a long record of deceptive, misleading, untruthful, and borderline defamatory material in the service of its hyper-partisan aims. When they're not deceptively editing videos to get political opponents fired, this website can be found fabricating made-up groups to try to discredit its target du jour. Anyone who considers this website a "reliable source" for a serious encyclopedic biography needs to be kept away from this project's biographical articles.
• The Daily Caller is a partisan opinion site and not really suitable as a source for contentious material in a biographical article.

I'd be open to comment, but feel very strongly that this section is a fairly serious WP:BLP violation and should not be re-added in the absence of further discussion and consensus. MastCell ^Talk 00:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Caller and Brietbart are reliable sources, just as much as the Huffington Post and Mother Jones are reliable sources. I can understand the argument that this content could be located in another article, but just because one may disagree with what a source is saying doesn't make the source unreliable. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for removal, WP:BLP is.

Moreover, the content which added primarily is based on the RS Daily Caller, Brietbart source is used only once.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. So WP:BLP says it's OK to use sources with a history of dishonestly slandering people, as long as you only use them once? These are hyper-partisan sources with a very dubious or non-existent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The reason for removing these sources is that they violate WP:BLP and have no place in a serious encyclopedia. If you don't understand why they're inappropriate in a BLP, then you shouldn't be editing BLPs. MastCell ^Talk 06:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've no opinion on Holder, but only came here tangently because MastCell is commenting on the DailyCaller not being a RS on multiple talk pages. This is nonsense. While DC is full of opinion pieces, their reporting is inherently reliable. They staff professional journalists who work on their reporting and investigative articles. If anyone has a beef with a specific cite, you know where RSN is located. Ad hominem attacks on sources is not going to get us anywhere.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear: we're talking about contentious allegations against a non-notable, living private figure. These allegations have apparently received zero coverage in reputable non-partisan sources, yet they are being spammed prominently into multiple tangentially related articles. That's poor editing, and it violates WP:BLP. I'm pretty disappointed in the lack of support for that fundamental policy here. MastCell ^Talk 06:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Didn't the Daily Caller try to plant some kind of a story about underage Dominican prostitutes to influence the outcome of an election? EllenCT (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You should read the Daily Caller page which has interesting commentary about that blog's reliability. There's no question that they completely failed to corroborate the Menendez story. On the DC Wikipedia page, a reference was left that a Washington Post reporter "doubted" the allegations that the Caller had paid for the apparently fabricated statements made by prostitutes implicating Menendez. The Caller published the claims just days before an election. However, the Post reporter had added: "We believe that the Daily Caller was all too eager to publish completely unsubstantiated allegations about Menendez. We believe that it barely lifted un dedo to corroborate these explosive allegations. And we believe that its vow to continue investigating the story amounts to ducking accountability." Activist (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This reads like a resume or press release

It seems pretty clear that the contempt-of-congress and some of the other major controversies Holder has been embroiled in need to be written in an objective manner, and not like the spin cycle they read like right now. I also think that these paragraphs would be best grouped under a 'Controversy' section.--C Steffen 21:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

Hate crime charges

I've reverted this edit, since the source doesn't actually state that no African-Americans have been charged with a hate crime. The source simply states that hate crime charges have been rare. Ishdarian 12:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Bank of America image removal

The following has been removed:

[[:File:Bank of America wordmark.svg|right|thumb|Bank of America was fined $335 million in 2011 for minority discrimination. <ref>{{Cite news|title=Countrywide Will Settle a Bias Suit|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/us-settlement-reported-on-countrywide-lending.html|date=December 21, 2011|first=Charlie|last=Savage|work=[[The New York Times]]|accessdate=December 24, 2011}}</ref>]]

This image and caption was entirely inappropriate for several reasons: 1. Holder was simply AG, and did not actively handle the case. (He stands to the side in the NYT picture accompanying the story.) 2. BoA was not fined – it settled the case. 3. While BoA paid the settlement, BoA did not discriminate – the allegations were all related to CountryWide practices which occurred before BoA bought the company. With these factors in mind, the image and caption is POV and UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Image count

