Talk:Rahm Emanuel

Deletion of Controversies Section

I went ahead and deleted the 'controversies' section which was pretty useless as a complete section. The first article that is referenced is simply a columnist saying that Emanuel doesn't like it when this columnist talks about his relationship with Don Tomczak. There's no detailed discussion of what that alleged relationship was nor was there ever a contextual discussion in the article of why it would be significant for Emmanuel to have a relationship with Tomczak. Without an source which outlines who Tomczak is, what is particularly controversial about him and makes specific allegations to some sort of a relationship between Emmanuel and Tomczak there is no reason to put in this article. Essentially I could write an article saying George W. Bush doesn't like it when I say he molests children at knife point. And then I could come here and write 'An article raises speculation that George W. Bush likes to molest children at knife point.' Yeah that's just bad use of sources. If there's an argument to be made make it, and use sources that actually say something.

The second part was equally pointless. There was an allegation that Emmanuel didn't report his position in a non-profit group. First of all, it's not entirely clear that his particular position is covered by the congressional law, but moreover this isn't a controversy. The same thing happened to Bill Frist, Nancy Pelosi and many other congressional representatives over the years, something gets left out, it turns out they were suppose to report something that they didn't, it hardly rises to the level of 'controversy.' For there to be a controversy there should be some people who actually care. Here, no one cares. It's not particularly significant, certainly not in a bare one line sentence in the man's bio without explanation or context. It's not something whereby one would even reasonably be punished. Consider it the congressional equivalent to a parking fine. If it is more significant one needs to provide more sources and develop the point. Having one sentence about non-controversies without supporting evidence with only one of them having a decent source is not a valid section to an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There's WP:RS on him sending a dead fish to a rival politician and stabbing a table yelling kill kill his enemies in BBC and Telegraph articles so when a controversies section is added, that's a possibility. Of course, his father's membership in Irgun and his working with the IDF may yet become more controversial, as opposed to merely biographical. Who knows what other stuff will surface, the day after he resigns the house. I am sure there will be lots of speculation over whether Obama is Emanuel's dupe, or vice versa, which could be interesting if from WP:RS. Carol Moore 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone seems to have added it all back. I agree it is not needed. Just because we can create such a section doesn't mean we should. It ends up becoming a dumping ground of rumors, innuendo and partisan attacks which have no place in this article. Neutralis (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. It's pretty illustrative and well sourced.85.1.50.14 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's back and should be. There's a whole bunch of stuff I'll be adding soon. Meanwhile feel free to revert if those POV people trying to white wash the guy delete it again. Carol Moore 01:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly seems a "controversial" character to me. Carol Martin of the Chicago Sun-Times calls him a "shark" and an "enforcer." in an op-ed piece dwelling on various controversies and recounting some rather remarkable anecdotes that might merit inclusion if a confirming source can be found. the email address of the columnist is included, perhaps she can provide citations. Bustter (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Green's 2005 piece for the Rolling Stone, "The Enforcer" shares Martin's POV. While this POV may be far from neutral, its publication in respectable sources merits inclusion. Certainly the story of Emanuel mailing a rotten fish to a political antagonist, mentioned by both Green and Martin, is sufficiently notable for inclusion. It seems possible, however, that the Green article is Martin's primary source, as many of the same notes are struck in both pieces (just more detailed in Green's article). Bustter (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Father's comment

I removed it from the controversy section for a few reasons. First of all, this article is about Rahm, not his father. Second of all, it hardly qualifies as a controversy-- This is an encyclopedia, and I don't even think that would make it into a biography. Lastly, even if it was worthy of being put in this wiki, the article used referenced a mistranslation of a quote http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/rahms_father_arabs_clean_the_white_house_floors_20081106/ 139.147.81.231 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Note for future reference it was put back in because of response it generated according to several wp:rs. Carol Moore 18:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

If all controversies can't be put here, then there should be none put here.

Otherwise, the Father's comment should stay because it is, by definition, controversial. I guess my question is, if the father is a Zionist (there are many kinds, even Muslim ones) then that sort of information is important to a Controversies section, and if it cannot be included, then there should not even be a controversies section at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleakmage (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

First, if I deleted it I didn't mean to. But I do agree that by itself it might not seem noteworthy. However, a shorter version in a section on how it looks to many Americans and the world to have an arch Zionist as Obama's chief of staff would be more relevant. I'm putting that together now. I agree it's POV to white wash controversies. Carol Moore 02:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no room for partisan POV pushing in this article. This is not a dumping ground. Neutralis (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is an ugly truth lurking out there with all these attempts to suppress such a seemingly simple statement. I only came to put it back because I was trying to show the article to my girlfriend and it was edited the the scant few minutes it took me to get back to the page. Here's the statement of controversy in the controversy section, lol. Geeze. What's the big deal? Truth is truth, but I forget how much that infuriates people with agendas.

"The first controversy that arose after Emanuel was announced President Obama's future White House Chief of Staff, concerned not Rahm but his father, and was immediately said to reflect upon Rahm's Zionist policy stance. The Israeli daily Ma'ariv and the English-language daily The Jerusalem Post reported that Emanuel’s father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son’s appointment would be good for Israel, adding, “Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”"

Sounds like something that belongs in a 'controversy section to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleakmage (talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is controversy out there, it belongs here. I do realize the Irgun being a terrorist group belongs in that section under construction. By the way, all that stuff on his name is totally WP:UNDUE POV pushing for all the families' suffering and heroism to make him look good and guilt trip critics. So maybe we should get rid of that dumped POV material. Carol Moore 03:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Does POV here stand for Point of View? Bleakmage (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:NPOV for the policy. Also try to use indents to make reading replies easier. Thanks. Carol Moore 03:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, nicely done remix of the topic. Bleakmage (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to remember: This article is about Rahm Emanuel and must be done with proper proportionality. Having three paragraphs on the Palestinian reaction to his selection is undue weight and recentism. In 6 months it probably won't even matter, yet we are for some reason including every quote from these unknown blogs being repeated by right leaning newspapers tabloids? At most this entire "controversy" should be a couple of sentences and integrated into the heart of the article along with a balanced opposition viewpoint (i.e. many people were very happy with his appointment.) Neutralis (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

pic explanation?

is the Pic w. Dingell rightly described? "Rep. Dingel & Rep. Emanuel"..? is it "Representative" or "Republican"..? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.145.245.107 (talk • contribs) (13:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Representative. Party would be indicated as something like "Rep. Dingle (D-MI)" --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversies - integration

This was removed, justified with an edit summary which said the points should be integrated into the body of teh article. I agree that there shouyld not be a special section and that the points should be integrated - however this does not mean that they should have just been deleted wholesale without any attempt to do so. Here is the deleted info: "Emanuel held a seat on the quasi-governmental Freddie Mac board, which paid him $231,655 in director’s fees in 2001 and $31,060 in 2000. During the time Emanuel spent on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities.

Some Palestinians were angry over Obama’s appointment of Emanuel as Chief of Staff, especially after his father Benjamin Emanuel was interviewed by the Hebrew daily Maariv in an article entitled “Our Man in the White House.” He stated: "Obviously, he will influence the President to be pro-Israel. Why shouldn't he do it? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floor of the White House." " LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the Freddie Mac portion should be included, but I could not figure out where. I ask that someone else shed light on that and be bold. As for the reactions to his appointment, this falls under WP:Recentism and will not be valid in the long term. Rather, a section will soon be added that will speak of his time as Chief of Staff. In a historical perspective, initial reactions do not hold much encyclopedic value. They are the now and we are writing for all posterity. Neutralis (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd avoid the "plagued with scandals"; we have to express it quite carefully, since Rahm was not named in the SEC complaint, and was only included as one of the board members in the oversight complaint. We can't imply any wrongdoing on Rahm's part unless there are reliable sources etc. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If people want to integrate controversies, fine. I'm doing that. But leaving in all the stuff about how heroic his father allegedly was in the 1940s while leaving out widespread opinion he was the member of a terrorist group is highly POV, as just one example of attempt to whitewash this bio. For an example of how much a wiki biography can include controversial and negative opinions, see Gilad Atzmon. Deleting these kinds of important details very POV.

