Talk:Eric Holder

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? [1] 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! [2] 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.[3] 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. [4][5][6][7]-- — 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?[8] 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 [9] 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. [10]. 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