Talk:Rahm Emanuel

Did Rahm Emanuel serve in the Israeli army? Is he a dual-citizen of Israel?

I've heard various rumors about that, which I don't believe, but I don't see any discussion here -- perhaps I missed it (sorry, if so). Did he volunteer for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)? If so, what oath did he have to swear/sign? Is he a dual-citizen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBrnstn (talk • contribs) 07:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, he did not serve in the IDF, and he is a US citizen. "Emanuel did not serve in the Israeli army, but was a civilian volunteer assisting the Israel Defense Forces for a short time during the 1991 Gulf War, repairing truck brakes in one of Israel's northern bases.[32][33] " Source: this page! MarkBernstein (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It was actually discussed above in (the not well-named thread) Talk:Rahm Emanuel#Matzav.com. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

But if he did serve as a volunteer in a foreign army, even if it were Israel, then did he take an oath of allegiance to the State of Israel? If so, did he ever renounce the oath, or is he still bound by his oath of absolute allegiance to a foreign nation? (unsigned)

No, he did not serve as a volunteer in a foreign army, he did not renounce his US citizenship, nor is he bound by an oath to another government. He has, in any case, sworn an oath as a member of the US House of Representatives. Please see thorough discussion above and in the article. The recurrent stress on this issue, despite clear contrary documentation that is already present in the artlice, is walking right up to the edge of anti-Semitism, coming uncomfortably close to the claim that no Jew (or Catholic -- see the 1960 Presidential campaign) can be a loyal American citizen. MarkBernstein (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither in this section nor in the article itself do I see a clear, simple answer to the clear, simple question: does Rahm Israel Emanuel hold Israeli citizenship? I see that an opponent of his candidacy in an old political race asserted that Emanuel did hold Israeli citizenship, but I see no statement that Emanuel actually did or does.

Does anyone know the answer? Is it verifiable? Firstorm (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer is no. The article is quite clear on this. See Notes 33 and 34 in the article. Qqqqqq (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Israeli citizenship entails, almost without exception (and certainly none that would appear to apply to Mr. Emannuel), several years of military service and regular reserve service until one reaches their 50s. Since he has not served in the IDF, he is therefore extremely unlikely to have Israeli citizenship.

It is possible to be an Israeli citizen by being born to an Israeli parent; no military service is necessary. StuSutcliffe 00:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Any person anywhere in the world who's mother is considered jewish by the state of Israel, can freely get israeli citizenship. I have no knowledge of whether Emmanuel has done that or not. Under US law, you lose your American citizenship if you serve in a foreign army. If you are repairing a foreign army's trucks during a war, I think it's a fair argument that that is "serving" in a foreign army. The threats of anti-semitism for questioning this take on his "volunteerism" are beneath contempt. FrancisDane (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What is POV problem in "Reaction to appointment" section?

If no one spells it out, tag gets removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed unexplained tag. Entered WP:RS relevant info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Gun blocks

Raum is now calling for the 1 million persons (about 1 in 320 americans, after foreigners are removed) who are on the no fly or S lists to be banned from owning guns. After it was revealed how inaccurate these lists are (persons such as Senator Ted Kennedy appeared on the list, luckily he knows the right people to get removed, the rest have no chance), this is very controversial. It should be mentioned, it's been getting some mainstream coverage. Terrorlistforlife (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources to back up these claims, OK, then a small mention would be entirely appropriate. In general, though, I don't think his position on guns is all that worthy yet for any detailed content overhauls in the article. Yaf (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

From a political perspective, I would say that the notability is not just in terms of gun politics in general, but also from the sense that if this is true then Emanuel is implicitly endorsing a controversial policy of the outgoing administration, the no-fly list. Assuming, as Yaf says, there is reliable sourcing for this fact, I therefore agree that it's worth mention. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Implictly" suggests possible OR and/or synthesis, so please provide sources that actually make the connection for evaluation. Tvoz/talk 06:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For sure. But I'm simply suggesting that that's why Emanuel's position on the issue is notable at all... Not that this analysis should be made on its own in the article. That'd be both of those things plus undue weight, probably. — Hiddekel (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The son of a terrorist?