Ones time would be better spent sourcing all the unsourced stuff I'm removing because it is inherently controversial and thus must be removed if not sourced. See this diff for unsourced deleted material [1], I'd do it myself but there are so many editors and I have my own areas trying to keep NPOV and WP:RS. Carol Moore 03:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Policy on Well Known Public Figures

For those who keep deleting this infomation please see Wiki Policy on Well Known Public Figures which reads: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Carol Moore 03:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving "Early Life" back to top

Type in name of any well known person, starting with Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, and at the top you will see asection usualy called "early life" or "biography" for shorter ones. This was a silly way of ending a controversy and causes problems with people who keep adding his father was in the Irgun because they don't read to the bottom. Carol Moore 03:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Allegations Irgun was a terrorist group should be in article

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.)

• See the article List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_1930s

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

• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Recent UK Indpendent news story
• New York Times 2008

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. And certainly of importance given that Obama's so big on fighting terrorism. 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. But given that even the wikipedia article on September 11 attacks admits that US prejudices for Israel (and against Palestinian Arabs) was a motive for the 9/11 attacks, the biggest foreign attack on US since which 19th century war? 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." (Though by the time we're finished with Rahm, I'm sure 2/3 of Americans will know, not that that was B. Hussein's purpose of course. Little joke.) Also let's go through a bunch of Palestinian articles and see if "terrorist" and Hamas are both used where relevant. 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?? This fact is undermining Obama's credibility worldwide, and lots of WP:RS opinion sources say so. I guess we'll need a few of those explicit quotes and that will end the argument!! They can replace some other quotes currently in there. (When even Steven Zunes who yells antisemite at the drop of a hat starts calling the Irgun a terrorist group, you know the opinion is spreading far and wide. And that's just the top of the heap.) 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. And of course his father being an active member of a terrorist group and Rahm's failure to say that he does NOT find that their terrorism was unacceptable - will permeate so many things he tries to do as long as he holds his job. Living in DC I can assure you of that :-)

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.

• Straight News Stories:
  • Matthew Kalman, Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is no pal of ours, Israel's foes say, New York Daily News, November 6, 2008.
  • Elizabeth Bumiller, The Brothers Emanuel, New York Times, June 15, 1997.
  • Mideast press awaits Obama's axis of upheaval, Obama's choice for chief of staff puts 'Israel's man in White House', Agence France-Presse, November 2008.
  • Obama chooses 'Rahmbo' as chief of staff The Independent story asking if Benjamin is a terrorist.
  • I didn't even mention WP:RS Arab and Muslim nation foreign publications, which often mention the fact.

• Opinion or Blog pieces, which may influence mainstream news stories, of if from mainstream publications may be considered WP:RS even for BLP if WP:RS news articles back up the information:
  • David Kenner, Rahm Emanuel and Israel, Foreign Policy, November 7, 2008.
  • Obama Mideast Watch: Rahm Emanuel, Time Magazine Middle East Blog, November 9, 2008.
  • John V. Whitbeck, The Promised Land? Obama, Emanuel and Israel, Counterpunch, November 7/9, 2008.
  • A new Time Magazine blog article is from Michael Sherer Rahm Emanuel's Father Problem. News.google "emanuel's father" and you'll find lots of WP:RS stories on the various issues.
  • ABUNIMAH: Obama's ambiguity, What it reveals about Mideast 'peace' by Ali Abunimah, Washington Times, November 13, 2008.
  • Marc Lamont Hill, Obama’s first move uninspiring, November 13, 2008.
  • Matt Duss, Why No One Cares About Rahm’s ‘Extremist Associations’ ThinkProgress.org

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.
    • ...the word "terrorist" is not found in this article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • 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. More,over in the end, that's for history to decide. If he resigns as COS next week because of this, or he is publicly frozen out of all input on Israel-Palestine, etc. it isn't. If he turns out to be the biggest peacemaker since Gandhi, or gets fired for beating up a job applicant, etc. it also will become less relevant. The article will evolve as more information comes out.
• 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)

Benji Bronk relation removed

The source for this, the rolling stone article. made no such claim. removed the sentence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.242.127 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Career as political staffer" section is confusing and lacks context

The "Career as political staffer" section begins with "Clinton's..."

This reference is unclear (which Clinton?) and abrupt as it does not segue naturally in the context of this article. The remainder of the section takes some time before getting to the point of how it is related to the parent article.

This section probably should be rewritten with the article's main subject in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.245.34 (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's joke about Emanuel's missing fingertip

I was wondering if it was worth including the joke Obama made during the 2005 CURE roast for Emanuel (see here), that when Emanuel lost his middle right fingertip after the deli accident it made him "practically mute". I thought it was both funny and a vivid comment about Emanuel's famous temper. But I leave it to someone else to decide whether it's worth including. Lexo (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say only if it has been quoted extensively by others, which would establish it as significant enough to include here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing in this article is troublesome

The line from the Wikipedia article

"During the time Emanuel spent on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandal involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities."

is quoted by tehrantimes.com as coming from Wikipedia. However, theaustralian posts the same sentence in their story without attributing it to Wikipedia. Theaustralian article came out after the sentence was added to Wikipedia, so Theaustralian likely picked it up from Wikipedia. This same opinion line is used all over the internet.[2] The Wikipedia article sources it to Sweet, Lynn (January 3, 2002) in The Chicago Sun Times. The only thing the January 3, 2002 Chicago Sun Times article says about Freddie Mac is "Clinton's going-away gift to Emanuel was a seat on the quasi- governmental Freddie Mac board, which paid him $231,655 in director's fees in 2001 and $31,060 in 2000." We all should be troubled that Wikipedia is being used to spread statements around the world that are based on sourcing that does not justfy such statements. How many of the footnotes in this article merely are a ruse to give the impression that the statements are sourced when in fact they are not? This article needs a serious attention. -- Suntag ☼ 11:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. Well spotted. If so, this is serious. Just the sort of thing that serves to disproportionately undermine WP's reputation. Wingspeed (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't undermine Wiki's rep, it undermines The Australians. That's abundantly clear. They are responsible for fact-checking their statements. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, the only relevant issue is that you have to register for HighBeam to see what the whole article says, which evidently User:Suntag did not do. However, it would be helpful if the person who put the link it quoted what the author actually said to avoid people having to register. I assume the source is legit, so who else later refs it is irrelevant.

There is a rather abstruse phrase (including I think word "self-reference") which describes people using a source as a WP:RS which actually got their info from unsourced wiki info, but don't mention fact. I can't remember and can't find the relevant discussion page. However, it's a matter of editor's proving it in each instance. And in this instance it is not proved. Carol Moore 22:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Fully protected for one day

I have protected the the wrong version of this page for 24 hours. Please gain some consensus about what the page should look like and apply those changes once the protection expires. I'm aware that most of the back and forth came from one editor, but this is an issue that should be discussed and not solved through reversion of content. I am open to other admins changing this protection or other users requesting the page be unprotected early. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI. I actually asked for protection from Anon IPs who were putting in the most obnoxious or irrelevant stuff, but was declined, and they have continued to do so. Protecting from Anon IPS might remain a good idea til the end of the month, for example. There have been a number of registered users who have added stuff deleted by other registered users, but most of those adding stuff have not bothered to discuss in talk at all. Carol Moore 00:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

politically correct political views

{{editprotected}} The political view section mentions Rahm Emanuel is pro abortion (with a link). It should read pro choice not pro abortion as pro choice is the commonly accepted description for that political view.

