Wikipedia

Talk:Rahm Emanuel/Archive 3

< Talk:Rahm Emanuel
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Carolmooredc in topic AGF only goes so far
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Allegations Irgun was a terrorist group should be in article

Latest comment: 15 years ago53 comments12 people in discussion

There has been sniping about this issue, but no real discussion why it is not significant that the Irgun has been called a terrorist group including in two wikipedia articles and therefore it should be labeled such in this article.

  • The wikipedia article on the Irgun describes it as such, including these sources:

Some of the better-known attacks by Irgun were the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre (accomplished together with the Stern Gang) on 9 April 1948. In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper, (REF:Pope Brewer, Sam. IRGUN BOMB KILLS 11 ARABS, 2 BRITONS. New York Times. December 30, 1947; IRGUN'S HAND SEEN IN ALPS RAIL BLAST. New York Times. August 16, 1947} and by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry.(REF: W. Khalidi, 1971, 'From Haven to Conquest', p. 598) Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare".(REF: Louis Meltzer, Julian. ZIONISTS CONDEMN PALESTINE TERROR. New York Times. December 24, 1946.)

And of course there are lots more sources, especially in books; a few that jump up on top of search engine being:

So a couple words mentioning that the Irgun was alleged to be a terrorist organization with a few of the best references above would seem to be merely accurate. [strike soapbox comments] Those who keep reverting it should explain themselves. And see the policy above on not hiding information that is embarrassing if it is well sourced. Carol Moore 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "terrorism" is generally discouraged here at Wikipedia. And it is for these types of groups that this policy was enacted. If someone wants a full analysis of the Lehi they can use the wikilink provided by the article. That's what wikilinks are for, for tangential, yet related issues. All soapboxing for the correct definition of Lehi belongs at the Lehi article, not here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a page List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations. It says if a govt has in past called group terrorist it should be listed as such and can be described as such. The British called the Irgun terrorist, as some sources above note. I don't notice anyone calling for deletion of that page.
However, if something like "paramilitary group that carried out deadly attacks on civilian and government targets between 1931 and 1948" was used that might be sufficient. With several of the references above. Also Irgun is a different group from the Lehi (group), more widely known as the Stern Gang.Carol Moore 07:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Whether they are considered a terrorist organization is a matter of great debate. Thus any controversial descriptions should be avoided at all costs, especially since the groups descriptions is, at most, a tangential issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe the description "paramilitary group that carried out deadly attacks on Arab civilian and British government targets between 1931 and 1948" would be relevant a) because today militant can mean merely loud raucus chanting at rallies at people's homes or other non-violent, if obnoxious, behavior; and b) because of boasting quotes like this from Haaretz which show his Irgun "roots" very relevant to most aggressive Zionists: William Daroff, the director of the Washington office of the United Jewish Communities (UJC), an umbrella organization representing 155 Jewish Federations and 400 independent Jewish communities across North America, said Thursday ..."Rep. Emanuel is also a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools," (Do we have any evidence Emanuel denounces Irgun's terrorist acts?) In fact, I think that quote belongs in the article, too.
If American Jewish leaders have a right to boast about it, it is encyclopedic for Wikipedia to explain in the article what kind of group Irgun was. Also, there have been repeated efforts by editors on this page and in the article to include a more accurate description. Carol Moore 16:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
You make is seem like he was in the Irgun. It was not him, it was his father. He doesn't have to denounce the Irgun just like he doesn't have to go around denouncing other groups that he was not a part of. Any analysis of his father's actions, or for that matter other relatives or other ancestors do not belong on this page, but on that person's page. His page is not the WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND for POV warriors, whether it be a pro-Irgun group or an anti-Irgun group.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
First, this already used WP:RS article says Rahm "reveled in the family lore," so I think that indicates his probable opinion on the Irgun. More specific evidence evidently needs to be found.
Second, one does not have to be either pro or con Irgun to want an accurate description for encyclopedia purposes, especially when it is currently relevant because a number of reliable sources (plus blogs) bring Irgun up and some describe it as terrorist and speculate on its relevance; not to mention all the wiki editors who keep throwing in sourced and unsourced allegations it was terrorist.
Again, I don't have a problem with leaving out the word terrorist, but at least paramilitary should be in there and something about attacks on who and why - like "paramilitary group that carried out attacks to drive the British out."
Finally, if material about how his name comes from people who died fighting Arabs is relevant, the kind of group his father was in certainly is relevant. Leaving it out is what is truly POV and that would be pointed out in any mediation etc on this point. Carol Moore 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
Oh please. You're taking one vague line from when he was a kid at summer camp to stand for the proposition that he was pro-Irgun. That's extreme. Again, the accurate description of what Irgun was exactly belongs on the Irgun page. Thats what wikiliks are for - tangential, yet related issues. The description of the Irgun takes up a hell of a lot of bytes at the Irgun page, and it would be silly to go through with all over it again here. It would be wrong to describe them here as paramilitary, terrorists, or freedom-fighters. The only way they should be described is the most neutral which everyone agrees to. If there is one description leaning toward one POV there must be a counterbalancing description for the other POV. It would create a huge tangential mess. We might as well redirect Irgun to this page. Regarding his name, its his name, so its origins are relevant. Apples and Oranges. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Members of the Irgun have admitted it was a terrorist group. But that doesn;t really matter on this page. If I see someone bend over backwards to see the word "terrorist" attached to Hamas, I don't really get it either. If people care, they can find out more about the nuances - since we all know that when a group represents the enemy it is called "terrorist" and when it represents the friend, it is called "freedmo-fighting", and when the underdog it is terrorist while when it prevails, it becomes the backbone of the state's army. Calling it a militant Zionist group expresses the point.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree. "Militant Zionist group" is a neutral term which noone will claim is false. Anything else runs into POV issues, which should be best hashed out at Irgun.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't about Irgun, or even Rahm Emanuel's father, so any "terrorist" discussion about Irgun should be discussed in the Irgun article not in this biography. Also Wikipedia doesn't assign controversial adjectives like "terrorist" (see WP:Terrorist), but rather attributes who does so (e.g., "government x has designated group y as a terrorist group"). But again, any discussion of who designates Irgun a terrorist group belongs in the Irgun article, not here as a soapbox rabbit trail about a group associated with the father of the subject of the article. --MPerel 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Btw, what *is* appropriate and is already discussed in the White House Chief of Staff section is the dismay by some Palestinians and Arabs by the appointment of Emanuel, because of their perception of his pro-Israel bias. It is neutral and relevant to report their reaction. --MPerel 21:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course, and by the way, it's not just Palestinians who are concerned, but all those who are concerned about the conflict - Some Israelis, left American Jews, surrounding Arab neighbors, etc. And this absolutely should get discussed in succinct and uncompromising detail. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the citations - I was the one who put the template on someone else's citation-less edit requesting proper evidence - comply with WP criteria (the NY Times & indeed the World Zionist Congress condemning the Irgun as terrorist) I fail to perceive any valid reason for removing them. If the label "terrorist" is to be applied, valid sources are required. They have been provided: reputable independent sources; and, indeed, for good measure, even the World Zionist Congress. Equally, if the organization is to be labeled a defence group or some such, reputable independent sourcing is required to justify such a label. I've yet to see a single such citation. Resort to unsupported euphemism in such circumstances constitutes a lamentable departure from NPOV. Each revert (I haven't counted) seems to omit any edit summary. Usually a bad sign. And merely to say, as does the most recent: "per WP: terrorist" is not good enough. Accordingly, I shall reinstate the citations, consistent with WP criteria. They can always be removed when better citations to the contrary are produced. On such a subject as this, surely, calm heads are required. Let's not succumb to soccer-style group loyalties. They have no place in among editors of an encyclopedia such as this. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing that there are no sources describing Irgun as terrorists. The problem with calling Irgun as terrorists is that the same way you can find sources that back up your POV, another editor can find reliable sourced that back up his POV. Surely, there are sources that describe them as "freedom fighters" or "revolutionaries." If we comply with one POV we have to include another's POV as well. All the different POV's do not belong here because its exact description is not that relevant to this article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Also loaded terms simply make the article less credible as it makes it sound too soapboxy. The superfluous information about Irgun is tangential to this article, particularly since it wikilinks to an entire article devoted to Irgun (that's where the citing of those sources belong). We could also cite supporting evidence concerning some (hypothetical) controversial group Nancy Pelosi belongs to since she's mentioned in this article, but that too would be an irrelevant rabbit trail best discussed in the article about the group in question itself. --MPerel 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the above conversation, I would suggest that the fact that at least two thirds of the "White House Chief of Staff" section now deals with the subject of his pro-Israel-ness and the negative reactions to said, indicates that the subject is now treading close to WP:Undue territory. At the risk of failing to assume good faith, it seems that there's a concerted effort being undertaken to assign a certain theme to this article that is really peripheral to its purpose. --Hiddekel (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