his father was a member of the Irgun, a group that blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. was this ever brought up in the media? Statesboropow (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on this talk page, and consensus is that we mention that his father was a member of the Irgun years before Rahm's birth, and wikilink Irgun to its article without characterizing the organization here - that's what the wikilinks are for, and the article on Irgun is the proper place for exploring what kind of group it was and what it did or didn't do. This is not an article about the Irgun, or about the father - this is a biography of Rahm Emanuel's life and career. Tvoz/talk 05:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

i understand that and i appreciate your imput. but could you imagine the uproar in the media if he was the son of Arafat? Statesboropow (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But he's not the son of Yassir Arafat. He's the son of Benjamin M. EmanuelMarkBernstein (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just dropping by to see if any of the newest info on Emanuel has managed to make it in the article. Evidently not. Maybe if I get a chance. But let may say that there was no real consensus to keep this out. It's just that of the three or four dozen people who have put it in, only a couple have bothered to stay around to argue the point. However, 5 or 6 of the maybe two dozen people who don't want it in stick in here and keep arguing. That's persistance not consensus.  :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine the uproar if he was the son of Darth Vader or Miley Cyrus. What does it matter? Anyway, since the SNL skits are likely the first place that Joe and Jane American ever really noticed Rahm Emanuel's name, I think they might be worth noting somewhere. - Gwopy 06:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

We have really got to cut out all the sugarcoating. Irgun was, plain and simple, a terrorist group and it is certainly appropriate to mention. While it is certainly true that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter--Irgun's fight was more to take land and to boot the native people off of it, by any means necessary--theft, murder, deception, etc. By any definition, that's more of a terrorist group than Hezbollah and Hamas combined.

I've forgotten my terrorist algebra, but having grown up in the US, I'm pretty sure I've heard stories about fights to "take land and to boot the native people off of it, by any means necessary--theft, murder, deception, etc.". Anyway, saying the name of the organization, "Irgun" is accurate NOT sugarcoated. - Gwopy 06:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

When we can cut out the BS, we can start living together in a civilized fashion and actually work out our issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.19.182 (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This mention of irgun is extraordinarily inappropriate. My fellow students and I each stopped reading the article at the mention of "irgun". It is not present on the pages of his brothers; it is a gross hyperbole that distracts from the content of the article; it does not seem relevant to an article about the current White House Chief of Staff . Statesboropow demands hyperbole: he is seeking for an "uproar in the media". I would urge editors to revert his changes and be skeptical of language that does not belong in an encyclopedia entry.--140.247.251.29 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

---

After several months of peace on this topic, editors are again inserting characterizations of Irgun into the text. Discusion of Irgun tactics and related issues belongs on the Irgun page, not here. Irgun is not the subject of this article. Rahm Emanuel was not affiliated with Irgun. MarkBernstein (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of wiki bio pages discuss parental histories, so if a parent is affiliated with a terrorist group this is relevant to this article.--Xris0 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If his father was a member of the Klu Klux Klan, it would be mentioned. Also, the article should be clarified to indicate (as it once did) that the family took the name Emanuel to honor his uncle, an Irgun terrorist, killed in the Israeli-Arab war of 1948.Someone has whitewashed this page. FrancisDane (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm new, so I hope this is the appropriate place. If Rahm's page said "his father was a member of the Irgun." with a PERIOD at the end, that would be one thing. But his page says "the Irgun, a Jewish paramilitary organization." SURELY, someone can see the politics in allowing ONE DESCRIPTION and not the other... Isn't that political editing? To allow the benign "paramilitary", but not the sinister "terrorist"... But under the Irgun listing in wiki, it has a link: ISRAEL CLASSIFIED IRGUN AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION... How much more info do we need to call it a "terrorist organization"?? Seriously; this isn't a viewpoint. The gov't of Israel said it. Why can't we? And yes, I feel that stating that Rahm is the son of a terrorist is information that should be included, as is that he was named after a dead terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomstedham (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Tomstedham's suggestion that we end the sentence after "Irgun". No characterization is needed here. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion that we end the sentence after "Irgun". However, I'd like to clarify something that Tomstedham said. While the Irgun article does mention that the brand-new State of Israel in 1948 declared the Irgun to be a terrorist group, that was a matter of political infighting. The leaders of the new state were members of the Haganah, which had a fierce rivalry prior to statehood. Later governments of Israel not only did not consider the Irgun to have been a terrorist group, Menachem Begin served as Prime Minister. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark: Although I believe you have political motivitions for your statement, I agree. Either a noun should be used alone (ie, "Irgun". Period...) or ANY DESCRIPTION will be argued over forever. That was my original point. "Hey, X says this. Why isn't it listed?" "No, Y states this; I'm changing it!" And on and on and on. So, can somebody go to that spot and change it, please? It still says "... Irgun, a Jewish paramilitary organization." Let's meet in the middle and just say "Irgun." Period. I can live with that. But why can't we say "terrorist" on the actual Irgun page? It keeps being changed there, too.