• Done, thanks. Sorry about that, it happens sometimes. Protonk (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Before fully locking up the page you might have wanted to make sure that the locked up version is not the version that is preferred by a new editor with a few blocks in his history. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly can't condone some of that editor's behavior, many of his edits were re-inserting contested but widely known WP:RS information that several editors on talk have supported, as well as many "drive by" editors who have inserted similar info, though with varying degrees of quality, sourcing and edit summaries. While I may not agree with all his edits, at least he largely WP:RS sourced them. So there is NOT a consensus view on one or more issues yet. Carol Moore 18:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

It might have helped if actually discussed stuff rather than edit warring. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• To brewer, I am less concerned about picking the 'right' version then just stopping the back and forth, and AFAIK, the "pro-abortion" nonsense was added by a different person, not the editor immediately preceding the protection. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• But it was by the editor immediately preceding the protection [3]. Together with an edit summary that included using a strawman argument and an attack. In the future (or maybe now) please check that you are not locking up an article with the version preferred by a vandal and a version that violates the consensus reached at the talk page, and the version that is WP:BLP violative. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To JPGordon: as you can see there is lots of discussion above of the contentious issues. Not every editor reads all discussion before entering WP:RS info and even reverting deletion of such info (depending on whether there is an edit summary and what it says), which is recommended but I don't think rises to policy. Also remember edit warring includes giving ever new and dubious rationales for keeping out WP:RS info that might embarrass the subject, as well as angry (and even inappropriate) reactions from those who may try to keep it in the article through reversion, whether or not they participate in talk. Carol Moore 20:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Carol: You keep on harping on WP:RS. NOBODY has argued that there is a lack of RS claiming that some considered the Irgun to be terrorists. Rather, the majority of editors have agreed that any discussion within the article of the different possible names that were given to his father's organization violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE. Please stop reframing the argument. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying what I meant by "ever new and dubious rationales for keeping out WP:RS info" :-) Carol Moore 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

And the only content issue I was having with him was that "Controversial behavior" subheader; rather than discussing, he simply reverted when I changed the header and again when I redid the integration of the material into the previous paragraph. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Rahm's "Terrorist" Joke as an example of "take-no-prisoners attitude", etc.

It seems pretty POV to delete this 2008 joke and leave as last note the impression that R. Emanuel's "mellowed out" mentioned in a 2007 article, esp. given the worldwide 2008 interest in Rahm's father's involvement with Irgun which is often called a terrorist group in WP:RS articles about Rahm. (Eventually a WP:RS article will link the father's Irgun past and Rahm's joke. Maybe it will be ok then??):

At the 2008 "Washington Press Club" dinner he joked about calling "central casting": "If you asked for a terrorist, they'd send me."REFS: Andrea Billups, Rahm pick 'refutes' call for bipartisanship, Washington Times, Sunday, November 16, 2008; Rahm Emanuel just a heartbeat away from having a heart, Politico.com, February 14, 2008. Carol Moore 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Unsourced info to put back in Staffer section

As I wrote above, this stuff was removed because remained unsourced and no one sourced and put it back. The staffer section makes more sense with it in. I'm kept too busy on other issues. Other uncited info still there needs sources or will be removed soon too.

He began his political career with the public interest and consumer rights organization Illinois Public Action. He went on to serve in a number of capacities in local and national politics, initially specializing in fundraising for Illinois campaigns and then nationally.

Emanuel worked for Democrat Paul Simon's 1984 election to the U.S. Senate, was the national campaign director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 1988, and then was senior advisor and chief fundraiser for Richard M. Daley's victorious campaign for Mayor of Chicago in 1989.

He joined then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton's presidential primary campaign in 1991, serving as the campaign's Director of Finance. Emanuel insisted that Clinton schedule a lot of time for fundraising and greatly delay campaigning in New Hampshire. After much dispute within the campaign about the issue, Clinton eventually agreed, embarking on an aggressive fundraising campaign across the nation. The fundraising paid off later, providing the campaign a vital buffer to keep buying television time as attacks on Clinton's character threatened to swamp the campaign during the New Hampshire primary. Carol Moore 17:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Irgun question

Why isn't the wikilink sufficient? You want to know more about the Irgun, click on it. WP:UNDUE comes to mind here. -- Avi (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

See supra, join the club. Squeeze in, there might be place :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, no one has bothered to give me enough respect to answer my (and others) arguments in past sections. Just starting new sections to ask a question without ever providing one's own argument not WP:Etiquette.

For example, notice my frequently made point there is a clear differentiation between mentioning it was a terrorist group on first mention - which might be argued is undue, despite fact may 15 editors have made that edit so far. As opposed to my suggestion of only mentioning that part of the reaction to Rahm's appointment that was carried by a number of WP:RS sources was negative reaction to fact his father had been part of terrorist group? (I'll list all of the updated WP:RS sources on that tomorrow when read and organize newest google alerts.

How can that be undue? That's not explained, nor are SYNTH and POV, even though I've give my opinion on why they are not. It's white washing to keep deleting it and tomorrow afternoon I will decide which dispute resolution vehicle to start with. Carol Moore 23:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

It's not that nice to accuse an editor of violating wp:etiquette for not making an argument when he has made an argument. An argument does not have to use three paragraphs for it to be considered valid. His argument was that delving into the Irgun's activities in this article violates wp:undue. Fair enough. It's not an outlandish argument, especially considering that many have made the same argument on this page. It's also not that everyone is ignoring you, it's that editors are getting tired of repeating themselves. You have made this terrorism proposal in practically all of the threads in this talk page but you have failed to gain a consensus at each turn. You seem to be obsessed on getting the word "terrorism" into this article. First you try attaching it to Irgun. When that fails you try inserting into an issue that you created by tracking down one or two left wing European papers that mentioned terrorism in context to Rahm's appointment. When that failed, you tried to insert "terrorism" via some blog claiming that he made lame joke. It had no business belonging in his Wikipedia article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

1) It seems impolite to me to just keep mentioning various policies without explaining why it applies in at least one sentence. People even get convinced by actual arguments, you know! 2) You mischaracterize the number and types of WP:RS which have brought up the terrorism allegation in context of his appointment, including above; there are a number of WP:RS ones. 3) A Washington Times article mentioned the joke, so it gave credence to the more detailed blog report. There are times when jokes matter, like when Reagan said "the bombing begins in 10 minutes," so jokes are not always unencyclopedic. 4) It is unfortunate that the people who agree it belongs here won't discuss it and just keep adding ref'd and unref'd info, but there obviously are a lot of people who want it there, not just me. Carol Moore 00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Carol, there is what to be said for compendiousness (which, I admit, is a tad ironic coming from me). Regardless, the issue at its heart is this. The article is about Rahm. Rahm's father's existence is an integral part of Rahm's life, but Rahm's father's life is less so. That Rahm's father was in the Irgun is notable, both on its own and in light of current politics. However, I still fail to see the need to blazon the King David Hotel bombing, or anything about the Irgun, in the article on Rahm, who was born over 10 years after the Irgun ceased to exist. All that information, for the truly interested, is one click away. Should we also bring into this article that the Irgun was largely founded as a response to the 1929 Hebron massacre and 1929 Safed massacre? Of course not, the 1929 Palestine riots are completely irrelevant to this article, as is the King David Hotel bombing and anything else other than the fact that Rahm's father was a member. -- Avi (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's article talks about his parents; both parents have an aritcle. Obama's article talks about his parents; both parents have an aritcle. JFK's article talks about his parents; both parents have an aritcle. Pelosi's article talks about her parents; her father has his own article. John Bolton's article talks about his parents. George Bush Sr.'s article talks about his parents; his father has his own article. Leon Panetta, a former Chief of Staff with an article of similar (but shorter) length, has an article that talks about his parents. James Baker, a former Chief of Staff with an article of similar (but shorter) length, has an article that talks about his father. John H. Sununu, a former Chief of Staff with an article of similar (but shorter) length, has an article that talks about his father. Howard Baker, a former Chief of Staff with an article of similar (but shorter) length, has an article that talks about his father. Dick Cheney, the 7th WH CoS, has an article, which of course, mentions his parents. The same can be said of Donald Rumsfeld's article. Alexander Meigs Haig, Jr.'s article has an entire section dedicated to his family. H. R. Haldeman, a former Chief of Staff with an article of similar (but shorter) length, has an article that talks about his parents.

