Talk:Eric Holder

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.

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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: the COPYVIO problem was resolved in June. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|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