@ (yada, yada) Thank you for prompting me to read again WP:FIVEPILLARS. 1) Must confess I am unable to spot which two of the latter are those you insist I currently infringe. Please clarify. 2) Nor do I at all spot any ‘clear consensus’ above. I don’t doubt at all that it’s clear to you; appears to be less clear, however, to others. 3) I am not, as you put it, “finding sources that backup my POV.” That would be quite wrong & ultimately pointless. They are highly reputable, not only neutral sources but include the view of the World Zionist Congress which would normally be expected to support most organizations sharing the common cause. 4) You say, “another editor can find reliable sources that back up his POV.” If you consider yourself to be the editor in question then, as I suggest above, in all seriousness: please present those sources. They do, however, need to meet WP neutral criteria. 5) You say, “exact description is not that relevant to this article.” That is your POV & you are of course entitled to it. If by relevant you mean the identification by the New York Times, and the Anglo–American Committee of Inquiry of Irgun as a terrorist organization, plus the formal declaration by the World Zionist Congress strongly condemning Irgun for "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare," then there are those - I am one - who suggest it is more than relevant at present. The subject of this article is the designated head of the White House staff in an administration committed to fight “terrorism” – not militancy or, as one editor had it, “defence groups.” At the very least, there is an apparent irony here, and it is of relevance. The subject of the article’s perceived prior allegiance to the State of Israel (whether accurately perceived or not) has already reportedly become a factor affecting Arab and Iranian attitudes to the incoming administration. That also makes the nature of his family’s involvement in an allegedly terrorist organization of great current relevance. The fact that you and one or two others (one of whom, I note, has an Israeli flag on his user page) are so vigorously exercised by the issue is itself, paradoxically, circumstantial evidence of its current relevance. Have you actually read the four (4!) independent sources cited? Please do. I request: rather than engaging in name-calling (you headline your message to me “Your obstinate behaviour’) please produce your neutral sources. Then we can proceed from there. Wingspeed (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good argument... Why not take it to where it belongs (Talk:Irgun) and see what the result is there? The consensus should certainly be carried over here, but conversely it's editorially inconsistent and wholly illogical to designate the organization differently here than in the Irgun parent article. --Hiddekel (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
First, terrorist is in both articles, but to keep the temperature down, euphemisms could be used. "Paramilitary" is also in the larger Irgun article and "armed underground Zionist faction" is in the Lehi article. Those descriptions belong here so people won't be under the mis-impression they were just a bunch of militant loud mouths with protest signs. (Like me :-)
As for the response being mostly about Palestine, obviously there were other comments that can be added and no one is stopping anyone from doing so. [strike soapbox comments] It seems that current material is relevant unless replaced by higher quality comments. Maybe like: "Rep. Emanuel is also a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools."Carol Moore 00:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
I agree with wingspeed, I was just reading up on Rahm and I clicked in to the Irgun article, which does mention it as a terrorist organization and has neutral reliable sources to back that it up. I would not have picked up on that had I not read the article. I doubt that the same fervent fight to keep the word terrorist organization out of this article would happen if instead of Irgun it was Hamas. -Michael Rivindel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.58.68 (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, no. In the parent Irgun article, the group is most certainly NOT described, in the unqualified article narrative, as a "terrorist" organization... In keeping with WP:terrorist. It is true that the article does report some sources as describing it as such, and lists those sources, once again in keeping with the stylistic norm described in WP:terrorist. I have no problem giving Irgun the same treatment here, except that it would require devoting an undue amount of biographical article space to an organization that its subject isn't even a member of. --Hiddekel (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

← I agree with Brewcrewer on this - an analogous situation occurs on Cat Stevens where Hamas is mentioned, and it has been agreed to let the wikilink do its work. The Hamas article can characterize Hamas however its sources state, but Cat Stevens isn't the place for it. Same thing here for Irgun - this article is not the place to characterize it, and seeing as this is not an article about Rahm's father the issue is particularly moot. I also think Hiddekel makes a good point about disproportionate attention being given to matters related to Israel in the article. And I don't have any flag on my page. Tvoz/talk 03:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Cat Stevens analogy is interesting but tenuous. I've cast my eye over what's a long article and mention of Hamas does not spring out at me. I don't doubt it's there. Forgive me for delineating the disparity in broad brush strokes: Cat Stevens' father was not a member of Hamas. Cat Stevens is not named after a Hamas 'martyr.' His family has never been referred to as a 'Hamas family'. Cat Stevens is not incoming chief-of-staff in the world's most powerful government, effectively committed to sustain a 'war on terror.'
I insist my position is one of neutral commitment to sustainable fact. There are clearly editors (reflecting, no doubt, the view of many others who have no interest whatever in editing WP) who feel it is quite wrong to refer to the Irgun as a terrorist organization. This is a fact. And one - seems to me in the circumstances - perfectly worthy of note. I would be grateful to hear any convincing case why the controversy over how Irgun is best characterized should not be mentioned in passing, i.e. both positions clearly identified with suitable citations. This would both satisfy each body of opinion, improve the information value of the article, and facilitate a solution consistent with WP's core values. Wingspeed (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The amount of space and effort being expended here on this topic is utterly ridiculous. Let me be clear: The people who are advocating a non-terrorist label for Irgun are doing so merely because they find the said label embarrassing. These apologists for Irgun will never be placated unless Irgun is portrayed as freedom fighters fighting against the nasty and evil Arab camel jockeys. Apparently the only reason for using the word militant is to prevent edit warring. Perhaps the article needs to be either protected or semi-protected.
--NBahn (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

← It's very simple, Wingspeed and Nbahn: this is not an article about the Irgun, or even an article about a former member of the Irgun. It is an article about an American political figure whose father was reportedly a member of the Irgun. This is simply not the place for the debate or mention of various ways that some people characterize the Irgun, or any such thing. The article on the Irgun is where that goes. Having even a short diversion to discuss the various ways people view the Irgun is giving the matter entirely too much weight in this biography, and goes against common sense. We're writing about Rahm Emanuel, not Israeli history. I don't agree to characterize the Irgun as terrorist in this article, any more than I agreed to characterize Hamas as terrorist in Cat Stevens. (It is in the section "Denial of entry to the United States" - he has been accused of financially supporting Hamas. He's not powerful in the way that Emanuel will be, indeed, but he is high-profile and his affiliations have been a matter of much coverage and debate. But including variations in views about the nature of Hamas was not deemed productive to that article. It is an analogous situation.) I do indeed have an opinion on whether Irgun and/or Hamas should be seen by the world as terrorist or freedom-fighting, but clearly that opinion is not influencing my editing as I don't want either one to be so designated in these peripheral articles. So please don't make assumptions about editors' motivation in not wanting the characterization here, or there - it is insulting. This article should not be hijacked by that debate which is bound to be rancorous as well as endless- it is just not relevant here and is easily avoided, if you are willing to be reasonable. Tvoz/talk 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, on Cat Stevens and Hamas, everyone knows who Hamas is. Most people haven't heard of Irgun or know what it is and it is our responsibility to at least use a phrase like "paramilitary group that attacked Arabs and the British." [strike soapbox comments] Carol Moore 21:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
That is what the wikilink is for, Carol. People can go to Irgun and read all about it. This is not the place. Tvoz/talk 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • A) this is an educational site; short descriptions of what kind of person or group or incident we are talking about is educational. Leaving people confused on whether it's a militant chanting group or a militant blowing things up group not very educational.
  • B) It is obvious that drive by editors are going to keep adding info on Irgun being a "terrorist" group which is why I added refs to the last person who did it. Adding something a step down from terrorist like paramilitary group might defuse that - and be more educational.
  • C) If Obama had appointed someone who was the son of some Iraqi Arab who blew up British buildings in Iraq during their resistance to kick out the Brits, I'm sure that "militant" would not be a sufficient description for most editors. Carol Moore 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
I am still waiting . . . to hear any convincing case why this controversy should not be mentioned at the appropriate point in the article (in passing), i.e. both positions clearly identified with suitable citations. This would both satisfy each body of opinion, improve the information value of the article, and facilitate a solution consistent with WP's core values. Wingspeed (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

<----Indent I just remembered, ala Cat Stevens, that comparisions with other articles is a NO NO on wikipedia but can't remember where I saw that - one of the policies or a subpage. So let's not get into such comparisons. As for it's relevance, how many articles world wide do we have to list which mention what Irgun was, ie paramilitary or terrorist group that conducted terrorist attacks, for you to consider it relevant? 50 - 100 - 500?? [strike soapbox comments] Carol Moore 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Perhaps you're thinking of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - but that was not my point: I am merely making an analogy and bringing my experience with that other instance into this discussion, because it is instructive. You seem to have a strong POV on this, Carol, and I don't think you're looking at the objective argument that this is not an article about the Irgun. That article is the place for an explanation of how sources view the Irgun, not here. Please speak to the point rather than about how terrible Irgun was. Again, there were voices at Cat Stevens who felt equally strongly as you do that Hamas is a terrorist organization and had to be described as such, and the reason they were talked down is the same reason I'm using here - it is not relevant to this bio, and in fact even less so here. And again this is a biography of a living person, and will follow the policies set down in WP:BLP as well as WP:UNDUE - this article is not a soapbox for anti- or pro- Israeli ranting, and it is supposed to be about this individual's whole life, not his latest job. You might find more traction for including the world's alleged reaction to this appointment at Talk: Presidential transition of Barack Obama. Tvoz/talk 23:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempt At Consensus