You say, "That Rahm's father was in the Irgun is notable", but you do not allow it to remain in the article, and you voted to have Benjamin Emanuel's article removed: 15:52, 19 January 2007 Avraham (Talk | contribs) deleted "Benjamin M. Emanuel" ‎ (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel). It is indeed notable, but you obviously do not want it to be noted.

The issue is dead. Material pertaining to Rahm Emanuel's father stays. TPaineTX (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You initially lost me when you started making Hitler comparisons, but you did make a good point further down. We should compare him to all other White Hose Chief of Staffs in Category:White House Chiefs of Staff. I did not go through all of them but those that I saw did not go beyond the father's profession, which is already more then this article - which mentions not only his profession but also his extra-curricular activities. The two COS's that you mention in support of your argument clearly work against you. In the James Baker article, who is far more notable than Emaneuel, it says that his father was a lawyer. That's it. In the John H. Sununu article, it states his father's profession and where he was from. Also more than this article. In Alexander Haig, a 4-star general and far more notable than Emanuel, there is nothing on his father. The one article that I did find which mentions more that just his father's profession was H. R. Haldeman, in which it says that his father donated money to the Republican party. If this one article out of around 30 is your basis for the inclusion of a discussion of his father's activities, it is pretty weak. Firstly, there is no wikilink that would resolve this addition like [Irgun]]. Secondly, its not a POV. In summation, the general scheme of COS's is not to include background information on the person's father, which makes the desperation of some editors to include POV edits in this article all the more perplexing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You say that James Baker and Alexander Haig are more notable than Emanuel, but the length of their articles does not reflect that. Perhaps because wikipedia was not around back when they were WHCOS, but regardless of the reason, a longer article implies more detail, and when it comes to WHCOS, Rahm's article is surpased only by Dick Cheney's and Donald Rumsfeld's, for reasons that need not be explained. Due to its length, Rahm's article cannot be compared to the majority of articles about former WHCOS, so the "one out of thirty" argument is not logical because compared to many articles on former WHCOS's, Rahm's article is about five to twenty times as long.

It seems to me that you are agreeing that it should be mention in Rahm's article that his father was in Irgun, so the issue is now whether Benjamin's controversial statements should be mentioned. There are three basic solutions when it comes to that material: 1) not mention it, 2) mention it in an article on Benjamin, and 3) mention it in Rahm's article.

Solution #1, I feel, is not appropriate because Rahm Emanuel himself apologized for his father's comments, so the solution should almost definitely be either #2 or #3.

The only comparison that comes to my mind, when a father of a more-notable son made a statement that was deemed to be controversial, is that of Mel & Hutton Gibson. In that case, Hutton's statements do not appear in Mel's article, but Hutton has his own article, and his statements (in this case, probably due to the fact that his controversial stances cannot be summed up in a concise, direct quote, a description of his controversial position with links to transcripts is sometimes substituted) are listed there. If we are to use that as a benchmark, then an article on Benjamin should be created, and it should feature his controversial statement, and I would assume that nobody would have a problem with Rahm's follow-up apology appearing after the mention of the statement. TPaineTX (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. The article does say that he was in the Irgun and it does mention his father's controversial comments. I have never removed any of these two. My (and most of the others here at this talk page) problem is only with the tangential descriptions of what the Irgun was all about, what it stood for, what kind of actions they initiated, and what other people considered them. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

While the article does currently say that Benjamin was in Irgun, there is no question as to whether or not that material has been repeatedly removed. Due to the volume of edits in the past week, it is hard to keep track of who has been making what edits, so nobody should be expected to know who has done what. If you have made those edits in the past, I am glad that you are now of the opinion that the issue should not be whether or not Benjamin's membership should be mentioned, but instead how Irgun should be described.

I believe both Carol and I are of the opinion that "militant Zionist organization" would be sufficient, so long as Irgun's involvement in the King David Hotel bombing is not removed from the Irgun article, and I suspect that nobody here would object to Irgun being called "militant" -- only to whether or not it should be described at all and whether or not it should be described as "terrorist".

I see no problem with the brief "militant, Zionist organization" description, and I'm sure Carol would agree, as would, apparently, Ha'aretz and BBC. If you have any objection to a brief description, please let us know why.

In regards to "terrorist", I think both Carol and I do not care to go that far (even though Ha'aretz and BBC did), so long as the Irgun article is not vandalized.TPaineTX (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever a time that the article did not say that he was in the Irgun. Indeed, the term "Zionest militant organization" is what I was arguing for and continue to argue for. I am happy to see that we are now on the same page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The only issue left, then, assuming that Avi, Carol, and possibly Wingspeed agree with us (on the issues of 1) Benjamin's membership in Irgun should be mentioned, and 2) Irgun being described as a "militant Zionist organization"), is where Benjamin's controversial statements should appear.

I believe my benchmark of Mel & Hutton Gibson should be used, but if you have any objections to that, please let us know. TPaineTX (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Avi will agree. Carol, I don't know. It seems like every day she comes up with a new reason for including terrorism into the article. Regarding his father's controversial comments, I think the current scheme is best. The articel mentions "Irgun militant Zionist organization" at the beginning, at the personal life section, and then his father's comments at the later COS section. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

TPaine, you seem to have a misunderstanding about how wikipedia works. As a wikipedia sysop, one of my responsibilities is to guage the consensus on articles for deletion and implement it. I implemented the consensus as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel. Actually, were I to have posited an opinion, it would have been more proper to let someone else close the discussion. But I see that you are a relative newcomer to wikipedia, only a few months in (October 17, 2008), so I can understand how you could have made that mistake. It's not a big deal. However, that does not mean that your argument has more merit. Rahm's article should discuss his father, but at what level of detail? Saying that his father was a member of the Irgun, in my opinion, is sufficent. We already have an article on the Irgun itself should someone want more information. Lastly, statements such as "The issue is dead. Material pertaining to Rahm Emanuel's father stays." can be construed as a statement that you are going to ignore consensus and wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Let me remind you to review WP:CONSENSUS as well as WP:CIVIL, both of which are as strong polices as are WP:V and WP:NPOV. I look forward to continuing a polite and substantive discussion with you, on article content and merits. -- Avi (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Point conceded regarding my misunderstanding of the deletion of Benjamin's article, but the argument that I was making there (outside of your perceived involvement in the removal of the material) is that you said it was notable, and yet has been removed dozens of times, still stands. This is further cemented by :

• the fact that the fathers of former WHCOS' were mentioned, as well as their occupations, despite the fact that they had far less controversial and politically significant occupations. One of them, for example, was air-conditioning salesman; another, restaurant owner.