We have 9 images of Holder and 1 related to a case. Four of his images are at the podium. I submit that 1 image at the podium, with POTUS, is sufficient. Removing the other 2 [3] would give him 2 official portraits, 1 meeting room picture, the Wounded Knee memorial picture, and the Fair Sentencing signing photo. (For a total of 7 article images.) This would comply with image policy (WP:IUP) which says "They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." – S. Rich (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixing the mis-count above. The 3 non-POTUS podium images are now removed. – – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Tea Party and tobacco connections?

What do other editors think about [22]?

"... The Court stated in a footnote that 'Despite the apparent conflict of interest, a few law firms, particularly Covington & Burling and Shook, Hardy & Bacon, represented the shared interests of all the Defendants and coordinated a significant part of the Enterprise’s activities.' Today, a partner from Covington & Burling, Eric Holder, sits at the helm of the U.S. Department of Justice. Until his return to his former law firm in March of this year, following a devastating portrayal on PBS’ Frontline over his failure to prosecute Wall Street crimes, the head of the criminal division of the Justice Department was Lanny Breuer, also a partner at Covington & Burling."

I am inclined towards inclusion. EllenCT (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The source, Wall Street on Parade, looks like a non-RS, blog and thus not acceptable, especially in a BLP. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Their mission statement - "Wall Street On Parade hopes to level the playing field between Wall Street and the 99 percent" - precludes them from being used as RS at all. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The information is from the court opinion at [23] which is reliable, is it not? EllenCT (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of Holder in the court opinion, so the opinion has no relevance to this article. And since WSOP is non-RS, it cannot be used from the get-go. The court opinion does not change that fact. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously challenging the assertion that Holder and Breuer were partners at Covington and Burling? EllenCT (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source that states the importance of this, not more of the POV BS you usually add. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for current editing

This just in, 21 minutes ago.

Headline-1: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to Step Down

• http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-attorney-general-eric-holder-to-step-down-1411656836?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

QUOTE: "Holder's Resignation to Be Announced Thursday at White House Event" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for current and future editing.

A sentence has already been added to the lede. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did you (whoever) take this out ?

This is well documented. It is useful information to understanding Holder's character. I understand this is recent news (the resignation), and people are emotional at times like this. But it notwithstanding deserves mention, was previously in the article, and the removal of this was unsupported. I'm putting it back in. " While at Columbia, Holder was a member of the Student Afro-American Society, which staged an armed occupation of the ROTC lounge and demanded that it be renamed the Malcom X Lounge. " 10stone5 (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Per the NYT "armed with pillowcases and sheets." Please read the sources.Acroterion (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

So then say that or words to that effect 10stone5 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That's up to you: the incident is not in dispute, but your insistence that it was "armed" is, pun intended, loaded language. Please rephrase to reflect what the sources say, and remember that BLP sets a high bar on allegations about being "armed." Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not insisting they were armed, I'm saying you can't just delete this, note though that Columbia's own archives say they were armed. --- http://web.archive.org/web/20100926031018/http://www.columbiabso.org/?page_id=118. Note that I reverted your change. If you want to change the wording on the armed issue go ahead, but you can't just continue to edit this section out. Again I understand that people are emotional at times like this. 10stone5 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• From Fox: "The details of the student-led occupation, including the claim that the raiders were “armed,” come from a deleted Web page of the Black Students’ Organization (BSO) at Columbia, a successor group to the SAAS. Contemporary newspaper accounts in The Columbia Daily Spectator, a student newspaper, did not mention weapons." Hardly a sufficient source to make such a bold claim here. Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

::::* <this is my insertion, for documentation purposes, after the fact> Please note, I was not citing Fox as I already know many Wikipedians consider Fox a persona non grata. I wasn't citing anyone. I just happened to read Colombia's own archive, cached from The Wayback Machine which described the incident as an armed one. My problem was never with the issue of whether this incident was armed or not, it was that this citation was removed in the first place. There was no supportable evidence for removing it> 10stone5 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please learn how to read. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please stop reverting my edit. If you want to change the wording on whether this incident was armed or not, go ahead. I have no issue there. Otherwise a complete revert is unsupported as there are many citations for this incident happening. So please stop. 10stone5 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop reverting it yourself. You're already at three reverts; are you going to go for four and be blocked?