Make no mistake about it: Irgun was a terrorist organization, and if it must be described at all, then it should be described as a terrorist organization. Therefore, I suggest that we cut out the description of Irgun altogether like so:
Emanuel's father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician who was born in Jerusalem and was a member of the Irgun., a militant Zionist group which operated from 1931 to 1948 during the British Mandate of Palestine.
There -- what does everyone think of that?
--NBahn (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I for one like it; it satisfies my only concern in regards to this subject and this article--the excessive amount of article real estate devoted to the subject of Emanuel's Zionist roots and opinions. Somehow, though, I doubt this will suffice for others... --Hiddekel (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
You Hiddekel hit the nail on the head. As I pretty much said a few posts up at 23:39, 11 November 2008, it is becoming clear that any further description of Irgun -- Beyond the current "a militant Zionist group which operated from 1931 to 1948 during the British Mandate of Palestine." which I strongly support, including as a terrorist group, belongs in reaction to Emanuel's appointment. I'm making the list and have a google alert going. [strike soapbox comments]
As for why the big emphasis on Israel, that is merely a reflection of his family lore, life and interests, isn't it? Carol Moore 21:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc'
Carol, you're leaking personal bias and personal opinion. Keep on like this and your only accomplishment here will be to convince a lot of observers that your primary purpose in editing this article is to push the view that Rahm Emanuel is somehow a terrorist sympathizer. Per the notices you see very time you visit this page, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article, not to express ones personal views on the subject. A discussion about the level of detail to include about Irgun is fine; venturing into predictions about how he might conduct himself in the future is not. Warren -talk- 22:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
That edit is fine with me, Nbahn - thank you. And Hiddekel, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. None of it belongs here. Tvoz/talk 21:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
First, sorry if leak POV, but with all the constant deletions of information one can get frustrated. I'll go through and strike comments. It is absurd to merely write: "Emanuel's father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician who was born in Jerusalem and was a member of the Irgun," and leave out "a militant Zionist group which operated from 1931 to 1948 during the British Mandate of Palestine." The Irgun could be a ballet group or a vegetarian society. It is unencyclopedic to not have enough of a description to give context. In fact, that sentence belongs before info on Rahamim of the Lehi group and Emanuel Auerbach since many readers, esp young ones will have absolutely no idea of the context. They could think you are talking about 2002! That is the rediculously POV problem we are dealing with here. Do we need a new subject section "Don't we need SOME description of what the Irgun is for encyclopedic purposes?" Carol Moore 23:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
Carolemooredc--
I understand where you're coming from, but these Irgun apologists are insisting on removing the label terrorist from the group. It sticks in my craw that they would get away with describing these proto-Israeli terrorists this way, but they have and so if I have to choose between a non-terrorist label and no label at all, then I choose not to have a label over having a misleading label. People are just going to have to follow the link; there's nothing more substantive that can be done about it. Do you want to move the sentence to some other place in the article?
--NBahn (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think miltant (which can include violent acts) and obviously Zionist are misleading, just incomplete. However, for now I'm willing to put "terrorist" where it's more relevant under controversies, just focusing on something else today so not putting together. Like I said no description of all is meaningless. Carol Moore 01:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
"Militant group" is not incomplete. "Militant" is understood to mean deadly weapons and murder. Sorry if I am insulting you Carol, but nobody considers you "militant" because you stand at public squares with big signs while yelling into a bullhorn. "Group" is understood to mean - outside of governmental organization, the more so when it states further that they were in operation during the British mandate era. Thus, people get a very good idea of what was going on. If they want further detailed information, to find out the exact circumstances of most of their violent, they can click on this and they will be sufficentlly educated and they will be able to come to their own conclusion regarding the exact title they wish to attach to this militant group. Besides, better incomplete than a tangential POV. While the former is not a violation of Wikipedia policy, the latter is.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
In the UK the word militant most certainly does not inevitably entail "deadly weapons and murder" - so to British readers the term is utterly inadequate. ('Militant' was the name of an entrist group active in the British Labour Party in the 70s & early 80s.) If in the US it "is understood to mean deadly weapons and murder," then why not say so? I suggest the reason is quite simple: this constitutes nothing less than a blatant attempt to sanitize the public image of a politician known, it seems, among his colleagues as 'Rahmbo'. And to rewrite history.
That this attempt has so far succeeded (sources ranging from The New York Times, the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry & even the World Zionist Congress have been repeatedly excised) is utterly outrageous. How can this be neutrality?
The fact of the matter is that the incoming US President has appointed as chief-of-staff a man whose family history is so steeped in terrorism that they are reported to have changed the family surname to honour a relative who died "killing Arabs." And his apologist editors - one of whom appears to be a professional publicist - insist the family's past involvement in terrorism is "irrelevant". This in a world where global "terrorism" continues to be the issue around which thousands of people continue to die.
Such a pitiful state of denial serves ill the interests of both the US and of Wikipedia. Perpetuate such fictions and you merely encourage the country's enemies in the Middle East and elsewhere to pounce on them, amplify them, and thus find a more receptive audience for fictions of their own. Persist in such stupidity, and I fear you will pay a yet more deadly price. Editors who seek to cover up for governments and politicians, rather than serving the informational interests of ordinary people, their readers, are a disgrace to the cause of editorial neutrality. Mr Emanuel's propagandists have the gall to insist that they are more neutral than the New York Times!
Heaven help the United States. I fear the success thus far of folly, albeit in the limited confines of this rather important article, bespeaks a wider more momentous malaise. Fly in the face of history, and history will blow back and hit you again in the neck. That is what is at issue here. I urge you to see sense, and remove your tinted spectacles. Yes, I am angry. I insist it is possible to be both neutral and dutifully angry - in the face of such utter folly. Wingspeed (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes you are angry and with your little speech you proved my point. You are not interested in neutrality. Firstly, your stance is extreme. You seem to assume that he died killing Arabs, instead of defending against Arabs. You seem ready to accuse him of being a terrorist because his nickname is "Rambo". Secondly, and more importantly, even assuming your viewpoint is the correct one, since it plainly is not the most neutral viewpoint is cannot come in. You are under a misconception of what Wikipedia is all about. Wikpedia is not the place for world-fixing and agenda pushing. We are simply recording, in the most neutral fashion, what the aggregate of reliable sources have published on a given subject. And yes, Wikipedia should be more neutral then The New York Times. The Times is a self-proclaimed liberal leaning newspaper.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Brewcrewer--
  1. The New York Times is NOT a liberal newspaper; it is instead a left-of-center one. If you want to read a liberal rag, then I suggest The Nation.
  2. As far as neutrality goes, would you object to Nazis being described as evil?
  3. Oh, and a minor correction: His nickname is "Rahmbo".
--NBahn (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly why instead of saying liberal newspaper I said liberal leaning newspaper. I'm not sure what you're saying with the Nazis. Are you really suggesting that calling the Irgun terrorists is as neutral and as accepted as calling the Nazis evil? Is there a legitimate and and accepted argument out there for considering the Nazis anything less than evil ? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Wingspeed, it's funny that you brought up the British usage of the term "militant"; the BBC has already struggled through this issue with their middle east reporting. Ultimately, they adopted a policy similar to Wikipedia's, and this policy seems to be rapidly becoming the journalistic standard, at least in western media, outside of a few holdouts such as Fox. They do NOT call members of an organization such as, say, Hamas, "terrorists" in the objective narrative of their articles; in fact, they do use the term "militant". See this article published just today for an example ("...Israeli troops killed four Palestinian militants from the Hamas movement..."). Obviously, "militant" means to the British and other english language readers just what you'd expect it to. All this is beside the point to me, since at this point I'm still in favour of Nbahn's proposal of removing ALL descriptives of Irgun from this article and letting people who give enough of a rat's behind about labels rather than actions go fight it out at the parent article. --Hiddekel (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus undone

So, Nbahn has suggested that we say Emanuel's father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician who was born in Jerusalem and was a member of the Irgun. I agree with Nbahn's suggestion, as does Hiddekel, and possibly Brewcrewer. Wingspeed objects and CarolMoore is not clear - she edited her reply so I'm not sure if she agrees to this or not. Is anyone else interested in weighing in here? Tvoz/talk 08:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried; I honestly thought they we had a consensus. Carolmooredc, are you really happy about Irgun being described as merely a militant group?
--NBahn (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
First, I some how misread three posts in a row and I didn't realize I seemed to be agreeing with removing "Militant Zionist" and thus changed my comment to make it clear I was not agreeing with that. I thought I was agreeing that using "terrorist" should only be done if there were more contemporaneous sources doing so and said a couple times that that should be done in response to appointment section since there are 4-8 WP:RS, so far, calling it just that. Just haven't done that yet.
So to repeat, that's why I don't have a problem with ONLY calling it "miltant Zionist" in that section. (And note militant often means strenuous or even obnoxious behavior short of shooting at people and blowing things up.) However, I would consider it white washing if a single sentence to that effect with 3 -4 of most reliable sources was deleted. Carol Moore 19:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Proposed Consensus

In first mention of Irgun merely describe as militant Zionist group. In any discussion of current controversy about Benjamin Emanuel and Irgun, terms from WP:RS, both from 1940s and current, will be used. (Per information I just took 1/2 hour to put together. Though didn't bother using 1940s info.) Carol Moore 22:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Is this an article about Benjamin Emanuel? Tvoz/talk 06:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a desperation on the part of some POV warriors to get the terrorist issue into the article. Its disingenuous to move it to another part of the article with the claim that the consensus for its non-inclusion was only in regard to the Early life section. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I agree with Carolmooredc's proposal, provided that, since no "controversy" regarding Benjamin Emanuel's membership within Irgun currently exists in the consciousness of the general public or the mainstream media, no such subsequent discussion of said membership is written into this particular article. Please, as Tvoz points out, remember that this is a biographical article about Rahm Emanuel. If you want to start one about Ben Emanuel, utilizing your collected research, you are semi-free to do so, though I suspect you'd wind up in a debate with people trying to get such an article deleted for non-notability. Could someone please remind me of what's wrong with just letting people click on the Irgun wikilink already in the article and get all the info they could possibly want about the organization that way? --Hiddekel (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

<--Indent
Frankly I'm rather insulted that, although I repeatedly have brought up the idea of putting the terrorist connection in the Appointment's section (just check above) people have totally ignored me until I did it. If you don't respond to a proposal, one has to assume one concurs with it!
Given the worldwide news stories of his father’s insult against Arab’s and Rahm’s apology, the terrorism issue just given even more exposure. Need I list them?
How can one say no WP:RS have found notable for various political reasons his father's past membership in a group widely considered terrorist. There are lots of news stories, not to mention blog and opinion pieces in places like the New York Times, Washington Times, Foreign Policy Magazine, etc! More surely will be forthcoming. It's incredibly POV to try to suppress one sentence with WP:RS sourcing reflecting this fact.