• the fact that Ha'aretz and BBC found his father's occupation worthy of mention. (To be accurate, both Ha'aretz and BBC mentioned Irgun's former status as a terrorist organization, but I am not too concerned with that appearing in Rahm's article.)

TPaineTX (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

For reasons repeatedly stated above, a mere passing int link to the Irgun article is insufficient. One editor (reasonably representative, I suggest, of many readers out there) says that, "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 it up. I would not have picked up on that had I not read the article."

Is it not better to err on the side of caution, i.e. on the side of information, rather than censorship?

Wikipedia is not, or should not be, in the business of hagiography or propaganda. Attempting to make any edit to this article is like walking on eggshells. In my, admittedly limited, experience of editing WP it is quite unprecedented. And I speak as someone with decades of professional experience editing newspapers, magazines, and in radio & television, including eight years at the BBC. As you may be aware, UK libel laws are hugely more restrictive than those in the US, which are themselves limited by an exemplary written constitution, which Britain lacks. Yet restrictions on this article, applied in draconian fashion by one editor in particular who rides roughshod each day over a stream of perfectly reputable sources, way exceed anything likely in Britain. What on earth is his motive? He appears to consider it his right to summarily expunge well-sourced edits by others on a constant basis. And he constantly cites WP guidelines to justify his behaviour. Rejecting the New York Times as an acceptable source, he insists it to be "a self-proclaimed liberal leaning newspaper." Woe betide anyone who disagrees with him. I feel bullied and threatened. I have never in all my writing career encountered anything like it.

In an effort to transcend the constant to-ing & fro-ing over contentious modifiers such as "terrorist," "militant" etc I earlier proposed what seemed to me an admirable compromise: no modifier at all, but a simple int link to the King David Hotel bombing article without comment. This was summarily expunged and accompanied by a bizarre string of irrelevancies rather than logic, which seemed to me some species of vandalism. I restrained myself from responding at the time, and only mention it now as an example of the lengths to which the editor in question appears to be prepared to go.

Mr Emanuel is a grown man more than capable of defending himself, and with huge resources, financial & otherwise, with which to do it. Does he need WP bouncers to sanitize his public image way beyond what UK libel laws, for example, would ever conceivably require? There is no question here of libel. It is a matter, I suggest, of censorship. A friend drew my attention earlier today to the following piece earlier this year in the Boston Globe. I urge all editors with an interest in this article to read its cautionary tale: [4] Let's cease making this article seem like a war zone - or an extension of one - and treat each other with greater respect. I for one would be very grateful. Wingspeed (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This editor that you complain about, I think he deserves a kick in the derriere ;-). Regarding your content points, it's not that we are censoring anything here. Wikipedia has to have some sort of management scheme. We cannot have every sourced data piled into every article that it has any relation to. If everything sourced is added to every Wikipedia article this encyclopedia will look like a joke. If we add into this article that "some people consider the Irgun to be terrorists" (clearly true) we must in the name of WP:NPOV add that some people do not consider them terrorists (clearly true). It will not stop there. We will have to add third opinions and redacted opinions and modified opinions. The article will be huge mess, if not violative of WP:UNDUE. Of course there must be a full analysis of Irgun's activities. But all the analysis must take place at the Irgun page. Indeed, this person that you quote at the beginning of your comment exemplified how we want people to use Wikipedia. S/he was curious about the Irgun, he clicked on the link and was informed. Imagine if there was a description of Irgun at this article as a terrorist group. This person might not click on the wikilink, thinking that he knows everything there is to know about them. He might not ever know that not everyone considered them to be terrorists. You wouldn't want that to happen, would you?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I find your response somewhat facetious and, if I may say, disingenuous. Would be good if you could address specific points. I would also be grateful if you could refrain from repeated use (as above) of the collective "we", as though you speak on behalf of Wikipedia, handing down policy to us lesser mortals. Any possibility that you might reform your ways? I would be grateful for a little more toleration of reputable sources which happen to fail to find your favour. I don't wish to get into any unpleasantness; I feel I've experienced enough of that already. I consider what happens on this page, as I'm sure do you, more than just "yada, yada". Wingspeed (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Can is get any more ironic? You summarized your comment/criticism-of-my-editing-habits with the summary " A plea for civilized treatment". I respond in a self-denigrating manner and the proceed in a most civil fashion to address your substantive issues. Yet you respond with nothing but attacks. Huh? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to take a day off, but since people have been talking about me :-)

In first mention Irgun I definitely want to see militant Zionist and don't care as much about terrorist (except to stop drive by editors from adding it in 3 times a day!!!) or King David Hotel.

I DO strongly care that there be a sentence or two mentioning that many WP:RS publications find it controversial that Benjamin belonged to Irgun, which many describe as a terrorist group that made attacks on Arabs and Brits, including the King David bombing, and that they find some relationship between this and Emanuel being COS. And I will proceed through all channels on that one.

As for comparisons, while them may be interesting, the bottom line is WP:notability, i.e., lots of WP:RS references. (A few days ago thinking about other father-son relationships looked up Mel-Hutton Gibson articles and saw all sorts of unsourced, including libelous info, and have put up tags and edit summaries saying there are just a couple days to source or material goes. So Mel and Hutton's articles will be improved through the auspices of Rahm Emanuel :-) Carol Moore 15:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Arbitrary section break

(<-)My opinion, which is always open to being changed if I can be convinced by well-formed and compelling arguments, is as follows:

1. Mention should be made of Benjamin Emanuel's membership in Irgun.
2. I am ambivalent if a separate article needs to be constructed on Benjamin. Now, in 2008, he is in the news more than he was in 2007, I believe, but that still may only be on his son's coattails.
3. The Irgun should be described as a "militant" organization. Cf. with the lead of the Palestine Liberation Organization which is equally, if not more accurately, described with the "terrorist" appellation, and is current, as opposed to 60 years defunct.
4. I am not convinced by Wingspan's arguments, which seem to be able to be crystallized as such:
   1. Editors would not "pick up" the information without it present in the article.
      • In that case, EVERY wikilink in EVERY article needs to be expanded, so should we just have one massive article with everything? Of course not. It is wikipedia's goal to be a functioning encyclopedia. This is more than amply fulfilled by wikilinking, and it prevents the NPOV policy violation of WP:UNDUE.
   2. Err on the side of caution and not censorship.
      • The response to this is that it remains an WP:UNDUE violation, and that there is no censorship if one merely clicks on the Irgun link.
   3. "Wikipedia is not, or should not be, in the business of hagiography or propaganda."
      • Exactly my point. There is no need for excess information about things that happened over a decade before Rahm was born. That information exists, and is easy to find, in its proper place.
   4. "Mr Emanuel is a grown man more than capable of defending himself, and with huge resources, financial & otherwise, with which to do it."
      • Completely irrelevant. We are not, should not be, and cannot be beholden to any individual. Our interests here must be guided solely by wikipedia policy and guideline, and not depend on whether the article's subject is a multi-millionaire or a pauper. We need to treat everyone's articles with the same standards and guidelines, and I have not seen a single compelling or justifiable argument that explains why a link to Irgun (and, perhaps, the one phrase explanation of "militant Zionist organization") is called for. Now, if Rahm was a participant in the Acre Prison break, for example, then I could justify a more detailed explanation of the Irgun activities with which he was involved in this article. But that is not the case here.