As for the incident, it was a non-event. Your sources say nothing like what you're writing, and that makes it a BLP violation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please make neutral edits that don't try to insert loaded language that isn't supported by the sources. The burden is on you to respond with an acceptable edit. Acroterion (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll repeat my prior point and in this case make the appropriate edit to the wording in question. But you cannot cite me for edit war, because your position of complete removal is unsupported. "Please stop reverting my edit. If you want to change the wording on whether this incident was armed or not, go ahead. I have no issue there. Otherwise a complete revert is unsupported as there are many citations for this incident happening. So please stop." 10stone5 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to call the man a terrorist and put the onus on other editors to clean up your mess. Sorry, but Wikipedia and BLP don't work that way. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody is calling anyone a terrorist. Note that I took it upon myself to change the wording. "While at Columbia, Holder was a member of the Student Afro-American Society, which staged a non-confrontational occupation of the ROTC lounge and demanded that it be renamed the Malcom X Lounge." -- so I noted specifically that this was not armed, not confrontational, not terrorist in nature. But still useful information as to the character of the man as well as being well documented. You can't just delete things that are well documented and pertinent, because you don't personally like the content. 10stone5 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

<ecx4>We're not here to rewrite your persistent violations of policy and factual misstatements into some acceptable form. Thank you for finally writing according to the sources. Acroterion (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Why didn't you make the change or provide a better explanation from the get-go? I understand you are an administrator. Just not a very good one in my opinion. Next time, as an admin, as a representative of Wikipedia, please explain your administrative behavior better. At least now I've gotten a good education on how Wikipedians attempt to suppress information, I'll know from now on to be on the lookout for you two, and most importantly, I have the tools as well as mental capacity to combat this blatant attempt at information suppression. Also, please do not ever, ever make any edits to my talk page without my express consent, except for purposes of adding a new notification or responding to a notification. 10stone5 (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Our objections were plainly stated: you were trying to fabricate a smear. You don't get to to dictate interaction terms in that way, and if you do this again, you can expect to be blocked. Administrators are expected to follow up on matters of this kind, regardless of your attempts to preemptively deflect sanctions. `Acroterion (talk)' 12:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 27 September 2014

In section “Refusal to prosecute financial institutions” I want to add after the words “faces no criminal charges and admits no wrongdoing.” - the following language:

“During his tenure, he has presided over 812 settlements against large US corporations, totaling almost $156 billion”.

In a footnote this source should be referenced: https://grabien.com/feature.php?id=15. This link contains a compilation of all those settlements and their monetary amount. צבי אהרונוב (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any consensus for this addition? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Coverage of the impeachment resolution

In the hope of heading off an edit war, I'd like to start a discussion about the proper way to characterize this. Anyone should feel free to state their opinion.

For myself, I actually have no opinion about whether we should cover the resolution at all. Wikipedia is inconsistent about how we cover impeachment attempts that have no practical chance of proceeding; both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been the subject of impeachment threats that were never credible, and we don't cover these resolutions anywhere. My only concern, in the edit that seems to have kicked things of, was to avoid the abuse of the English language represented by the phrase "alleged scandals" - and "purported scandals" is no better. A scandal is an incident of public disgrace, and the element of publicity in particular either occurs or does not; it cannot be only "alleged" or "purported". Of course, Holder's culpability in the matters described in the resolution is only "alleged"; that's what a formal impeachment resolution is, an allegation.