Carol Moore 17:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Please provide one reliable source that discusses his father's - alleged and considered by some POV's to be - terrorist activities in the context of his son's appointment. Until atleast one reliable source is provided its inclusion violates WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, among others. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The allegation is membership in a terrorist group. The only specific activity WP:RS mentioned is passing secret codes for Menachen Begin by NY Times Bumiller above.
    • Matthew Kalman, Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is no pal of ours, Israel's foes say, New York Daily News, November 6, 2008 mentions membership in a terrorist group in the context of his son's appointment.
      • ...mentioning offhandedly a snide comment (who called Rahm a terrorist as well) by anonymous poster on some blog. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Mideast press awaits Obama's axis of upheaval, Agence France-Presse, November 6, 2008 mentions membership in a terrorist group in the context of his son's appointment.
    • Obama chooses 'Rahmbo' as chief of staff The Independent story mentions membership in a terrorist group in the context of his son's appointment.
      • You might want to find a source that does not have a history of anti-Israel reporting. With all of the coverage that his appointment has received in the international press only one anti-Israel publication made mention of this issue. That in of itself is proof that this is not an issue that is worthy of mention in his Wikipedia article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
        • How's Ha'aretz for you? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1034855.html Or is Ha'Aretz also anti-semitic? :) TPaineTX (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I have spilled a lot of ink on this talk page but have not mentioned the word "anti-semetic" once. As for the Haaretz link, I'm not sure if you are trying to back up my argument or you did not read the conversation before commenting. The Haaretz article does not mention the word "terrorist". As a matter of fact, this self-proclaimed liberal newspaper uses the same term that is in this article - "militant Zionist". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
                      • That wording is right out of the wikipedia article  . Here is the text: "Emanuel, a former Bill Clinton adviser, is the son of a Jerusalem-born pediatrician who was a member of the Irgun (Etzel or IZL), a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948." The article is dated Nove 6. Compare with the last version on November 5. It would likely be circular to allow that Haaretz piece as a source! -- Avi (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

<----back-dent I have about eight new google alerts on Benjamin to look at. I'm happy to have one sentence with refs, but if you insist on a paragraph explicating why it matters to his appointment as President's Chief of Staff that his father was a member of a terrorist group, then that's what we'll have to do. One paragraph at your service coming up within 36 hours. Couple initial points on nitpicking above:

    • I believe Kalman quoted the fact that one of several negative reactions was his father was a "terrorist," so relevant. But will check article, and not use it if have stronger WP:RS.
    • I got confused with another Agence France article Obama's choice for chief of staff puts 'Israel's man in White House'
    • The Independent is a WP:RS. And the sentence in The Independent doesn't even bother link to the actual article or correctly reflect its contents, so I'll fix that problem. Thanks for bringing to my attention.
    • Is the Belfast Telegraph related, per new article: Rahm Emanuel's father: An Israeli terrorist? which contains facts from a number of sources, some mentioned here, some not.
    • The Arab and Muslim media are part of the world media and I can start to list them as refs, too, if you like. And do a WP:RS/noticeboard on each and everyone of them if necessary. I'm sure some will pass muster. This is an evolving controversy and lots more will be said, I'm sure, so insisting on your POV against a growing number of WP:RS will not succeed. Carol Moore 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
Since no one removed contested material for several hours after the protection was lifted, I figured I'd clean it up on the page, rather than presenting a draft here as I originally intended. Again, numerous editors support this info being in there, especially description of Irgun as terrorist, even if most of them don't bother to read or comment in talk.
  • Since the first complaint was that it wasn't clear why it mattered if Irgun was terrorist (or father smeared Arabs?) I have summarized why a number of authors in WP:RS publications think the first and/or both do and added more refs. (Although it seems I'm damned if don't have enough refs to prove a point; and then damned for putting in too many to prove the point.)
  • WP:UNDUE? With all these sources mentioning his father was in a terrorist group and that effects how people view his being COS? With terrorism being such a big issue in govt now a days? This certainly warrants just two or maybe three sentences with refs, but these keep getting removed. [strike soapbox comments]
  • WP:POV: you all demanded it be proved it was notable enough to NOT be POV and I think I did that with a lot of words and refs; finessing to make it better might be needed; total deletion would be POV and it's almost time to start getting into WP:dispute resolution.
  • WP:Original Research/Synthesis: Do you want me to quote more exactly of what those sources say instead of summarizing what they say and including refs?
  • Benjamin Emanuel article: The long standing article has been deleted twice since his son was name COS; which is generating charges of wikipedia bias on a number of blogs and may eventually hit the mainstream.
Carol Moore 06:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
Feel free to respond below to my (slightly revised) comments above on WPs:Undue, POV, OR/Synth to show you really do have wiki policy reasons to delete a couple sentences with lots of WP:RS. Otherwise it's time to start the WP:Dispute resolution process, point by point. Carol Moore 17:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

On Characterizing Resistance Movements

Should the Irgun be described here as a terrorist organization? Or should it link to the whole Irgun article, which can take up the question in detail? I submit that, if we insist on characterizing Irgun _in every instance_ as a terrorist organization will lead people to attribute the label terrorist to (among others) the French Resistance (1942-45), the Abolitionist cause in Kansas, Lawrence in Arabia, the partisan actions of the American Revolution, and Garibaldi's March on Rome. The border between terrorism and anything else that an irregular armed force does is vexed; in the eyes of George III, the embattled farmers who fired the shots heard round the world were undoubtedly terrorists (when shelling Boston) or illegal combatants (on the 18th of April). If Rahm's father was *convicted* of a crime by a properly constituted court, that might perhaps belong here; membership in an organization whose opponents (and perhaps, supporters) termed it "terrorist" is probably not worth mentioning -- or worth this controversy. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what WP:RS sources say, not on broader and/or WP:OR philosophical arguments editors might have. If membership in a terrorist organization is not worth mentioning, then we could go and clean up a whole bunch of Hamas and Al Queda members' articles, couldn't we?? No matter how many WP:RS. Should we make that a project? Carol Moore 16:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
It seems sufficient to me to provide a link to Irgun, where the question can be explored in detail. It is clear, almost by definition, that Al Queda is what wikipedia readers would recognize as a terrorist organization. It is less clear that we want to call George Washington a terrorist on every page where he is mentioned. The terrorism reference is pertinent here only of Rahm's father was convicted of a crime committed in connection with a terrorist act. Are we going to add "terrorist" references to every Irishman whose father supported the IRA? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you even realize that there is an issue between mentioning it was a terrorist group when first mentioned as opposed to mentioning it as part of the reaction to Rahm's appointment that was carried by a number of WP:RS sources? Can we even talk until you have made that differentiation? Also, you don't propose a consensus by making a change to the page; you do so in talk. You have deleted info that has survived a long time consensus, so you are going rogue. I'll let someone else revert it. Carol Moore 23:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
No he hasn't. His reverted version is actually the longest surviving version, the version in between POV warrior edits which are reverted by a number of different editors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Please, assume good faith; in this case, doing so has the advantage of Wikipedia custom and the further advantage of being true. I'm not going rogue; I'm taking time from my busy schedule to try to lend a calming voice to this contentious question, prompted by a request for help by User:Carolmooredc on WP:BLP. I would also observe that, in a subject like this one, reliable sources can and do contradict each other, and not everything a reliable source says belongs in every encyclopedia article. People have been disagreeing about the proper description of the Irgun for generations; rather than try in vain to settle it here, we can link to Irgun and let the unfortunate encyclopedists there deal with the matter, MarkBernstein (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Mark: Your statement is a bit unclear. It seems like you are responding to Carol Moore comments yet you state "prompted by a request for help by User:Carolmooredc" as if you were responding to someone else. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

←Seems clear enough to me - Mark is responding to a request for comment (whether an official RfC or not, I don't know) and his evaluation is that we should use the wikilink to Irgun without characterizing it here, and let the dedicated Irgun article discuss the various subtleties about that organization. I agree with that completely. Tvoz/talk 04:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Repeatedly deleted specifics on Rahm Emanuel and terrorism

Latest comment: 15 years ago24 comments13 people in discussion

{{RFCbio }}

There is a dispute among a number of editors about keeping out of the (Obama new Chief of Staff) Rahm Emanuel article the following brief and abundantly WP:RS referenced notable and explanative information (in bold; refs in italics). The information is embarrassing to Emanuel, but that is not an excuse to delete it per Wiki Policy on Well Known Public Figures. Doing so creates an article that is confusing to people unfamiliar with Israeli history and suspiciously sanitized to those who have seen the many various mainstream and blog references to these facts, which doubtless will continue relating to Israel-Palestine and terrorism issues during the time Emanuel holds his Chief of Staff position.

  • Rahm Emanuel “is the namesake of Rahamim, a combatant for the armed underground Lehi group who was killed.” REF:Haaretz Above (Note: “armed underground" comes from referenced info in Lehi (group) article and ref also could be included.)
  • In reference to Rahm Emanuel’s appointment - including in light of a bigoted recent comment of Benjamin Emanuel for which Rahm apologized which is mentioned in the article - it is proposed text similar to the following be entered:
In reference to Emanuel's policy views as chief of staff, a number of sources noted that the Irgun, for which Rahm's father Benjamin had passed "secret codes" before the creation of Israel, REF:Elizabeth Bumiller, The Brothers Emanuel, New York Times, June 15, 1997. has been described as a terrorist group which carried out deadly attacks against Arabs and the British, REF: Trevor Royle, Diplomatic Editor, Bipartisanship balancing act is just one pre-Oval Office issue for Obama, Sunday Herald, November 16, 2008. REF:Leonard Doyle, Obama chooses 'Rahmbo' as chief of staff,” The Independent, November 7, 2008. including the bombing of the King David Hotel which killed 92 people. REF: [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=97465 Obama's choice for chief of staff puts "Israel's Man" in White House, Agence France-Presse, November 7, 2008. REF: David Kenner, Rahm Emanuel and Israel, Foreign Policy, November 7, 2008. REF: Scott MacLeod, Obama Mideast Watch: Rahm Emanuel, Time Magazine Middle East Blog, November 9, 2008.
  • Please reply below and not within the text of this posting.

Carol Moore 01:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

  • As described many times above, the article is about Rahm, not his father nor the Irgun. The father's being in the Irgun belongs in the article. Any discussion about the Irgun, its activities in the King David Hotel bombing, its formation as a result of the 1929 Hebron massacre, or otherwise belongs in the article on the Irgun. Carol is correct that WP:NPOV does not allow for the removal of embarrassing information due to WP:BLP if properly sourced, but that is irrelevant, as the issue here is the WP:NPOV provision of undue weight, for which the provenance of the sources are immaterial. It is just as much a violation of WP:NPOV to use tangential and undue-weight information to smear someone, as it is to whitewash information from places it properly belongs. -- Avi (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with Avi as others and I have commented ad nauseum above. All tangential issues should be said in the most neutral and most agreeable manner. A full analysis of all issues are needed, both sides have to be represented, but not here. I don't understand why there's RFC going on. There is no shortage of editors that have already chimed in on this talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Carol says:
Doing so creates an article that is confusing to people unfamiliar with Israeli history and suspiciously sanitized to those who have seen the many various mainstream and blog references to these facts, which doubtless will continue relating to Israel-Palestine and terrorism issues during the time Emanuel holds his Chief of Staff position.
The problem with this statement is that the subject of this article is not about Israeli history, and it is not the purpose of this article to educate the reader on Israeli history. This is a biographical article about Rahm Emanuel. His appointment as White House Chief of Staff is notable, within that context. His father's terrorist associations are not, at least not to the extent that a sizeable proportion of the article should deal with the subject. That topic is handled, with all the weight it deserves, in the form of the current minor note that he was a member of the (wikilinked) Irgun.
Carol notes the fact that some news articles seem to think this is a relevant enough topic to discuss within the context of reporting on his appointment. That would be more relevant if we were discussing a Wikipedia article where that appointment is the primary topic (say, a current event article titled "2008 Appointment of Rahm Emanuel to White House Chief of Staff"). But this is not the case with this particular Wikipedia article, where the primary topic, again, is a biography of "Rahm Emanuel". That a couple of media articles on a specific news event have covered an aspect of Emanuel's background does not automatically denote notability in this article. Keep in mind also that most media outlets do not have the benefit of wikilinking so more info has to be presented on the main article page.
Finally, as to the controversy regarding Benjamin Emanuel's recent comments: I fail to see how this renders discussing the background and nature of Irgun in Rahm Emanuel's biographical article more relevant, as that background makes his comments neither more nor less heinous.
Bottom line to me: Emanuel's family's ties to Irgun are mentioned and Wikilinked in the article. Anyone who cares to know what it was about can do so with one click. More than this constitutes giving the topic undue weight and detracts from the quality of what is supposed to be a biographical article of Rahm Emanuel. --Hiddekel (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
If it is notable that some Jews were for it, many Arabs and Palestinians suspicious of it, and that his father smeared Arabs and Rahm apologized, one sentence mentioning that a number of WP:RS have questions/issues with the appointment of the son of a terrorist certainly is notable. Carol Moore 15:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Carol, firstly, I would hope you would take your energy and apply it to Rashid Khalidi who himself may be, as you call it, a "terrorist" because he HIMSELF was related to the PLO, not his father  . Secondly, while your opinion is well known, as there is significant disagreement with your position, please remember that it is eminently possible that the consensus may be against your understanding, especially as I believe that you are not applying WP:UNDUE correctly. Notable, perhaps; applicable in this article? No. The 1929 Hebron massacre is notable vis-a-vis the Irgun too, that doesn't belong here either, Carol. -- Avi (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Avi and Hiddekel. Wikipedia, unlike newspapers, has wikilinks, and needs not provide undue weight on background information. -- Nudve (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As discussed in detail my me and others elsewhere on this page, I reiterate my agreement with Avi, Hiddekel, Brewcrewer, Nudve - this is an article about Rahm Emanuel. Not Benjamin Emanuel, not the Irgun, not terrorism, not Israeli history. To include what has been suggested is undue weight, tangential, and guilt by association - none of which are acceptable for this, or any, biography. Wikilinks are here for a reason - the target article about the Irgun is where an analysis of its activities belong, not here. Tvoz/talk 04:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I repeat: I am appalled by the way a small group with what appears to be a narrow political agenda have been able, by manipulation of WP guidelines and browbeating others, to hijack this article with one apparent aim: censorship. It makes a nonsense of the notion of NPOV. The implications of what is happening here makes makes me fear for the future of Wikipedia - or, at least, its articles that have any bearing whatsoever upon the state of Israel. The scandal earlier this year, involving people of similar background, gives grounds, to put it mildly, for concern [1]. As is documented elsewhere (but never shall be here!) the group of which Emanuel's father was a member used to parade in the 30s in brown shirts and give each other fascist salutes. Their spirit lives on. I have more or less given up in disgust. Wingspeed (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The way I understand the controversy, every fact in an article has to pass three tests before it gets in the article:
  1. The fact has to be notable.
  2. The fact has to be relevant.
  3. The fact has to be well-documented.
I think there is no disagreement on criteria one and three. The problem is relevancy. WP says "Relevance is a term used to describe how pertinent, connected, or applicable something is to a given matter. A thing is relevant if it serves as a means to a given purpose." Our purpose is to create the best encyclopedia articles possible within the bounds of relevance.
That RE has a living father who may have an influence on RE's attitudes is definitrly relevant. Where and how RE's father got his attitudes and how he used them in the past is definitely relevant to RE's father. Whether they are relevant to RE is dependant on our evaluation that RE's fathers attitudes and how he has used them in the past will be influencial on RE's actions as president. IMHO further information on these issues are totally irrelevant to an article on RE. Phil Burnstein (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Very well pinpointed. The pivotal issue is relevance. Your penultimate sentence: "Whether they are relevant to RE is dependant on 'our' evaluation that RE's fathers attitudes and how he has used them in the past will be influencial on RE's actions as president." The freudian slip inherent in its final four words unintentionally identifies why the long-term political allegiances of the Emanuel family and the father's determinative influence - proudly outlined by all three brothers in a Charlie Rose Show interview in June - are highly relevant. That alone, and the fact that the issue generates, and will continue to generate, such heat undermine the confident assertion of your final sentence: "IMHO further information on these issues are totally irrelevant to an article on RE." Where recourse to law or brute force is not otherwise available, it has for some time been the stratagem of censors to suppress, if they can, with desperate cries of "irrelevant!" Wingspeed (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Just watching again the admirable Charlie Rose interview (see above), RE's key remark, I suggest, in relation to his father's influence: "Now you can understand why I bite my cuticles . . . " Wingspeed (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The assertion that anyone is trying to "censor" any information on this subject from Wikipedia is rather curious. What is being censored? The fact that Emanuel's father was in the Irgun? No, that fact is stated plainly near the beginning of the article. The fact that some sources consider Irgun to have been a terrorist group? No, that fact is plainly stated in the main Irgun article, along with the contrasting point of view that Irgun was not such or was justified in its actions, and the Irgun article itself is linked to from Emanuel's article. So, please, quit with the bad faith accusations (you have no idea what my political agenda is) and the appeals to emotion, and accept the fact that some of us honestly don't want to wreck a potential good article (isn't that what we're all supposed to be working towards?) with crap that simply doesn't belong here, in our opinions. And in my opinion, which I believe is backed up by the stylistic guidelines of Wikipedia, information on Irgun that cannot be stated in the definitive, narrative voice of the article simply doesn't belong anywhere but in the main Irgun article, where it can be analyzed in depth without cluttering up an article not devoted to that topic. ----Hiddekel (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This comment by Hiddekel, whom I do not know and have never edited with to my knowledge, is precisely correct and I endorse it. You do not know what my political viewpoints are, nor my views on Israel, nor my views on Irgun, nor my views on anything other than my views on the need to have neutral encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia. I'll hold up my edit history against anyone's here. I'm afraid that some participants in this discussion have been extremely partisan in their comments and their proposed edits, and they are very clearly pushing an agenda that is just not acceptable here. Tvoz/talk 18:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wingspeed, please tell me what is inaccurate about the following sentence: "I am appalled by the way a small group with what appears to be a narrow political agenda have been able, by manipulation of WP guidelines and browbeating others, to hijack this article with one apparent aim: propoganda"? Please let me remind you that wikipedia's behavioral policies are just as important and as its policies on content. Throwing around unfounded, and inaccurate, personal attacks is something that is not allowed here. If anything, you should understand that your statement can more accurately be made against yourself and thise sharing your opinion, as WP:UNDUE is clear, and the consensus is shaping up here to have your understanding in the significant minority. Yet, and perhaps because of this, you are choosing to make unfounded and inaccurate statements about editors, and not content. Please be more careful to ensure that you follow all wiki policies and guidelines in the future.

Furthermore, based on your strong beliefs, Wingspeed, and Carol too, I reckon, may I direct you to the article on Rashid Khalidi? There are a number of editors who are trying to suppress the reliably cited and verifieable information that he himself worked for the Palestinian Liberation Organization. They are not content not to remove any description of the PLO as a militant Palestinian (terrorist) organization, but they wish to suppress the fact that the connection existed at all. This is not in the article on Khalidi's father, this is not in the article on Khalidi's son, this is in the article on Rashid himself! Here is "censorship" that is truly worthy of your indignation and disbelief, and I look forward to your comments on the Khalidi article's talk page strongly condemning those who would deign to suppress notable and reliably cited information in the article about that very individual. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Replying only to Avraham/Avi directly above, given that editors theoretically might be trying to protect either Israel, Emanuel or Obama by deleting this highly negative information in a WP:UNDUE fashion, it's hardly wrong to wonder about such WP:Conflicts of Interest. [Strike question appropriate only on individual talk pages if done correctly per wp:coi.]
Loving Israel and/or one's fellow Jews or Jews as an oppressed part of humanity, etc., is of course no more an overly strong POV than loving poor oppressed Arabs/Palestinians or being annoyed at Israel's past actions, policies, influence on US govt. In either case it's wiki policies that count first and foremost.
However, there is fear and/or resentment of the fact that groups like the Jewish Internet Defense Force have what I call a "hate list" of wiki editors which doubtless scares NPOV editors from commenting in articles like this on issues like this, which provides those who have a pro-Israel POV an edge. Dealing with such systematic bias is a wikipedia challenge, isn't it?
The deletion of the Benjamin M. Emanuel article already has raised criticism of wikipedia in the blogger community, and today's blog often is tomorrows NY Times article. Only a matter of time before these negative high jinks cast doubt on all wikipedia's articles and its alleged NPOV.
Additionally, trying to deflect debate to other articles, whether or not editors have read or are currently working on them, violates some WP:Etiquette or WP:editing or other guideline which I can't find currently, so please stop doing it. Thanks. Carol Moore 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Carol, the same could be said that anyone trying to unfairly smear Emanuel must either be working for Hillary Clinton, the Republican Party, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the PLO, or any other group of people who may have a conflict of interest against a Democratic, Male, Jewish person of Israeli extraction having a position of authority in the US. Bringing in red herrings such as the JIDF serves no purpose other than to poison the well. Also, it is tantamount to accusing those who disagree with you as ipso facto being tainted, since there exist other people who you disagree with that were involved in the matters brought above.

Carol, shall I begin to wonder if you are an internet-CAIR operative or a secret member of the Muslim Public Affairs Council? I have no reason to believe you are, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander  .

Now, if you believe that someone trying to uphold WP:UNDUE in this article ipso facto has an "agenda", the same should be applied to you, quid pro quo, no? Even more interesting is the fact that you brought it up, not anyone else, and only after the distinct majority of opinions here are disagreeing with you.

I try to assume good faith as much as I can, but when unfounded, baseless, allegations, whose results are well poisoning and is an example of a classic association fallacy, I have to ask what prompted you to do this? Until this point, the discussion (in the main, with the exception of Wingspeed, who is the other editor who shares your view) was solely on article content and wikipedia guideline. Now we have the introduction of association fallacies, red herrings, well poisonings, an implicit appeal to post hoc ergo propter hoc, and, of course, a solely ad hominem argument. That is not the wikipedia process.

Furthermore, you are a self-proclaimed political activist; if anything, that presents a significant conflict of interest with articles on people whose politics with which you disagree. No? You may have the most conflicted interest of anyone here.

Also, it is interesting to note that you are primarily worried about Jews and Israelis, and not the most likely candidates to have a CoI, Democrats. Why is that? And why have you not mentioned anyone else, especially in that the converse is just as true for editors whose politics are against Democrats, Israel, Jews, or Men for that matter.

In a nutshell, I believe you have done both yourself, your position, and this article a disservice through the fallacious appeal to guilt by association brought above, and, sadly, have revealed an inherent bias to your edits and your reasons for being on wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong Carol, you are more than welcome and entitled to any political or other opinion that you may have. The concern here is allowing that opinion to influence wikipedia editing. Everyone on wikipedia has opinions, often strong ones. Successful wikipedia editors are those who can adhere to the policy and guidelines, including and especially the assumption of good faith notwithstanding personal political, religious, socio-economic, philosophical, or other opinion. -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
So suggest a less dramatic way to remind people in general that WP:COI means if you are getting paid by (or recently have or prospectively will) be paid by employers who have a strong interest in what you are doing, you must declare it in order to edit the article. Having a lot of planets in Leo, I tend to over dramatize my points :-) And I addressed other UNpaid POVs which tend to show themselves, especially if one looks at Contributions pages, no matter how "neutral" people may sound in this particular article. Carol Moore 20:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Coincidentally I just found this example of a WP:COI alert about a specific individual which seemed to be handled ok. [The_Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force Conflict of Interest post]. How to bring it up in a general way remains the question. Carol Moore 20:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Avi's points are right on, but I think he did not go far enough. The only person here with a COI problem is you. Your are the only person here with website linked to their userpage. What better way to to have people buy your books, buy your songs, etc., from your website then by going to the Wikipedia articles that concern the issues you care so deeply about and drawing some attention to yourself by making strong POV edits and flinging around some Protocols-of-Zion-esque accusations? How many more hits did your website get since you began editing this article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I actually do have one paid conflict of interest which I just reported here so don't be shy if you have one!! Second, please tell me the policy where you can't link to you personal web site which mostly contains one's writings, and I'll take it off. Third, you don't really think wikipedia personal links are great marketing tools, do you? LOL. I think I'd have to be selling a book about Rahm and/or Obama for anyone to think it was any kind of conflict and I'm not, just my book on Waco and Clarence Darrow's re-published Resist Not Evil, which I wrote intro to; and I think I've made $60 bucks off cafepress this year; button site not operating since I broke my arm in Feb. Just for heck of it I went to my statistics for web site and the top twenty pages for last few months were Waco massacre, leftist street fighting and nuclear war-related, topics not currently addressed in this article. Fourth, isn't it WP:Attack against an individual to use the Protocols as a modifier? As opposed to My expressing more general concern there may be some people employed by specific agencies or businesses?? Like I said, I'm very interested in hearing a more Wiki-correct way of bringing up the topic since it's been a topic of interest lately on a few disparate articles. Carol Moore 20:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The father's gossip does not belong in this article. As has been said, it is about Rahm not about his Daddy. Rahm is notable for his accomplishments and who he is, not his father. Not relevant. The history of Irgun in this context is POV-pushing. A wiki link is sufficient. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • My view - the first two points may be alright, as they briefly discuss biographical details. The third one, however, is nothing more than cheap propaganda, using guilt by (weak) association. You're trying to relate the point of Emanuel's own policy views, to the fact that years before he was even born, his father worked for a supposed terrorist organization. The logic is deeply flawed, and is nothing more than mudslinging. It is absolutely irrelevant to this article. okedem (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
My final comment hopefully: First, this article never made it to the RfC list so I'm taking off the RFC. Second, the fact that Arabs, Muslims and Americans are unhappy about the son of a member of a terrorist group (who even has joked about being a terrorist himself, though that will never make it here) is as relevant as lots of other things in the article. But I will let events play out and see if others take up the cause of getting that factoid in there. Carol Moore 16:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
So if other people's comments don't match your opinion, the RfC failed? That's an interesting success criteria. As I said, the mere biographical fact (what his father used to do for a while, long before Rahm's birth) is fine, but your suggestion tried to claim that because of his father's past association, his policy views would be so-and-so. That's false, and terribly unfair. This is not simply a "factoid", but belongs to propaganda pamphlets. okedem (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
It failed because despite 3 or 4 tries and a request for help on relevant talk page, it was never listed at Template:RFCbio_list and therefore never became an official RfC. Carol Moore 18:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You requested comments. You recieved comments. You don't like them, but here they are. I don't know about the page you mentioned, but it was listed in the Palestine collabaration page (which is where I saw it).
Frankly, I don't understand what you want. The article contains the info about Rahm's father. Your third point, trying to claim his policy views are affected by his father's past is obviously unencyclopedic. It is nothing more than guilt by proxy-association, and surely you must see that too. I don't see any rationale for keeping that claim. All the actual information is already in the article. okedem (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that the first two bolded discussion points should be included in the article. They are encyclopedic content in brief format. The third point would need to be reframed and is not in the format above encyclopedicly relevant to this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Avi, Hiddekel, Brewcrewer, Nudve and Tvoz - - this is an article about Rahm Emanuel. Not Benjamin Emanuel, not the Irgun, not terrorism, not Israeli history. To include what has been suggested is undue weight, tangential, and guilt by association - none of which are acceptable for this, or any, biography. Wikilinks are here for a reason - the target article about the Irgun is where an analysis of its activities belong, not here.Historicist (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
By the way I just noticed someone reverted "militant zionist" claiming it was against consensus. I don't think any of the dozen or more people who have supported that change, either here or just through making it, have changed their minds. They either were ignored and/or just gave up to against those who kept reverting it back. Same to somewhat lesser degree with mentioning that the fact Rahm Emanuel's father was in a terrorist group is controversial in the Arab world - and among many who know about it who aren't Arab. Remember, silencing a bunch of people is not the same as getting their consent. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking sides on any of the specifics involved in this debate; however, as seen in the link below on this talk page, when searching for Emanuel's father, you get a redirect to Emanuel's page. Therefore, a sentence or two addition about the father (as done in many other Wikipedia articles) would not hurt and would help someone looking for information on Emanuel's father. If he is notable on his own and there's no place to talk about him in this article, perhaps we should all chime in on the deletion review and make sure he has his own article that doesn't redirect to this one.--Gloriamarie (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ballet

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Politics is not my thing, but I was interested to see that he was trained in ballet: See this article. Perhaps someone can amplify the early part of the article and talk about who he trained with and if he did any dancing professionally. -- kosboot (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody cares. There's no way to somehow tie it to terrorism. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
<laughing> Tvoz/talk 04:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Assume good faith. In addition to being incorrect, your flippant comment is unnecessarily provoking and discouraging of consensus building. 68.73.80.211 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I actually did care. It's hard to find information on it though. Fermat1999 (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
He danced in high school. He was offered a scholarship to Joffrey, but went to Sarah Lawrence instead. That's about it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
If you can find footnotable documentation for that information, it would be a nice addition to the article. But if he gave up ballet by college, that means that the photograph in the Daily News is from when he was in high school? He looks older than a high school student. -- kosboot (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I was off a bit. He did dance for a year at Sarah Lawrence. This New Yorker article has some good stuff. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Matzav.com