-- Avi (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is going to depart slightly from my agreement with brewcrewer, but for some middle ground, how about "controversial militant Zionist organization"? That seems pretty reasonable to me. TPaineTX (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, while I do not think it necessary (as explained above), having the following sentence as the sum total of the Irgun mentioning: "Emanuel's father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, a Jerusalem-born pediatrician, was a member of the Irgun, a controversial militant Zionist organization." would be an acceptable, and accurate, compromise in my opinion as well. -- Avi (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "controversial" makes too much sense. These types of groups are never described as "controversial". Not everything that people disagree about should be given the adjective controversial. Its also redundant, "Militant" and "Zionest" on their own are automatically controversial. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" would not be alluding to the fact that they were militant, Zionist, or both, and I would disagree that being militant and Zionist would automatically make a group "controversial", so long as the group did not commit any unprovoked, asymmetrical warfare. "Controversial", here, would instead be concisely alluding to the fact that they were declared a terrorist organization by the British government and were involved in the KDH bombing. TPaineTX (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for "controversy" is very low. You don't have to be considered a terrorist organization to be considered controversial. See exact definition. Anything in which there is a strong disagreement can be considered controversial. It is always controversial to be militant and always controversial to be Zionist. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Brewcrewer and I can agree on this one point at least: "controversial" is not the appropriate word for a group blowing up a hotel or, for that matter, a World Trade Center. The very suggestion calls seriously into question the judgment of the editor who suggested it.

"We are not, should not be, and cannot be beholden to any individual." Quite. So, in the absence of any better explanation, why does it seem like that? You fail to address my main point: censorship. And the repeated trashing of multiple reputable independent sources.

I propose for the third time the compromise that I personally would find perfectly acceptable, requiring use of no adjective - terrorist, militant, controversial (!) or otherwise. A simple int link in passing to the King David Hotel bombing article, and let readers draw what conclusions they may. "There is no need for excess information about things that happened over a decade before Rahm was born. That information exists, and is easy to find, in its proper place." That is what you say. Other editors disagree. One internal link - an excess of information? Who is trying to hide what? Who is trying to protect whom? And for what possible motive? In order not to waste storage capacity? Why does one internal link appear to cause - please forgive the phrase - such terror? Utterly bizarre. Wingspeed (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wingspeed: Please, if you're gonna make requests for civilized treatment you should at least set an example by not attacking other editors and questioning their judgment. Regarding your substantive comments, your proposal that there just be a link to the King David Hotel bombing is not that great of an idea. Its non-descriptive and misleading. Groups should not be defined by one act. It's like saying "Hamas, which runs charity organizations". It's also misleading in that readers can get the impression that Benjamin was involved in the bombing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Thank you for drawing this to my attention. I conflated the comment of the editor making the suggestion (TPAINETX) with the editor supporting him (Avraham). It is the judgment of the latter, by supporting the former, which is in my view seriously calling itself into question by so doing. To put it thus is not to depart from civilized behaviour. It is possible to be misguided and still have the best of intentions. We are all of us doing our best, the best we know how. That's, for me, a fundamental tenet in accordance with which I proceed at all times. Your other point I'll return to later, if I may. Must rush out now. I'm late already. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Hi, Wingspeed, I hope you made your appointment . Once again, I refer you to WP:UNDUE. Just because it is one extra wikilink does not mean we can ignore policy. Why then should we not add one other wikilink to the 1929 Hebron massacre, an integral event to the founding of the Irgun. And then we should add one wikilink to the destruction of the second temple, which started the most recent Jewish diaspora, without which there would be no need for the Irgun. And then we should add just one wikilink to the Exodus from Egypt, without which there would be no nation of Israel to begin with. In a nutshell, making an exception for one wikilink against policy would result in a reductio ad absurdum that would require every article having the text of every other article. The King David hotel bombing is not necessary in this article, and would be a WP:NPOV violation of undue weight. Were not you the one who said we should be interested in neither hagiography nor propoganda? In this case, the bringing in of the KDH bombing seems to be highly propogandic and does not add to the article on Rahm Emanuel, outside of perhaps some use of the association fallacy, which should be avoided. -- Avi (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

New Proposal: Mention Irgun attacks against british, but also give Irgun's side of the story

With the exception of brewcrewer, everyone agrees that Irgun should at least be described as a "controversial militant Zionist organization", which is a description that is, without question, objectively true (e.g. it was and is clearly controversial, it was militant, it carried out attacks against noncombatants, it carried out unprovoked attacks, etc.), but also mildly subjective, as a strong pro-Israeli-independence perspective may cause some to view the negative connotation associated with such a description to be unwarranted due to the fact that they view Irgun's activities to be actions taken to further establish Israeli self-determination.

Wingspeed brings up a good point that we could opt for a purely objective approach, merely mentioning the KDH bombing and letting the reader form their own subjective opinion. I have little doubt, though, that brewcrewer would object to any mention of the KDH bombing without a pro-Israeli perspective being also mentioned.

So how about this proposal?: "a controversial Zionist organization which carried out attacks against British soldiers and politicians in response to British policies that Irgun felt undermined Israel's self-determination and safety." It concisely summarizes Irgun's controversial/terrorist actions, but also gives Irgun's perceived justification for its actions.

If this suggestion is rejected, we can go back to the earlier discussion. TPaineTX (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is an even grosser violation of WP:UNDUE than what we are discussing above. All of that information belongs in Irgun, not elsewhere, and especially not in articles about people who were not born for at least a decade until after those events, in my opinion. Also, forgive my hubris, but I put this as a subsection under the above discussion. Please feel free to revert that if you feel it should be its own. -- Avi (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been been making rather cavalier appeals to NPOV on this topic, and yet, less than a month ago, you had this to say on carol's talk page about the abuse of WP policy by editors in order to control content:

::Yes, but please remember that BLP does not mean that properly -sourced negative statements can be removed. From my perusal of the history and the argumnets, the back-and-forth is more of a content dispute than a BLP issue, especially when referencing Atzmon's own writing in Atzmon's article. If I may suggest, please review the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies, remembering that imporper whitewashing is a violation of WP:NPOV as well. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)'

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=next&oldid=247688579

All of this appeal to WP:UNDUE does not erase the fact that Ha'aretz, the oldest daily newspaper in Israel, and the BBC found Irgun's terrorist organization status important enough to mention, which is something you should perhaps keep in mind when calling into question its pertinence.

TPaineTX (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

TPaineTX, you are confusing two separate issues here. There is no BLP violation involved here, and no one is denying that the statements are improperly sourced. The issue is one of WP:UNDUE, which also falls under the rubric of WP:NPOV, but is not WP:BLP. Thus, I am not certain why you bring in my prior discussions with Carol. That discussion was talking about Gilad Atzmon and his political views. Those are unquestionanly not WP:UNDUE on Atzmon's own page. Here, this is neither the page on the Irgun nor the page on Benjamin Emanuel, but the page on Rahm Emanuel. Do you see the difference? Are you truly confused about the difference between the NPOV issue of UNDUE and the NPOV issue of BLP? In that case, drop me an e-mail and I'll be glad to try and explain it to you. However, for the purposes of completeness, let me reiterate the salient point here. Notwithstanding the complete and total reliability and verifiability of the fact that the Irgun committed the King David Hotel bombing and the Acre prison break, those events are not appropriate in an article on Rahm Emanuel, any more than the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed massacre are. That is an issue of proper placement, which is an issue covered by WP:UNDUE and not one of reliable and verifiable sourcing of information regarding living people, which is a WP:BLP issue. Again, now do you see why the discussion I had with Carol is completely irrelevant to the discussion here? If I am not clear enough, by all means, please let me know and I will attempt to be clearer. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My assertion was not that there is no difference between BLP and UNDUE, but rather that you are, to some extent, using WP policies in order to control the content of the article. It is not as flagrant as brewcrewer's bias or even completely unreasonable, but it is still very peculiar.

BBC's profile on Rahm Emanuel, which is about half as long as this wikipedia article, found it appropriate to mention Irgun's terrorist organization status.