Lisa: I'm not familiar with the inner workings of Israeli politics 60+ years ago. I'll take your word for it. I'm quite sure that no-one in Libya's gov't today considers any other members to be "terrorists" either, or the gov't in South Africa, or Serbia, for that matter. That doesn't change reality. I served in Bosnia, and I've been to Srebrenica, to the mine where thousands died. None of those responsible for those terrible crimes felt they were "terrorists" or "war criminals", but thankfully a court believed otherwise.

Serious question: if "political infighting" is the sole reason for changing the designation of the Irgun, then surely some MORE "political infighting" can change it back! Either planting bombs in marketplaces is terrorism, or it isn't. Isn't "political infighting" a really, really bad way to figure out how to label actions? Especially actions in which lots of people, quite a few of whom were civilians, died?

To me, it is sad that a gov't will change its view of actions based on the political leanings of its current members. It's wrong for Hamas to bomb civilians, but not for Irgun??? Israel gave medals to Irgun members, but is outraged when streets are named after Hamas members... It just seems strange to me. "My terrorism is different than your terrorism!"

Aaaaaand now we see why there are problems on wiki, huh? I want Irgun classified as "terrorist" because I believe it committed well-documented acts of terrorism. Why does someone NOT want it classified that way? Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomstedham (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC) --Tomstedham (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Irgun never put bombs in marketplaces. It never bombed pizza parlors. It never bombed student cafeterias, and it never put roadside charges in place, triggering them when a school bus came by. I don't know where you got the idea that it did anything of the sort.

There were different views on how to fight back against the Arabs and the British. The Haganah, run by the Jewish Agency (a British organization) wanted to play ever so nice. The Irgun thought stronger measures were needed. The Haganah, at one point, hunted down Irgun members and turned them over to the British to be executed, thinking that this would impress the British. It did not.

When Israel became a state, it was declared as such by David Ben Gurion, head of the Haganah. His hatred for the Irgun resulted in a draconian law (go and read the source on the Irgun article for details) which allowed any group to be declared "terrorist" by the government, and gave such a declaration legal status in the courts.

After two years, in 1950, the law was set aside. Not repealed; that didn't happen until 1980, but ignored as an embarrassment. Because by then, Ben Gurion's party had consolidated its hold on the government and didn't see them as a threat any more.

If you're going to make outrageous claims about the Irgun killing lots of civilians, you need to back that up. Otherwise, everyone will realize that you're nothing more than a hate-filled agitator, trying to use Wikipedia to support your personal agenda. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you're new to Wikipedia. A further custom here is to Assume Good Faith. [[1]] MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark: My apologies if I offended you, but I stick by what I said. From reading your edits and comments here... well, I believe you have, as we say in Alabama, "a dog in this hunt." Meaning, I believe you are interjecting your religious/political views into your edits. I calls it like I sees it, as we say...--Tomstedham (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Doesn't "good faith" only apply to what we post on an actual wiki page, not here in the talk section? I'm not completely familiar with the particulars. --Tomstedham (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, assume good faith applies throughout. I don't know what they say in Alabama, but my mom taught me that it was a good thing to be polite to strangers, and not to make assumptions (in this place incorrect ones) about a correspondent's religion or motivation. My dog in this hunt is sound historical practice, sound hypertext writing, and fairness -- especially to BLP subjects. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Lisa: Seriously??? "The Irgun never put bombs in marketplaces"??? Are we arguing about the definition of "marketplace"??? Have you read Wiki's own section about the Irgun, and the "List of Irgun attacks"? I'll only quote a few, to keep this short: 1938, June (late) Unspecified number of Arabs killed by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Jerusalem. 1938, July 6 18 Arabs and 5 Jews were killed by two simultaneous bombs in the Arab melon market in Haifa. 1938, July 16 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem. 1938, July 25 43 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. 1938, August 26 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa. 1938, February 27 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem. 1939, May 29 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem.

So, on Wiki, we have a clear list of MARKET ATTACKS, by the Irgun, with sources... would you now care to re-examine your statement?

