Talk:Eric Holder

A suggestion for this article

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s an article discussing the ineligible voters issue in the Wall Street Journal: [1]

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

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

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

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

Brother

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

Project Gunrunner Censorship

Holder is being grilled by Congress about his role in his ATF's Project Gunrunner[2] and the death of ATF agent Brian Terry [3]. 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)

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

This is being covered most major news outlets including ABC [4], NPR [5], and Bloomberg [6]. The latest revelation is that tax money may have been used to pay informants who were straw purchasers. The only people who think it isn't that important are the people who get their news from John Stewart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140 (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

More Censorship

More than thirty congressmen are calling for Holder to resign because he lied to congress about Fast and Furious. . Ten Arizona sheriffs and the NRA have also called for Holder to be fired. But the hordes of liberal editors at Wikipedia just keep putting this information down the memory hole.