A google news search on the matter shows 179 results. When you include the word "terrorist", the search the search provides 69 results; when you include "king david" in the place of "terrorist", 37 results are given; when you include "bombing", 34 results are given; but when you do a search search including "militant" instead of "terrorist", it produces only 14 results. If you use a web search instead, the base search produces 52,700 results, while the addition of "terrorist" produces 35,200 results.

The problem that exists here is that you are demanding that Irgun be described in, essentially, five words or less, when any description accurately describing the organization, including their justification for their actions, would require about 25 words. In the opinion of any reasonable, unbiased person, such a description would not be off the table, especially considering the fact that Benjamin is, judging from his statements, a racist. Personally, I am fine with "controversial militant Zionist organization", so long as the Irgun article is not whitewashed, but if the reasonable requests of Wingspeed and Carol are to be met, then it seems Irgun's perceived justification should also be mentioned, and I do not view 25 words as being inappropriate in order to accomplish that. TPaineTX (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your consensus determinations. Your opening salvo "with the exception of Brewcrewer" is false. Winsgspeed and I have both strenuously disagreed with the proposal that you got Avi, and only Avi, to agree with so far. And this is even before we take into consideration the numbers of editors above that agree to the current status. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My statement was that it should be described as such "at the very least", implying that they would disagree with any milder description. Wingspeed finds it unacceptable on the grounds that he believes it to be too mild, and Carol would possibly agree with him on that stance. Surely, however, both of them would agree that there is ample justification for "at least" calling Irgun a "controversial militant Zionist organization" -- a description which uses only objectively true adjectives. TPaineTX (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out that I would prefer to have nothing more than "Irgun", and I believe that to be more in line with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, but that I can accept the compromise of "controversial militant", which I do not believe would be considered an outright violation. -- Avi (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It would not be just "controversial militant", it would be "the Irgun, a controversial militant Zionist organization." This adjective orgy would certainly look a bit silly to everyone except long-time Wikipedia editors who would understand right away that it was the result of a talk page gone wild :-)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

militantZionist enough to identify for the 95% of people who will NOT go to the article and who do not need to read the whole history of Israel. Unless you put it in the section on his name makes NO SENSE and wp:undue and needs to be deleted for irrelevance. Now a description of Irgun's goals might be relevant, if accurate - though of course what that goal was can be debate: to create a state where Jews were a bare majority over Arabs in the territory; to do that and then drive out half the Arabs; to create a greater Israel? Obviously more info than relevant to the fact that in context of Emanual appointment many publications called the Irgun terrorists, without going into their motivations beyond creating a state called Israel. Again, I see this all as a way of keeping a very small amount of WP:RS necessary info out of this article. Carol Moore 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

(<-)Hello, Carol. As you say "militantZionist enough to identify for the 95% of people who will NOT go to the article and who do not need to read the whole history of Israel." Any description of the Orgun's goals belong IN the Irgun articles and in articles on Irgun policymakers. I still maintain that it does not belong in articles on descendants of Irgun members, regardless of how well sourced, as we are discussing the WP:UNDUE aspect of WP:NPOV here, not WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:BLP. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is just absurd beyond belief to try to sanitize this article of fact that many WP:RS say that his belonging to a terrorist group is WP:UNDUE. Now maybe a truly neutral person would say none of those facts need to be mentioned til the appointments section, but that certainly would leave confusion as other material in the personal section. So your comment helped clarify that. Carol Moore 18:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it any more beyond belief that leaving the Irgun link in (and let it be known that I would be against that being removed) is any more sanitization that having the King David Hotel bombing link is propgandized smearing? I am still unsure where any confusion sets in, as EVERYTHING is easily found by clicking on Irgun. -- Avi (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus determination

Since this same back and forth has continued for a few days already and there does not seem to headway either way I think it's time to take stock of the consensus as it currently stands. From what I am picking up using this whole talkpage User:LamaLoLeshLa, User:MPerel, User:Hiddekel, User:Tvoz, User:Warren, User:MarkBernstein[see below], User:Jpgordon and I have no problem with the current status[did not realize it was removed earlier] "militant Zionist organization". User:Nbahn and User:Avraham would prefer that it only say "Irgun" but Avraham would agree to "controversial militant Zionist organization". User:Carolmooredc no longer cares about how Irgun is characterized in the Personal life section but wants mention of its characterization by the British as terrorists in the context of the controversy surrounding Emanuel's position as COS. User:Wingspeed wants "Irgun, which was responsible for the King David Hotel bombin". User:TPaineTX currently has a new proposal in which both sides of the Irgun's characterization be represented in this article. Plase correct me if you think I am misconstruing or not mentioning anyone's opinion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my clarification of my position below. Tvoz/talk 07:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment of my opinion is accurate, Brewer. Of course, a maiore ad minus I would agree with, and prefer "militant Zionist" to "controversial militant Zionist", as I think both adjectival phrases are unnecessary with the wikilink. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I have been silent so far, I will jump in here for the 'militant Zionist organization' wording. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer not to characterize Irgun here at all, but to link to the Irgun article instead. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My position remains: 1) That an in-depth discussion of Irgun anywhere in the article would represent undue weight and 2) That WP:TERRORIST protocols should be applied here. I've seen no convincing arguments based on actual stylistic guidelines or Wikipedia policy to alter these positions--merely appeals to social conscience or the need to present The Truth to the masses. Since Wikipedia is not a soapbox, I find these arguments unconvincing, my personal feelings on the subject at hand aside. --Hiddekel (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody ought to care what people who haven't been involved in the discussion think. How do we know you read the discussion? We don't, so your opinion is meaningless. You can pinkyswear you read the discussion and are unbiased, but everybody knows that tons of lying goes on here at WP. Bottom line is that both the BBC and Ha'aretz reported that Irgun was a terrorist organization when discussing Emanuel's appointment. It's pretty clear what's going on here. And it's fine. You guys want to be deceitful, go right ahead. If that's your gig, that's your gig. It's not mine, and frankly, I have lost any sliver of doubt that I had about whether or not I should respect wikipedia. This place might as well be the Washington Post. TPaineTX (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