Heh heh... I believe that I have "backed up my claims about the Irgun killing lots of civilians, as you requested. Perhaps it is YOU who is "nothing more than a hate-filled agitator, trying to use Wikipedia to support your personal agenda" as you so eloquently accused me... I'll wait here (eagerly) for your comment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomstedham (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC) --Tomstedham (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong but didn't they also blow up a hotel and leave two booby-trapped captains hanging from trees, where any old unfortunate soul walking past could have disturbed them. I think Lisa's ability to selectively choose historical accuracies in order to paint a picture of the irgun as an honest 'tea drinking society' is naivety-max and clearly leading to the disease of pleb-propaganda that ruins oh so many of these wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.188.216 (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the low priority on categories?

Just noticed that this article is repeatedly B class and/or low priority. Chief of Staff of the greatest empire on the planet? I think we can up the rating on those categories, don't you?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The "B-class" is a reflection of the "quality" of the article. Improving from B-class takes a lot of work, especially on a politically charged high visibility topic when you need to get consensus from a number of very divergent viewpoints.

As Emanuel relates to each project, the importance to that project will vary - Emanuel's importance to Wikiproject Illinois for example, now that he is no longer a congressperson representing the state, would be low. For the Obama project, on the other hand, his importance would likely be High. Each project group assigns the rating according to their project.

And the ratings only real use is to let editors know where they may want to spend their time: a low priority article that is at "c-class" would probably not be a place to spend much time improving if there are "High Priority" articles that are "stub-class"-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. One of those issues hadn't thought that much about til looking at the categories below. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic liberalization

Are you guys kidding me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.226.88 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Influenced by Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" ?

Are Rahm's views guided by Klein's "Shock Doctrine"?

[He once said, “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.”] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.179.189 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Content additions

I've made the following additions to the Rahm Emanuel article.

1. I've identified him as Jewish-American

2. I've added that he served as a volunteer in the Israeli Defense Forces.

These are both objective facts. Two users have deleted these facts and I'd like to know why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.7.252 (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Because you are adding the content unsourced. Do you have a source to prove these statements of fact? If not, they can't be included. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have sourced all the facts I've added to Rahm Emanuel's biography.

Please tell me why these facts should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.7.252 (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOSBIO for why ethnicity(Jewish) is not included in the lead. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also see WP:SOURCE and WP:REF on how to source content properly. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Tom - I checked the guidelines re: ethnicity. It states the following: Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. I would argue that his ethnicity is very relevant. He has very strong ties to the Jewish-American community and Israel. Also, he is very unique in that he volunteered to serve with a foreign army while the United States was at war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.7.252 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he did not serve with a foreign army. Whether the US was, at the time, engaged in a military conflict elsewhere seems hardly relevant, as the subject was not then a member of the US armed forces. The guideline reads, "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability"; the notability of the President's chief of staff is clear, and his ethnicity has nothing to do with his office. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course his ethnicity isn't why he is notable or that relevant. But wait, maybe this is some large Jewish conspiracy to control the world? Yeah, better add it to the lead so everybody knows what is really going on. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Actually, he did not serve with a foreign army." Ummm, yes he did... The popular internet tale is that he did "brake work" on IDF trucks, briefly. I didn't say he served IN a foreign army, or that he was a member of, or enlisted, or whatever legal rigamorole would explain the difference. The fact is that the US sent troops into combat, and he chose not to serve WITH/IN/FOR/AROUND/NEAR the US forces, he chose to help the military of a foreign power. You can justify it, you can lawyer it, whatever. "But Israel is our ally." So? The fact is that when I was in the desert serving the US, he wasn't. Period. So, when discussing loyalties and allegiances, as they say on cop shows, "Goes to motive, Your Honor."--Tomstedham (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Updates as CoS?

I know I've seen a few issues about him with numerous WP:RS. I'm sure that a few could be added. If you need help, see a news google search of his name for 2009 here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, it's 8 months later and this guy hasn't done anything newsworthy (except some silly remark in 2009)? If I wasn't very busy with other things... :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead link and problematic source

Emanuel frustrated Chicago peace activists who lobbied his office to reverse course on the Iraq war.[2]

Please provide a good secondary source on this, otherwise I will remove it. The current source is a dead link and goes to a blog. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Coalition and combatitiveness

Emanuel is an influential member of the New Democrat Coalition.^{[citation needed]} He is noted for his combative style.