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The site bills itself as "Matzav.com - The Premier Online Torah News Center and Marketplace." While that might be great for me personally to post my simchos, it is not a reliable source, unfortunately. -- Avi (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the following links from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which generally agree on reliably of reprints of Reliable Source articles even if at somewhat questionable pages. And I don't think Matzav.com is so questionable they would deliberately edit things into or out of a Fox News article, do you?? #1, #2, #3, #4 But I can always bring it to WP:RS/Noticeboard and see who jumps up to go against that broad consensus. Carol Moore 20:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
If these are reprints of Fox articles, can't we get the originals, or at least using the wayback machine? That would be better, i think, but I'll look into it a bit later. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This mirror of the same article does not have said information. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
and this one....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Wayback machine tends to show only main pages. I did copy the original article to my Wiki/Rahm file way back when which is why I am certain of it. People often delete stuff from articles they reprint, but that doesn't mean that those good folks over at Matzav.Com phonied it up. Shall we go to WP:RS/Noticeboard?? Carol Moore 22:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
A mirror cannot be used when it contradicts another mirror, especially for something as contentions as this. It is possible that the different mirrors got different FOX versions. The most logical explanation for this is that FOX pulled that line when they realized it isn't true (or they were contacted by one of the Elders of the Protocol of Zion). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Haaretz headline called him an Israeli, but James Zogby says he's not - so I guess it must be true he's not :-) I might still have the hard copy article in my pile, but the question is, did Wash Times issue a retraction? Did his serving in Gulf War mean Israel automatically gave him citizenship, whether he asked for it or not, which I've heard they are known to do. Obviously, Emanuel should clarify this - at least to the FBI. But obviously the rumors will persist if he doesn't deny it. Carol Moore 23:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that FOX pulled it, because it cannot be found at all on the FOX site, but it is in Google's cache still. 'twould be nice if we had some closure, though. -- Avi (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Former CIA guy Philip Giraldi, AIPAC's Man in the Obama Camp claims: "Though born in Chicago, he was an Israeli citizen through his father until he, according to his own account, renounced his dual citizenship when he turned 18." So what has to be tracked down is where "his own account" is if P.G. is correct. Carol Moore 14:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can we be a little conservative with the categories? He's not a member of the Obama cabinet - Obama has no cabinet, but even if he did then Emanuel (as chief of staff) would not be a member. He's not a White House chief of staff, either, until he actually has the job - so why does he have the category? I haven't checked, but is Obama in the category for presidents of the United States? Also, as to religion - I think we know he's Jewish, but it seems like we have no way of knowing how observant. Since we don't know for sure, and since it is not exactly a crucial determination, we should leave out categories of observance. Avruch T 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Newest" source says that he sends his children to the same Conservative day school that he attended. I think that is sufficient to demonstrate that he is Conservative and certainly not Orthodox. -- Avi (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that interpretation could be made, but I don't see it as definitive - we shouldn't put him in a category because we infer that he belongs. If it isn't obvious, and clearly referenced, that he belongs in one or the other then we should leave him out of "religiosity" categories altogether, no? Neatly resolves the question of which to use in favor of not taking a position either way, since there is no clear source. Avruch T 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that the only subset of Judaism with its own wikicategory is Orthodox Judaism, for some reason. -- Avi (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Childrens names

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why not list the names of his children. I see it on many other public figures pages? Qrv9412 (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Still unsourced paragraphs

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

First three paragraphs of "Career as political staffer" still is unsourced though that info probably is mentioned repeatedly in existing references. Third reminder, unsourced material can be removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material that might be flat out wrong and could be used to impugn Wikipedia's accuracy or worse will be deleted in next couple days. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Carol, if, as you say, that information is probably mentioned in existing sources, why don't you source it yourself  ? -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Done, BTW. -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
A) Yeah! B) Don't get me started on why I didn't do it... C) One more needed: He has aligned himself with the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, the Democratic Leadership Council.[citation needed] CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

References to Emanuel in Blagojevich/Harris affidavit

Latest comment: 15 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

PDF of affidavit may be found here: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2008/pr1209_01a.pdf

Acknowledge that if the following is to be posted on the main article, citations for the sections of the affidavit should be added to the quotes and references.

On December 9, 2008 a 76-page affidavit by F.B.I. special agent Daniel W. Cain was unsealed pursuant to the arrest of sitting Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevic. The affidavit uses the appellation "[President-elect Advisor]" to denote Rahm Emanuel. The affidavit contains recorded conversations between Blagojevich and others. In Section 112 of the affidavit, Blagojevich is recorded on November 12, 2008 saying that he wants to call Rahm Emanuel to tell him that "this has nothing to do with anything else we're working on but the Governor wants to put together a 501(c)(4)" and "can you guys help him...raise 10, 15 million." Blagojevich continues to tell his co-Defendant, John Harris, that he wants Emanuel "to get the word today," and that when "he asks me for the Fifth CD thing I want it to be in his head." [The affidavit explains term "Fifth CD" here referring to Rahm Emanuel's vacated Fifth Congressional District.] The affidavit then states that prior intercepted phone conversations indicate that Blagojevich and others were determining whether he (Blagojevich) had the power to appoint an interim replacement for Rahm Emanuel's Fifth CD seat until a special election for the seat can be held (i.e., Blagojevich had aspirations to use the appointment of this interim replacement as a separate bargaining chip or to enhance his bargaining power with respect to negotiations with Emanuel regarding the President-elect's vacated Senate seat. Three bargaining scenarios are detailed in the affidavit: (1) political appointment for Blagojevich; (2) a so-called three-way deal in which Blagojevich would be given a paid position within the largely SEIU (Service Employees International Union) -controlled "Change To Win" organization; in return, it is proposed that the Obama administration once in office would bestow favors upon the SEIU; (3) a 501(c)(4) -- i.e., non-profit so-called "issue advocacy" organization -- would be created for Blagojevich and funded by wealthy contributors to the Obama/Biden '08 campaign. In various conversations detailed in the affidavit, paid positions for Blagojevich's wife are also proposed. Later on November 13, 2008, Blagojevich is recorded by the F.B.I. speaking with an individual identified in the affidavit as "Advisor A". Also on November 13, 2008, Blagojevich talked with Advisor A. During this conversation, Blagojevich states that he, "wants the idea of the 501(c)(4) in [Emanuel]'s head, but not in connection with the Senate appointment or the congressional seat". Advisor A then asks Blagojevich whether the conversation about the 501(c)(4) with Rahm Emanuel is connected with anything else. Blagojevich replies, "It's unsaid. It's unsaid." Later on November 13, 2008, Blagojevich spoke with Advisor A again. During this second conversation, Blagojevich asks Advisor A to call Individual A and have Individual A pitch the idea of the 501(c)(4) to Rahm Emanuel. Advisor A then says to Blagojevich, "while it's not said, this is a play to put in play other things?" to which Blagojevich responds, "correct." Advisor A then asks Blagojevich if this is "because we think there's still some life in [the President-elect's formerly perceived first choice to fill his vacated Senate seat, Valerie Jarrett, because she's the only female adviser to President-elect Obama whom he mentioned as a possibility for the seat], potentially?" To this Blagojevich replies, "not so much her, but possibly her. But others." (The following day -- November 14, 2008 -- President-elect Obama announced his selection of Jarrett as White House Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison; Jarrett will manage the White House Office of Public Liaison and work with state and local governments.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

At first I was thinking that the best way to handle this would be to sum this up in a few sentences....however, that might be challenging in terms of avoiding original research and/or synthesis. Better would be to find a neutral news organization that reported on the mention of Emanuel in the affidavit and use that as a source. Thoughts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs)
CNN and MSNBC and WP:RS and bloggers galore speculating on the role Emanuel might have played so at this point wikipedia is just looking totally out of it for not at least having a sentence from best WP:RS on whatever is most relevant and best sourced. And if it turns out he blew the Whistle on R.B. (or worse), then it's gonna have to go in the article. (Editorial comment struck. ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the news or gossip or blog site. Maybe include this in a few weeks or months or years if anything develops. --Tom 18:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia most certainly does document current events, hence the existence of the portal and the template. Reliably sourced information on this subject should therefore be included in this article, using the aforementioned template at the beginning of the appropriate section. The only issue beyond normal WP:BLP concerns should be avoiding innundating the article with information on this subject, thereby giving it undue weight. --Hiddekel (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
True, Wikipedia does cover current events, but it needs to be careful about speculation and fully sourcing material to reliable sources before proceeding, thats all. We don't need to scope the news or report it imediately, thats all. --Tom 21:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear from the evolution of Blagojevich's line of thought (as per the recorded conversations in the affidavit; i.e., that he essentially goes from thinking he'll squeeze either an ambassadorship or the Secretary of HHS position out of Obama to ultimately calling B.O. a "motherf**ker") that Rahm Emanuel DID NOT ENTERTAIN overtures from Blagojevich's "emissary(ies)". Therefore, what makes this matter of note -- apart from being an unfolding current event -- is the light it casts on Emanuel's character insofar as he (apparently?) informed neither Obama nor law enforcement that Blagojevich was attempting to induce him into a pay-to-play scheme concerning not only Obama's vacated seat, but his own 5th CD seat. As such, enough content needs to appear on WP so as to give the situation context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This posted after 10PM last night by the Tribune's Washington Bureau: "One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps. Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor's administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win. Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be "acceptable" to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats. Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And this from today's (12/13) TimesOnline.uk: "Any recordings of the newly appointed White House Chief of Staff speaking to Mr Blagojevich about Mr Obama’s former Senate seat would prove an acute embarrassment to the incoming Obama Administration, even if no illegal deals were discussed, and could even force Mr Emanuel’s resignation...Mr Emanuel skipped Mr Obama’s press conference, which he typically attends. Cornered by a Chicago Sun-Times reporter at a concert at his children’s school, he refused to comment. “I’m not going to say a word to you,” Mr Emanuel said. “I’m going to do this with my children. Don’t do that. I’m a father. I have two kids. I’m not going to do it.” He was asked: “Can’t you do both?” Mr Emanuel replied: “I’m not as capable as you. I’m going to be a father. I’m allowed to be a father.” Mr Emanuel told an ABC News cameraman, whom he invited into his house to use the toilet yesterday, that he was receiving “regular death threats” because his home address had been put on TV."—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I personally assume he didn't do anything too evil and won't get in trouble, but the reticence by some to allow any ref'd info makes me wonder. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm under strict orders from the elders not to allow anything connected to Blagojevich enter into the article even though nothing troublesome has come up. They are still in the process of making sure that he his name comes up clean. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
First, that sounds like wp:attack to me - not just against me, but others who might object to information coming out. Why don't you just strike or remove the comment? And don't assume you know what a cryptic comment means, though obviously it's better not to leave cryptic comments. Actually, I meant in terms of all the Chicago-based editors Wikiscanner ([[2]]) caught a year ago and how many it might catch when it's new version is unveiled soon. But I was tired and didn't feel like going into that much detail or looking up actual URL. (And I'm still seeking guidance on how existence of wikiscanner can and should be mentioned in articles since that's not a clear policy at this point.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest news: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5337807.ece A short summary in the article would be appropriate as it is notable that Emanuel is being pressured to resign over this, even if it's only to allow mention that charges are unlikely. Wayne (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Dunno. That article claims there is pressure, but only quotes Grover Norquist as providing any pressure -- and Norquist is about the last person Obama would pay attention to for anything. "News Flash: Grover Norquist Opposes Some Democrat". Nah. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how reliable either of these dailies are: UK Times & Melbourne Herald both reporting that Emanuel being pressured to resign and that he is seeking legal representation. Again, affidavit would lead one to conclude Emanuel did NOT entertain Blagojevich's overtures in which case Emanuel's only error would be his failure to report his knowledge of criminal activity by Blagojevich. Hard to imagine that he'd be prosecuted for that. Given Emanuel's friendship w/ the President-elect, the effort the President-elect expended persuading Emanuel to accept the COS pos'n, and Obama's reliance upon Emanuel as his "bad cop", the President-elect would have to be under considerable pressure to request Emanuel to tender his resignation; seems Obama could diffuse that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Until the facts are known about this case, I propose adding this passage, or something similar, to the "2008 Election" subsection of the "Congressional career" section:

Following the resignation of President-elect Obama's Senate seat, a fraud scandal unfolded regarding the appointment of Obama's successor. The role, if any, played by Emanuel in this is disputed.

With appropriate citation. I'm not trying to whitewash, but I submit that we should let this play out in the main article on this topic before adding more than that in Emanuel's, so that we can at least have a reasonable idea of how relevant this thing is to this article. --Hiddekel (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In light of today's press conference basically exonerating Emanuel, I think that's fair. The burden now falls to Obama and Fitzgerald to answer the questions: "Did Emanuel know Blagojevich had criminal intent w.r.t. the Obama seat and, if so, why didn't Emanuel report this to his boss or law enforcement (or did he)?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Now how about a sentence about his being a Ballet Dancer (accepted at Julliard?) which has been widely reported and just raises questions about wikipedia's thoroughness on presenting well known facts or FAQs CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Out this AM: Rahm Emanuel recorded by FBI on 20 separate tapes/occasions speaking w/ Blagojevich's staff RE: the vacated Senate seat. One, two, maybe three conversations I can see him having w/o becoming aware of a pay-to-play scheme, but if he spoke w/ the Governor's staff 20 times on this matter, it stretches the limits of plausibility that he did not become aware of criminal intent. Again, the issue isn't whether Emanuel entertained Blagojevich's criminal proposals, but rather whether he took appropriate measures upon becoming aware of a criminal conspiracy. THAT is the question that the President-elect and/or Mr. Fitzgerald need to answer (unless they're planning to give Emanuel a free pass); the best way to do that is to release all 20 of the recordings once doing so won't jeopardize Fitzgerald's case against Blagojevich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WGN (Tribune affiliate) Legal Analyst, former prosecutor Terry Sullivan, took-up the above issue (i.e., whether or not there is criminal liability if Emanuel knew of criminal intent and failed to report such intent to law enforcement) on this morning's news broadcast at 7:50AM; he said that as a former prosecutor this would be a gray area in terms of criminal liability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There should definitely be a sentence or two in the article dealing with this. Emanuel has been the subject of a lot of news stories on the subject. To leave it out entirely is odd.--Gloriamarie (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama chief Rahm Emanuel urged to resign (Controversy section)

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

plz add this.this is big http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24799317-5012748,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.106.205 (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The article currently makes no mention whatsoever of many news reports of Emanuel discussing the senate seat with the governor. To not include this in the article speaks of blatant bias. At a minimum, that issue should be under "Controversy." DanielVovak (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

see the discussion in Section 8 immediately above the new section you started, Daniel. I'm not sure of the need for a new discussion section on this as it's all part of the fallout related to Rahm's involvement in the Blagojevich scandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I did not start this section and my comment does not reference the "affidavit" in the previous section. -DanielVovak (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The linked article in no way supports the title of this discussion section. The only person being discuss din the article being urged to resign is Blagojevich. Lestatdelc (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think it's notable enough for the article that some people are discussing his resigning (including on CNN or MSNBC other day) to take pressure off Obama, it is true that it has been discussed. FYI. I'm sure an appropriate news search would bring a few more such results. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You can find discussion of almost anything amongst the media heathers in the "news" and "some people" is weasel word ephemera (not slamming you personally for it, just saying). Such gossipy nothingness certainly is not to the level of inclusion in the article, at least we agree there. Lestatdelc (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To say that "Some people are discussing his resigning" is meaningless. All that requires is that a political operative expresses an opinion. No major US newspaper has issued an editorial calling for his resignation; the plausible threshold would be *many* newspaper editorial boards, including some unexpected boards. If I call for Andrea Merkel's resignation, does that mean Wikipedia must say that "some people are discussing her resignation"? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said. You made a more robust argument on what I was trying to say.Lestatdelc (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor should intervene and add a Controversy section. Currently, this Wiki article pretends that Rahm Emanuel is not under suspicion regarding Senategate. This story headline is "Senate-for-sale case threatens new chief of staff." To delay including this information further ends Wiki's integrity on political appointees. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081221/D956TQIG0.html

Despite the media heathers such as the AP, Rahm is not under suspicion in the investigation at all. In fact Fitzgerald made that clear form the outset in the criminal complaint. Your desire to inject POV into a biography article says far more about your motives than anything substantive about the merits of including idle media speculation as being warranted for inclusion here. Lestatdelc (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
No one expects an encyclopedia article to include every rumor, allegation, or speculation about the subject. In this case, the AP report doesn't even contain rumors or allegations -- just speculation that rumors or allegations might crop up in the future. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This passage is fact: "Obama's incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois congressman, has come under fire amid reports that FBI wiretaps recorded him discussing with Blagojevich's administration, in 21 conversations, who should replace Mr Obama in the US Senate." http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/elvisloving-governor-wont-leave-the-building/2008/12/18/1229189805504.html DanielVovak (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Benjamin M. Emanuel

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Benjamin M. Emanuel. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'd like to know how the edit summary "new bumiller link since old one wasn't working" could possibly be considered as an accurate representation of this massive edit. I want to believe the edit was an error, but if so I'd recommend the use of "show preview" before posting. Tvoz/talk 23:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

a new low. the "edit" included the reinsertion of multiple controversial issues that have already been hashed out and agreed upon to the contrary at the talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Just happened to notice this and don't ask me what happened! All I remember doing is just what the edit says - following a link outside this article and finding the current link wasn't working and replacing it with new one I found. I've been spanked far too often on this page to try massive changes like that, most of which are not of sufficient interest to me to bother. If was a big accidental mass deletion or copy that could be fast fingers, I'd certainly take responsibility. Should I report this to technical to see if they can figure out if somehow my edits and someone elses at same time, or in the past or something, got merged? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

POV citation?

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The below was added, but I question the POV/bias nature of the passage:

"Kaszak said in 2008 that she believed that powerful Chicago alderman and Blagojevich's father-in-law, Richard Mell, "quietly backed" Emanuel for congressman in the primary at the same time he backed Blagojevich for governor.[1]"
  1. ^ Blackledge, Brett J. (2008-12-20). "Senate-for-sale case threatens new chief of staff". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-12-20. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

As the AP article full passage notes:

"Nancy Kaszak, who ran for Congress against Blagojevich in 1996 when both were state representatives and had a nasty battle against Emanuel in 2002, said she believes Mell quietly backed Emanuel."

Seems this is akin to having a disgruntled worker's speculation and viewpoint being a legitimate source and seems suspect at best. Thoughts about the suitability for inclusion? Lestatdelc (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

1. It's from an AP article released today that focuses on Emanuel. It attributes the quote to his political opponent, and therefore it is obvious to the reader that this person might have a political agenda, but the source itself is not biased, the source itself is the Associated Press. 2. His opponent in the election might be a "biased source" if she had released this, say, in a press release on her website, but the AP quoted her, and election opponents do serve as reliable sources for Wikipedia and news outlets, or we wouldn't the types of election articles we do. Therefore, I think it's worthy of inclusion.--Gloriamarie (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused by this line of reasoning. Election opponents say, and insinuate, all sorts of things. Surely we don't ipso facto take these claims as reliable, simply because they were reported as having been claimed? (Compare the 2000 SC Primary rumors that John McCain had an illegitimate black daughter, or the 2008 claims that Sarah Palin was not her son's mother, or anti- Grover Cleveland campaign's slogan, "Ma! Ma! Where's my pa?") I'm also confused as to the significance of the entire paragraph: is it of encyclopedic importance, really, whether one Chicago alderman did or did not privately endorse Emanuel? There is no need to cover this topic in the encyclopedia, I think, until it has real and concrete effects. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The POV/bias is not AP's but who AP is quoting and the acrimonious nature of that person's relationship to Rahm (i.e. Kaszak has a history of animosity toward Rahm). I also concur with your second point about relevance. I posit that its inclusion is a POV attempt to somehow taint Rahm with an association with Blagovech because of the scandal enveloping the Illinois Governor. Lestatdelc (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


New Source

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2008/12/exclusive-obama.html?xid=rss-page


Photo of Emmanuel with Blogo is Not Relevant To The Article

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Emmanuel has not been linked to Governor Blogo's criminal activities and so the picture of them together should be removed. It is pure 'guilt by association' and smear tatic to have it there now. Emmanuel as a Congressman from Illinois would have to deal with the Governor from time to time, so the picture, in and of itself, is not remarkable.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is It True That Emanuel Was a Ballet Dancer at Sarah Lawrence?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

People keep claiming that Emanuel studied ballet dancing at Sarah Lawrence. If true, that would be an interesting part of his bio. If not true, there are certainly still a lot of rumors about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Yes he always wore a pink tutu or fru-fru, and tall black men carried him in their arms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilitw2 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rahm_Emanuel/Archive_3&oldid=1085465249"