Since there is a dispute about how to characterize the particular actions Holder is accused of in the resolution, I suggest not characterizing or summarizing them at all. Instead, the article should simply list the contents of the four Articles that would be passed if the resolution were adopted. In particular, Article IV (Holder's having lied to Congress about the surveillance of James Rosen) is not a matter of any "alleged" (or "purported") actions; Holder has said since that he did personally supervise the surveillance of Rosen, and that he did lie to Congress about it. Neutral coverage of the matter requires not obscuring this. Of course, as I said above I would be fine with omitting this entire section, which would also avoid both neutrality issues and the odious language abuse that I objected to. Either way, this section needs consensus, not edit warring. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The resolution has not been followed through and he is leaving, so there is not much point to cover this beyond what is there already. The articles of impeachment have not been voted on, so there is no point to describe them in detail per WP:UNDUE. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's quite unlikely the resolution will be pursued now; that's one of the reasons that I would be fine with omitting this section entirely. Since it seems like you'd prefer a short summary rather than either of my proposed alternatives, do you have any preference as to how the matter in the resolution should be summarized? 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to have that section deleted in due course. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz any thoughts? I think the small section is fine as it is and shouldn't be removed. - SantiLak (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with it either way. Unfortunately, the contempt citation is just as historic as Holder's role as first black U.S. Attorney General and probably can't be deleted altogether. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eric Holder. 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/20110714155641/http://www.nationnews.com/story/347652135987365.php to http://www.nationnews.com/story/347652135987365.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011003003/http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/international-news/portfolio/2007/09/17/Chiquita-Death-Squads to http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/international-news/portfolio/2007/09/17/Chiquita-Death-Squads

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).

• 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} 01:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Eric Holder. 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/20081201182614/http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/key_members_of_obama_biden_national_security_team_announced/ to http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/key_members_of_obama_biden_national_security_team_announced/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-litigation-involving-defense-marriage-act
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20035398-503544.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090507195653/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2009/01/15/1745836.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/15/1745836.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thewire.com/national/2012/07/james-taranto-why-man-haha-ing/54267/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/attorney-general-eric-holder-resign/story?id=25752751

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).

• 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) 12:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eric Holder. 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://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/15/1745836.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130306114623/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=44858 to http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=44858
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204121234/http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/steering/e_holder_bio.htm to http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/steering/e_holder_bio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106014213/http://newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Eric_Holder.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Eric_Holder.php

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).

• 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) 12:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Top of the article

Top of the article should be 3 paragraphs or so, not a fairly short blib like his predecessor Michael Mukasey. Holder was an extremely important figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmithca (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Asmithca, took a little while but hope you like the new lead. Feel free to make changes. NW (Talk) 17:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Strange filter

I wanted to edit the information from the LA Times article https://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/, but a filter blocked it. First I thought it was because of the headline and I scrambled to reduce my edit it to pass the filter and finally got to a blank edit and was quite irritated what was going on. Then I eventually misspelled the company's name (not on purpose, I'm not a native speaker, in my language the sound of the first "u" in "purdue" is associated with the letter "e"). Now it is impossible to alter an "e" into a "u". What is wrong with that? Is the article from 2016 inaccurate? --Wwost (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC) Now another editor corrected it. Really strange filter. --Wwost (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

contempt

Holder is only cabinet member held in contempt of congress. This fact should be included. If the House is described as Republican led, the DOJ can be described as Democratic led.

Did you read the article? There are several paragraphs on the subject, and it was already in the lede. I'm not sure what the point of the party affiliation discussion is, but the lede should summarize the main points in the article body, and that's not featured prominently. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I have. I tire of the continued bias shown in some articles, and was attempting to bring a bit of balance, but I know many want to significantly slant the facts.

Then you know that the contempt citation was already in the lede, and that the relative party affiliations are not major components according to sources. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Eric Holder and Sharon Malone.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)