Neither of these points appears in the body of the article, and the lead section should only summarize the most important information. I removed the NDC claim since it is unsourced and appears nowhere in the article. I also removed the "combative style" claim, which again, does not appear in the article as an important point and is sourced to an article in Rolling Stone about how competitive he is, which holds true for any person elected to a public office. For some comparison, articles on Rush Limbaugh, Peggy Noonan, and Sarah Palin, all considered highly combative "attack dogs", are not referred to as such in their lead sections, nor anywhere in their respective articles. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

'duche bag' ???

Just wondering who added the 'duche bag' to the content there?????!!!! I just looked at the page and it said near the top "...Emanuel was elected duche bag chairman of the Democratic Caucus."

I don't think the person who added this edit should be allowed to edit any more wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.209.17 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Israel

Could someone elaborate on this man's ties to the government of Israel, which is, of course, a foreign entity? I believe his brother is active in the Mossad, and he may be as well. This is rather disturbing, considering his importance in the governmental hierarchy of the US. His authority should be disallowed if that is the case, first of all, because the Chief of Staff should have no allegiance before that to the nation which he serves. Even citizenship status should be called into question, as this man no doubt has duel citizenship with Israel and the US together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.171.193 (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

'All this has been discussed, and refuted, many times before. He's not a dual citizen, and many people are; it's no bar to US citizenship or office. 22:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)' —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs)

I was troubled by RE's "volunteering" with the IDF, which I view as the equivalent of "serving" in the IDF, so I went to the State Department website to see what type of military service with a foreign government will jeopardize US citizenship. As you can see from the following, it's virtually impossible, short of a renounciation of US citizenship to have you citizenship revoked if you are not fighting for an enemy of the US:

"POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include: ....

3.entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE

As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government."

So, as long as RE wasn't an officer in the IDF, it's okay. To me, it's still problematic for a COS to have served with a foreign government, especially one whose relationship with the US is so fraught with issues, but it's a moot point now. I just wish RE would display his passport and settle the issue. FrancisDane (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

dual citizenship?

the article states that "Moskal also charged that Emanuel had dual citizenship with Israel and had served in the Israeli Army.[35] Emanuel did not serve in the Israeli army, but was a civilian volunteer assisting the Israel Defense Forces for a short time during the 1991 Gulf War, repairing truck brakes in one of Israel's northern bases with Sar-El."

so the article addresses the idf claim, but it doesn't address the veracity of the claim that he has dual citizenship - us and israeli. are there any reliable source as to whether or not he ever attained israeli citizenship? i've heard it alleged many times, but don't know if it's true,and the article doesn't answer the question :-/

James Zogby, who has a pretty well developed wikipage himself, wrote an article for the huffingtonpost where is denies that Rahm has Israeli citizenship, though he offers nothing in the way of primary sources for this. Since he's asserting a negative, I don't know how anyone could support this short of getting some file clerk for the Israeli IRS to look through every record. Anyway, Zogby seems like a pretty reliable source. - Gwopy 07:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

to be clear, the question isn't whether or not he has us citizenship, but whether or not he *also* has israeli citizenship. 84.138.193.138 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See above. Ilya123 (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If his father was born in Jerusalem, he was entitled to claim dual citizenship when he was 18. It appears that he did not choose to do so.FrancisDane (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Why was my edit deleted?

Are people seriously unconvinced of the Massa and Emanuel encounter that is rampant on the news and internet? LaRouxEMP (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No source, doubtful notability. Wikipedia is not a rumor site. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Mark, because it's still a rumor when the Washington Post does multiple reports on it. LaRouxEMP (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

LaRouxEMP, there is only one person claiming the story to be true and nothing else to back it up. While the brouhaha might be true, I'm not calling a single accused representative under ethics charges a reliable source

So what that it is "brouhaha" as you address it? Do the visitors of Wikipedia not deserve to acknowledge the allegations against the current White House Chief of Staff? LaRouxEMP (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To be included in an encyclopedia, it should be notable, significant, and properly sourced. What we had in the deleted passage was not sourced at all, and that's likely why an editor deleted the passage. In addition, though, there remains the question of significance and notability. Congressional whips, and chiefs of staff, argue with Congressmen all the time: that is their job. Congressmen have discussions in the locker room; that is why we pay for their gym! It is not clear at first glance that anything untoward or even surprising happened; the original editor, I suspect, was hoping to insinuate a suggestion of homosexual conduct but this was not stated, much less sourced. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Yeah Mark, because it's still a rumor when the Washington Post does multiple reports on it. LaRouxEMP (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)" if this is so re multiple reports, include in article!--Xris0 (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bar-Mitzvah of his son

