![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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 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)
"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)"
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)The liberal wikipedia actively censors articles.
I removed his comment about this per relevance. Thanks, -- Tom 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
"...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.
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..."
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)
Would you consider him a politician as a category suggests. He has never held ELECTIVE office?-- Levineps ( talk) 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Hey, how come there is no mention of Holder dropping the Black Panther case? [10] Truthsort ( talk) 16:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
Just as a note: the article does mention the case.It may not include enough detail to satisfy everybody, but it isn't ignored.
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Should we add anything about his brother because it is not mentioned in this article? Coolmon54 ( talk) 19:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 than thirty congressmen are calling for Holder to resign because he lied to congress about Fast and Furious. [1] [2] [3] [4].
"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. [5] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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. Ish dar ian 12:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The following has been removed:
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)
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)
What do other editors think about [22]?
I am inclined towards inclusion. EllenCT ( talk) 04:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This just in, 21 minutes ago.
Headline-1: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to Step Down
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.
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. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] " 10stone5 ( talk) 21:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Eric Holder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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 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)
"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)"
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)The liberal wikipedia actively censors articles.
I removed his comment about this per relevance. Thanks, -- Tom 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
"...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.
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..."
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)
Would you consider him a politician as a category suggests. He has never held ELECTIVE office?-- Levineps ( talk) 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Hey, how come there is no mention of Holder dropping the Black Panther case? [10] Truthsort ( talk) 16:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
Just as a note: the article does mention the case.It may not include enough detail to satisfy everybody, but it isn't ignored.
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Should we add anything about his brother because it is not mentioned in this article? Coolmon54 ( talk) 19:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 than thirty congressmen are calling for Holder to resign because he lied to congress about Fast and Furious. [1] [2] [3] [4].
"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. [5] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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. Ish dar ian 12:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The following has been removed:
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)
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)
What do other editors think about [22]?
I am inclined towards inclusion. EllenCT ( talk) 04:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This just in, 21 minutes ago.
Headline-1: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to Step Down
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.
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. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] " 10stone5 ( talk) 21:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Eric Holder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)