TPaineTX, the above comments go directly against WP:AGF. Just because someone has not been vocal until now does not mean that they were not following the discussion. In that case, should I ignore everything you say, because you are only on wikipedia for a few months and have a handful of edits while I have been here for years and have tens of thousands of edits? Ridiculous! Furthermore, I would respectfully suggest that you consider your comments, and then apply them in reverse to the edits made by the following block of editors wikiwide: Carol Moore, Khoikhoi, Nishdani, Tiamut, G-dett, Eleland, Palestineremembered, etc. The same could be said for them, if one was willing to see conspiracy theorists around every corner. In the list I just gave, there are editors that I respect and editors whom I believe may be more interested in furthering a platform than building an encyclopedia. My personal feelings are irrelevant unless it can be shown that an editor has violated a principle or guideline. The truth is more like that like-minded editors tend to congregate around the same articles that interest them. We are all subject to our upbringings and our ideals, and the difficult part here in wikipedia is to simultaneously hold to the wikipedia policies while dealing with our own inherent humanity. I am sorry if you feel too frustrated to have to deal with the fact that dealing with emotionally-charged articles on a world-wide project is bound to bring strong feelings of defensiveness, but part of building a consensus is engaging fellow editors with different opinions in dialogue, crafting logically sound and compelling arguments, and adhering to policies and guidelines that protect this project from devolving into a sophomoric sandbox fight. Remember, wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a vehicle for disseminating "the truth". It is a collaborative project to build as best an encyclopedia s possible. Also, please remember that assuming good faith without evidence to the contrary, civility, and care against attacking other editors are just as core polices here as are the ones on verifiability and neutral point of view. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your response caused an edit conflict. I was going to remove my comment because although I've never seen Hiddekel in our discussions, I checked his contribs page, and he did participate here about a week ago, so while I still feel this article has been slightly censored (I will give credit for allowing the Irgun link to exist, which was being deleted repeatedly a week ago), I have jumped the gun on Hiddekel and have striked my response to him. If you want to remove this comment, yours, and my original comment, then I'll leave that up to you, but for now I will just do a strikethrough. TPaineTX (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, TPaine. My edits have been struck through as well. -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I did not mean to strike yours when I editing mine. That time, it really was all my fault for screwing up the page. :) TPaineTX (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Pesky little <s> hanging off the end of your edit -- Avi (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also favour it being simply "Irgun", but "militant Zionist organization" is acceptable. Warren -talk- 15:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinion was mischaracterized. I DO care that militant Zionist be in the first mention; terrorism/King David in that first mention, I'll go with the flow. I think others are so focused ONLY on the first mention that any determination of what to do about second should be settled only after the first is. However, I also would make a more euphemistic analysis to that made by TPaineTx and remind people about Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles which intends to much more quickly and effectively deal with dispute resolution on these issues. Carol Moore 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to think mentioning that this organization was considered terrorist is reasonable. But upon reflection, this article is about Rahm, not his father nor is it about a terrorist organization. Involvment in Irgun, with characterization as militant zionist or controversial militant zionist is good. Unlike Hamas or Nazis or the Communist party, in the USA, the Irgun is not as well known as the rest of the world - so some characterization is reasonable. I don't wan't this article to be about the irgun too much though...it just seems like a way to characterize Rahm in an anti-semitic way. Lets just call it 'millitant zionist' organization. That could be agreed upon by all I think. Carol...no need to push too much info on Irgun - people can just read the link. Fermat1999 (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the first use. The second use, as you will see below, is merely reflecting that sources say a) Irgun was terrorist and b) Irgun bombed King David Hotel and this is relevant to his being Chief of Staff - and I'm not even trying to get in the various reasons it is relevant which would be another charge of WP:UNDUE. Carol Moore 02:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

← To clarify, I am opposed to any characterization - that is what the wikilink is for. As I have stated elsewhere on this page in reference to Hamas vis a vis Cat Stevens: my strong preference is to leave off "militant Zionist" and just say Irgun, with wikilink, as it is at present. We should not be characterizing the organization here - the Irgun article is the place for that. I had the identical position on Cat Stevens where Hamas was mentioned, when some folks wanted to refer to it as terrorist. Neutrality prevailed there, as it should here - we used just the wikilinked Hamas. Again, I certainly have my opinion about the relative terrorism-quotients of Hamas and Irgun, but I think, and have taken the position, that neither one should be characterized in articles that essentially have nothing to do with the organizations. The wikilink gets readers to the places where there is room to more fully explore the subtleties and different opinions on the matter. This is not the place. And I once again remind Carol that this article is a biography of Rahm Emanuel's life and career - not just about his latest job or some people's reaction to it. This is not the place. Discuss it at the article about the presidential transition if you want to, but I wouldn't hold my breath that they will find this tangential matter any more relevant there than it is here. Give it up already - your strong personal beliefs have clouded your ability to neutrally edit this article, I'm afraid. Or would you be going over to Cat Stevens and inserting "terrorist" in its mention of his alleged support of Hamas? I'll oppose it again there as well. Tvoz/talk 07:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the Times ref?

Anyone know what happened to this Times ref which suddenly went blank. It sources lots of valuable information. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was pulled because of NYT:UNDUE. :)

Or maybe censorship. Which is why important facts should have more than one source. TPaineTX (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good one :-) But it looks Avi fixed it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the ref, and combined all the other places referencing it into one entry. -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

TPaine, please do not unilaterally switch out citation links, especially when the link in question is the anchor link for the cite.php calls. By doing so you ruin every other time it is mentioned in the article. Please, until such time as you have more experience and can correct one link in an anchored change, ask on the talk page, and it can be done without ruining the others. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your buddy unilaterally deletes links, so don't order me around about moving the citation to a different article. I did not delete its presence in the article -- I only added a new one -- and the edit that I made did not ruin the link. I moved all of the url, title, etc. information from one place to another... or at least that is what I attempted to, and I do think I did so successfully.

Now, where in this NYT article does it mention Irgun by name? I see nothing. Only "passed secret codes for Begin's underground". If that is all that is in the NYT article, it is not a good citation for his membership in Irgun, so you should find something else or deal with BBC. TPaineTX (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem now. I did indeed transplant the url & title information to another one of the instances of the link, but you undid that, and I was not aware of your undoing of the transplantation, so I was not aware that I needed to do it again when I edited the article a second time. TPaineTX (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, in that case, sorry. I happen to spend a lot of my wiki time fixing links, so I guess it is a sore spot for me. Thanks for clearing that up. -- Avi (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

TPaine, please take the time to read the NYT article, as opposed to using a character search. You miss things like this:

• All are the sons of an Israeli father, now a 70-year-old Chicago pediatrician, who passed secret codes for Menachem Begin's underground. Iregun, and an American Jewish mother, who worked in the civil rights movement and owned, briefly, a Chicago rock-and-roll club.

  — Elisabeth Bumiller, NYT June 15, 1997

-- Avi (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the sentences say. The grammar is messed up, and that's not the typical transliteration of Irgun. When it comes to Benjamin's membership in Irgun, the source is very shoddy. If you do not like the BBC link, then we can replace it with one of the two Ha'aretz artciles, but that paragraph is rubbish. TPaineTX (talk)

The Times is actually better then the BBC cuz it goes into detail. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the NYT article is that the paragraph in question is not in English. It appears to me that they put a kindergartner in charge of the punctuation and spelling there. TPaineTX (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(<-)That may be your opinion, TPaine, but in that case, someone could go around and remove every reference to Al Jazeera for similar reasons. You may not like Ms. Bumiller's writing style, but the NYT is a reliable and verifiable source and supports the information in question. Being that the other link is elsewhere in the article, if I recall correctly, why the urgency in changing this one reference? -- Avi (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is a media firm headquartered in the Middle East; the New York Times is an American newspaper. If you think the NYT's English should be of the same quality as al-Jazeera's, I guess you have the right to that opinion, but I think most people are not of that opinion.

In regards to my preference for the BBC or one of the two Ha'aretz articles, they transliterate Irgun correctly and use grammar that does not leave the reader incredibly confused. While the BBC article is on the page, it is not cited as a source for any of the material within the article itself. When it comes to who should be justifying the use of one article over the other, the ball is in your court. The NYT article is in horrendous English, and the link went dead today. There are, however, no problems with the BBC and Ha'aretz articles. As such, I can see no reason whatsoever to use the NYT article unless necessary, but every reason to use the BBC and Ha'aretz links. TPaineTX (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Repeatedly deleted specifics on Rahm Emanuel and terrorism

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.

• Emanuel's father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, a Jerusalem-born pediatrician, was a member of the Irgun, a Zionist group active from 1931 to 1948 during the British Mandate of Palestine. REF: Pfeffer, Anshel and Shlomo Shamir first pick: Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, Haaretz November 6, 2006.

• 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 [5]. 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)

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. If any editors have worked for or are currently working for or hope to work for the state of Israel, Rahm Emanuel, the Obama campaign, transition or administration, or their cohorts, lobbyists, or assigns, please reveal you conflict immediately per WP:COI which recently has been getting tougher about such revelations. If you are an Israeli citizen it might be good to reveal that too.

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

Ballet

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)

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)