I have added that on the occasion of the Bar-Mitzvah of his son, both Rahm Emanuel and his son visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem. I gave the link to an article in The Jerusalem Post. Now, an individual, repeatedly erases this information, with one particular comment, if Rahm had spent $50,000. on the occasion, that would be news... One has to understand that there are currently talks about peace in the Middle East. Rahm Emmanuel is involved in the process. Nevertheless, he took time off to go on a private visit to Jerusalem to celebrate the Bar-Mitzvah of his son. He could have done the celebration in the U.S. He decided to do it in Jerusalem. This is certainly worth adding. (Highland14 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

That is pure originalresearch and speculation. The choice of a Jew to hold an important religious ceremony for his son in Israel and visit the Wailing Wall while there is not relevant in an overall biography unless reliable sources comment that it is particularly notable for some reason.

Additionally, as mentioned in edit summaries, the visit has absolutely no demonstrated relationship to "Reaction to appointment", the article section where you continue to insert it.

Also, please abide by rules for biographies of living persons and refrain from naming minor children who are not notable in their own right.

I'm sure other editors would appreciate your refraining from undoing their work in disambiguating internal links, as you have done in your last two edits.

Reverting, based on first reason above alone. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The discourse above doesn't make any sense. It talks about original research, when I quote a reference in a newspaper. There is no dialogue possible with the individual above who does impose "his" opinion in a neutral setting! (Highland14 (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

A Jew observing his bar mitzvah in Israel is notable? Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it is worth putting in an article. And, I would say there is little constructive dialogue possible when people claim "there is no dialogue possible." That is not an answer to the points raised in response to your prior entry. There are any number of reasons people choose to make a trip to places around the world for religious, cultural, and other personal reasons. Should a Buddhist eschew climbing Mt. Everest because s/he wishes Tibet to be an independent country? I think not; one has nothing to do with the other. Everest is there, and if you climb mountains, it's the one to climb. The places one chooses to include in one's observance of a personal milestone event hardly rise to the level of importance you seem to ascribe, especially when - quite apart from other considerations - Emanuel's father was born there.  Frank  |  talk  01:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact that he went there was reported; of course that's not original research. The idea that his choice of location for his son's Bar Mitzvah is sufficiently important to be in an encyclopedia biography is supported only by your opinion of what else he coulda/woulda/shoulda done, which makes that part purely original research. If you locate a few reliable sources which contend there is an important agenda behind his visit – signing a secret treaty with Israel and Hamas, pressuring Netanyahu to restore green-line boundaries; encouraging Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear research sites... – then there might be a reason for inclusion.

For example, the David Petraeus article mentions a rather prosaic stop on a speaking tour, St. Anselm's College, because the location led to media speculation he was planning a run for president. Emanuel's visit has had (or at least you have cited) no such overtones to indicate importance. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this seems too slight to include in an encyclopedia. The original poster suggests that the subject ought not to have taken time for a family celebration abroad; this seems an interesting talking point for political opponents but surely is not essential information. Should every encyclopedia article in include every family vacation taken by a busy person? A notation of every holiday weekend that might perhaps have been devoted to work? It is far from unusual for people to take brief vacations from positions of responsibility, especially to celebrate family milestones. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it is mentioned in an article in The New York Times has no importance, you want me to believe! And the fact that Emanuel was heckled in the Old City for his politics at this occasion is also not news...I love the argument about every family vacation... or brief vacations...to celebrate family milestones. If it wasn't Emanuel with his current position, this kind of statement would be understand, but not here! (Highland14 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

OK, to repeat my first question...a Jew observing his bar mitzvah in Israel is notable? And now, you would have us believe that being heckled in the Old City (arguably the geographic center of the conflict) is somehow notable? I think not, but don't take my word for it. Convince us.  Frank  |  talk  11:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a newspaper; there's no need to describe every detail of the subject's family vacations, or to air every sentiment of every heckler who happens to meet him while he's traveling. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on news. This was news. Now, you want to be selective. I challenge your selectivity. (Highland14 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

On the contrary; Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. If many of those sources happen to be the result of the process of gathering and publishing news, that doesn't mean Wikipedia relies on news. It still relies on reliable sources, which may take many forms. All of that is secondary, however, to the real point, which is that this particular idea you are trying to incorporate simply isn't important enough. There's just nothing unusual or noteworthy about celebrating a bar mitzvah in Israel, nor about a political figure being heckled in the Old City. You have been invited to demonstrate what makes it noteworthy, but instead you are turning things around with comments like I challenge your selectivity and The fact that it is mentioned in an article in The New York Times has no importance, you want me to believe!. You seem to be asserting that everything that is published in a reliable source anywhere should be included in a Wikipedia article. That's not how Wikipedia works, even if the source is reliable, and even if the item was published in the news.  Frank  |  talk  15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You repeat yourself, and at length. What I find amazing is that you are qualified to judge what should be included in Wikipedia. You decide, very interesting! (Highland14 (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

User:Frank is merely describing well-established Wikipedia practices and policies. We are all "qualified to judge" such things if we act within those practices and policies. Gamaliel (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And, I might add...if I am repeating myself, perhaps it is because you don't appear to be listening... I am not qualified to judge, as you put it...the community does so.  Frank  |  talk  03:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I love the definition of community. Wikipedia doesn't belong to a few individuals! (Highland14 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Of course not, but that doesn't mean that new users get to come in and completely rewrite existing policies and norms. If you disagree with them, you can attempt to change them by recruiting other members of the community to your point of view, but you cannot simply ignore them. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Here, we are! The label "new users" is used! For your information, I have been on Wikipedia since 2007, and my combination of all my contributions to Wikipedia is over 9,000. So, please refrain from this kind of comment! By the way, you confirmed my reading of "community"...(Highland14 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

Given your unfamiliarity with basic Wikipedia practices, I assumed you were a new user. I apologize for making this assumption. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew origin of name

I deleted

" and is the namesake of one Rahamim (surname unknown), which means mercy in Hebrew"

because mercy and lofty (rahamim and rahm) are from totally different roots in Hebrew. Benqish (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dual citizenship reprised

I really would like the dual citizenship thing figured out. I know he's been accused of it and I've done a bit of searching and a story that seems to be getting passed around the news is that he had dual citizenship but relinquished it when he turned 18. But, just because the news passes this around doesn't mean it's legit. Anyone know anything about this?--Louiedog (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is a living person so I really do want to get this right before adding it.--Louiedog (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He's not a dual citizen. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Need more representative chief of staff section

It seems to be missing a few important controversies while putting in silly ones. I'll put it on my long list of things to do, but just wanted to make that note. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

tiny correction

You are very current in the first paragraph: former, but need to follow through in the third: current. I did not read the whole article so there may be other similar.

Rahm Israel Emanuel[1] (pronounced /ˈrɑːm/; born November 29, 1959) is an American politician and former White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama. He served previously as senior advisor to President Clinton at the White House from 1993 to 1998 and as a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Illinois's 5th congressional district, from 2003 until his resignation in 2009 to take up his position in the Obama Administration.

Emanuel was chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2006 mid-term elections and remained a top strategist for House Democrats during the 2008 cycle. After Democrats regained control of the House in 2006, Emanuel was elected chairman of the Democratic Caucus. This made him the fourth-ranking House Democrat, behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn.[2]

Two days after Obama's election victory, he was announced as Barack Obama's designate for White House Chief of Staff.[3] Emanuel resigned from the House on January 2, 2009[4] and began his current job on January 20, 2009, the day of Obama's inauguration.[3] 72.248.203.99 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

As with Wikipedia's standards on including controversies sections, one needs to be added to make this a fair article. Research should be conducted in order to "dig up" any piece of controversy you can find, just like is done on virtually any other biography. My research so far has found his quote "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste; they are opportunities to do big things." ↑ http://biggovernment.com/tfitton/2010/10/14/is-scandal-ridden-rahmbo-chicagos-next-mayor/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.207.98 (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This, and other controversies, are already well covered in the body of the article. There's no need to "dig up" controversy. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Political insider

Fat and Happy, concerning this revert [3] and whether or not RE is a Chicago political insider (which he is, and that's not exactly a crime), would you characterize the similar claim that Gery Chico is a Chicago political insider in the lead of his article worthy of reverting too? Or is that also an "unsourced characterization of undemonstrated (sic) relevance"? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about Gary Chico, but after a quick scan of his article I'd say that yes, if it had been on my watchlist back on January 4 when the term was added, I would have probably disputed its addition. In spite of the rather obvious statement that being a political insider is not a crime, the term does frequently carry certain negative connotations. And in much of the country, "Chicago political insider" is even more negative, along the lines of the formerly common "Tammany Hall member". Even the Chico example is a bit less clear-cut than the usage in the Emanuel article. At least as one of several descriptors in the lead, the term might be justified as one of his defining characteristics and supported by content in the rest of the article. Even if the Barack Obama article said "he appointed long-time Chicago political insider R.E. as his chief of staff", the usage might be considered relevant and informative, though "politician" would serve just as well. In the present case, however, it's hard to see a useful point to the addition other than to cast doubts on Obama's reasons for making the appointment. And in either the BO article or discussing the appointment in this one, there should still be a reliable source referring to him as a political insider in relation to the appointment. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I don't think that a reference is always necessary to back up a fact. Unless of course one thinks that the statement is untrue. Not certain if you are are Chicago resident. I am from Chicago and am quite informed about Chicago politics and standby my assertion. It's precisely because RE was a Chicago political insider that helped Obama decide to make him his chief of staff. JFK had his "Irish mafia" and BHO has his "Chicago mafia". Not a bad thing, is it? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to characterize RE in this way. His entire biography is detailed in the article. Trying to characterize here demands that we judge which characterization is more important: equally strong arguments could be adduced for (a) influential Congressman, (b) combative legislator, (c) old ally, (d) experienced but moderate campaigner. Isolating him as a Chicago political insider here selectively neglects other aspects that seem equally weighty. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Freddie Mac

I understand that he served as a presidential appointee on Freddie Mac's board for 14 months. That's a fact. [Maybe someone should also point out that the board met only 6 times a year and that Rahm supposedly did nothing while he was on the board, earning about $50K for each board meeting, which by the way are often done by teleconference.] What I find incredible is how he could leave Freddie Mac to run for congress and then, as per the article, be appointed to a congressional subcommittee overseeing Freddie and Fannie. In order to avoid a conflict he would have to recuse himself from every meeting of the subcommittee. Something doesn't make sense here. FrancisDane (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Anshe Emet and Anshe Emet

According to the source cited in the article ([4]):

Members of Chicago's Jewish community say Emanuel's wife Amy, who converted to Judaism around the same time as her wedding, is heavily involved with the Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School in Lakeview, Ill. The couple send their 6-year-old son, Zacharias, and 3-year-old Ilana to the Conservative Jewish day school, which Emanuel himself attended as a child.

So if we're going according to that source, BZAEDS is Conservative. However, their own site says:

The Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School and Anshe Emet Synagogue are separate institutions each governed by an independent board of trustees. The school and synagogue share physical facilities and they value a synergistic, collaborative learning relationship that includes the celebration of life cycle events and holidays.

That's a close affiliation by any standard. So please stop removing it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this relationship might be germane to an article on Anshe Emet or BZAEDS, but it's entirely peripheral here. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that part of the reason certain editors want to keep the Orthodox identification of Anshe Shalom and omit the Conservative nature of Anshe Emet is because they want to continue the myth of Rahm being Orthodox in some way. That seems like POV pushing. If this content is omitted, then so should the descriptor on Anshe Shalom. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

mayoral sequence correction

This article says Emanuel is Chicago's 55th mayor. The chronology of mayors on the Chicago Public library site says he is 46th. There is one acting mayor they do not include in the official count. The chronology is here: http://www.chipublib.org/cplbooksmovies/cplarchive/mayors/mayorlist.php

129.105.175.116 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Steve Duke

Rahm Emmanuel in the shower

A question regarding this sentence : "Emanuel's personal involvement in health care reform was made public when it was reported that he had used overtly assertive and potentially threatening tactics towards Democrats who did not toe the party line while in the shower at the House gym"

Is it fair to say he did this toward "Democrats"?, the only story I can recall when this occured was involving Eric Massa who referenced this in a few interviews but should this description be fair to say "Democrats" instead of "Massa"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasow187 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The source cited claimed that Emanuel did this to "Democrats" but gave no example. Then again, the source was a very politically charged column piece. I have replaced it with a hard news piece with the facts about Massa. It has been reported that if this happened to Massa, it probably didn't happen to someone else, and we should figure out how that could be worded best. TylerRDavis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC).