Talk:Rahm Emanuel

content removal

I've moved this here because it is unsourced criticism, out of place in "early history", and of dubious relevance:

He volunteered at an Israeli Defense Forces supply base during the Gulf War, which prompted some blogsphere speculation, never substantiated, that he might be a Mossad spy in the White House. In his first Congressional primary campaign which was a nasty battle over a prized Democratic Party safe seat, the president of the Polish American Congress, Ed Moskal — who was supporting Emanuel's main rival — claimed that Emanuel was secretly an Israeli citizen and served in the Israeli army. Both claims were denied by Emanuel. Moskal also called Emanuel a "millionaire carpetbagger who knows nothing" about "our heritage."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) Jun 16, 2006

IDF, Citizenship

Hi, can someone who is familiar with editing Wikipedia please add the information to his Personal section that Rahm holds dual citizenship (both U.S. and Israeli). Also, the section that says he volunteered as a civilian during the Gulf War to fix brakes in Israel could be clearer. Who did he volunteer for (Israel or the U.S.) and was he in a uniform? Did he carry a firearm and if so, was it under the flag of another country? Here is a link to a PDF of the Congressional Record also citing Nightline Transcript June 7, 2001. http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/renshon093005.pdf. I'll be brushing up on Wiki editing so if this doesn't get done I'll do it soon myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward mc (talk • contribs)

He does not hold dual citizenship as per http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=68298. "Emanuel had served a noncombat stint as a volunteer in the Israeli army during the Gulf War, but he never held Israeli citizenship."--Wowaconia 02:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Washington Post", July 7, 1992, Tuesday, Final Edition, Clinton's Lean Green Machine; Finance Director Rahm Emanuel And the Old-Fashioned Squeeze:

He was reared in the heavily Jewish 49th Ward on the North Side of Chicago, the middle son of a renowned pediatrician who grew up in Tel Aviv and was a member of the Israeli underground during the war of independence. Rahm retained dual citizenship until age 18, when he gave up his Israeli passport, but sometimes thinks "ambivalently" about moving permanently to Israel. It is now part of his legend that during the Persian Gulf War in early 1991, when Iraqi scuds were falling on the country where he spent many a childhood summer, he volunteered for 2 1/2 weeks on an army base near the Lebanese border, rust-proofing brakes for military vehicles.

" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.43.54 (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ynet news says he quit working for Clinton to go to Israel for Gulf war. Telegraph says it was after. Still researching to get to facts, fyi. Carol Moore 15:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that service in the armed forces of another state is now (and in 1991 was) forbidden to American citizens without permission obtained in advance from the federal government of the United States. Am I correct? If so, did the subject of this biography obtain that permission? Firstorm (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation 16 c does not mention anything about citizenship. I'm not sure about citation 17 as it is inaccessible to me (no membership). I added a failed verification tag to that section. Published sources seem be giving conflicting reports about whether or not he ever had dual citizenship. Dorje (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

For a child to be considered an Israeli citizen he or she needs to be registered with the state of Israel as a citizen. Neither of these citations suggests Rahm Emmanuel has done this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.3.97.87 (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI there was at one point good sourced info on this but like many other things it was removed by people wo don't want any info on the topic and one would have to go way back in archives around the 5th and 6th to find it again. If nothing shows up soon, and I run across it again, I'll stick it in. Carol Moore 18:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I found the source and stuck it in, hoping it sticks. By the way, note that this Haaretz article currently used as a reference labels Emanuel an Israeli. Pfeffer, Anshel and Shlomo Shamir (November 6, 2006). "Obama's first pick: Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff", Haaretz. Retrieved on November 6, 2008 However it proves no evidence for this headline. Carol Moore 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Once you get Israeli citizenship you can't give it up. So he either never had it, or received it and still has it.

Father active in Irgun?

This comes from Christopher Bollyn, ex AFP writer. Bollyn claims to have gotten the details in an interview with Benjamin Emanuel. Chicago Tribune has him as "working in the underground" not blowing buildings up and shooting civilians. Benjamin denies gun running. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.83.233 (talk • contribs)

The link your provided above is a dead link. The only sources that claim his father was in Irgun now available on the web are from blogs (which are unacceptable sources under wiki-standards). In your post above you state that this is denied by the Emanuel people, without a better source any claims of association to Irgun in his family must be deleted in accord with wiki-standards concerning biographies of living persons. If reliable sources can be found the information can be reposted otherwise it must be speedily deleted in accord with wikipedia's policy on slander.--Wowaconia 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have included the statement "that he was also a member of "the pre-independence Israeli underground". as this was from the Washington Post which is a reliable source but this is a great distance from saying he was in irgun.--Wowaconia 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"The only sources that claim his father was in Irgun now available on the web are from blogs (which are unacceptable sources under wiki-standards)" No, on a hunt for sources I discovered a report from October 2006 predating the tainted Bollyn source.

"..but this is a great distance from saying he was in irgun" Indeed it is, weasel-worded probably. I added to your inclusion stating that his Father was reportedly in the terrorist organization the Irgun, citing that to Leon Hadar.

"In your post above you state that this [Irgun membership] is denied by the Emanuel people" No, I state that Benjamin Emanual denies running guns. In the original recounting of the telephone interview I saw Benjamin Emanuel reportedly described himself to the interviewer as "a simple soldier [in the Irgun]." His denial of gun running is paraphrased: "He told me that he had never met [Menachem] Begin and had not smuggled weapons into Palestine, other news reports notwithstanding."[2]

"The link your provided above is a dead link" No, the ChicagoTribune just changed how their site operated as the error message presented to you on trying to use it indicated. Removing the detail tagged to the end of the URL provides a working link [3].

The Bollyn piece also contains various other details, date of parents marriage, previous surname/origins of father etc. However, I am more than willing to concede (before the cause is made) that this source is problematic. The clear lopsideness of Bollyns reporting is the reason why I originally posted to the talkpage of the article instead of including the detail directly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.229.254 (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

There is another Hadar source making the same statement in a peer reviewed journal which is a reliable source as per wiki, I added that. Hadar works for the Cato institute and several other respected orgainizations so his credentials are good. I dropped all the couching around the information as the responsability of the accuracy of this statement falls on the sources that first published it and as long as wikipedia cites the sources we are fine. I replaced the phrase "terrorist" with "militant" as this might be a POV arguement and a discussion on the nature of Irgun should take place on that page which this segment links to.--Wowaconia 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work on the JSTOR cite, unfortunately its largely useless to those without access to JSTOR- can you quote Hadar from the actual article? Without the relevant passage/sentence included in the article readers (missing the necessary access rights) wont be able to apraise the source. As you say the accuracy of cited statements ..falls on the sources that first published it and as long as wikipedia cites the sources we are fine. Either way it would be nice to read what Hadar wrote.

In terms of phrasing i'm not particularly intested in the editwars that have arisen so far but for what its worth the word "militant" is Weasel-worded. "Miltant" hand out leaflet, protest, rally, campaign. Paramilitaries organize under arms, follow hierarchy of rank, engage in assassination,explosives,armed insurrection/reaction. Misleading the reader for the sake of not embarassing the subject shouldnt be an aim of an encyclopedia article.

On the word Murder|Terrorist:If JSTOR states his involvement explicitly and the word "murderer/terrorist" is applicable to his activities then the word "murderer/terrorist" should be used. The word "murderer" was already removed from the article once.[4] Calling Mr.Emanuel a "murderer" based on the counterpunch article isnt possible. The claims of his involvement in the assasination of Folke Bernadotte originate with Bollyn's telephone interview article and without access to Bollyns recording of the conversation its uncitable reliably.

On the phrase 'militant Israeli group': A combination of wording which was removed from the article previously; "the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization"[5] appears to be an entirely accurate description which strikes a balance between terrorist/freedom fighter polemics. The IZL article itself uses the rather clunky phrase "a clandestine militant Zionist group" which overall seems particularly generous to those who perpetrated the King David Hotel bombing amongst other atrocities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.229.254 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I would like to think that the original wording I suggested ("a radical Zionist paramilitary group") is about as bland and encyclopedic as one could get in describing an outfit like the Irgun (almost to the point of being charitable.) As for describing the Irgun as "terrorist", although this is in many ways an appropriation designation for a group whose tactics were similar to (even arguably more extreme than) the IRA, ETA, PKK, Sendero Luminoso, etc, it's still ulimately subjective and doesn't help to illuminate what the Irgun was really about. I think it suffices to establish reference material for an affiliation that been evaded in many recent mainstream bio pieces (not to mention Rep. Emanuel's own website), leaving gentle encouragement for able and alert Wikipedia readers to explore this intriguing subject matter further. No need to gild the lily here, as it were. Whiskey Pete 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Irgun is NOT and was never recognized as a terrorist orginization - few very libreral new orginizations called it one but that does not make it one. The addition of that sentence is biased and unfactual.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.246.202 (talk • contribs)

You must be living in a fantasy world. Irgun is a terror gang credited with numerous terror attacks against civilians, i.e. The Deyr Yassin massacre which resulted in the murder of 94 people, many women and children. It is worth noting that 25 of the survivors were paraded in West Jerusalem as trophies, who later were brought back to Deir Yassin and murdered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.41.29.43 (talk • contribs)

The Irgun was not considered a "terrorist" group. Whoever writes these statements is extremely anti-Semitic and should not be allowed to write anymore. It should also be changed to say the Irgun is an Israeli Zionist organziation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by :65.91.21.4 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not WP:attack other editors. Repeated attacks can lead to blocking of your IP. Only discuss sources and their reliability. Four sources have been presented for this assertion. Dozens more easily could. (Finding a few more with internet links would help.) Carol Moore 16:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

At the time, the Irgun was considered a terrorist group by the British. Wanted posters for many future Israeli politicians from that era are still available. That is historical fact. Of course post 1948, things changed. Whether they were really terrorists or not is immaterial (much like Hamas) - the governing authorities then though so, much like most western powers think Hamas is today. In my opinion, both groups are more complicated than simply being 'terrorists' - but both have been regarded as such. Anyways, I don't think the Irgun should be discussed in this topic very much - just a brief mention that his father was involved, and that the Irgun was a resistance movement and considered militiant/terroristic at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermat1999 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's going to be a constant revert war on this issue; i've reverted it all I can for today. What dispute resolution process should we follow? Not to mention protecting the page from Anonymous IPs who will be trashing article and talk page for next couple weeks. Carol Moore 18:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz writes: 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. This is to make the point it's important info. Though I think it should be described as a terrorist group, though that does not mean all members carried out terrorist acts. Carol Moore

The haaretz reference keeps getting removed, as does his father being in Irgun. This is notable information. Imagine any politician even having a german grandfather being a Nazi, or a terrorist - it would be notable. The Irgun were not nazis or even close - but were considered a terrorist organization by the British and most American media, including the New York Times and most jewish american groups. His father being an active member is notable. I suspect this will eventually have to go to tribunal. Fermat1999 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by tribunal, i.e. WP:Dispute resolution wise. Would it mean people could revert back the info in question all they wanted? Meanwhile finding better and better sources important. Plus keeping eyes open for any WP:RS opinions and controversies about this. Carol Moore 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is such a farce. I can't believe how four legitimate citations have disappeared since yesterday. I hope all those insane "Party Members" who spend their time on wikipedia trying to edit history by placing critical knowledge into the memory hole (ie, deleting it under some bs argument) have trouble sleeping at night. Revisionist fuckers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.9.155 (talk • contribs)

<----Indent By the way one piece of relevant info that keeps getting removed is: Benjamin passed secret codes for Irgun leader Menachem Begin. REF: Elizabeth Bumiller, The Brothers Emanuel, New York Times, June 15, 1997. Carol Moore 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

The detail is removed because it is not relevant - this is an article about Rahm, not Benjamin. As it is, matters relating to Israel are getting undue weight here. Tvoz/talk 23:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Claim that Emanuel earned $18m in three years in investment banking is unsourced

It’s certainly an extraordinary assertion—that one can earn $18 million by working in a different profession for just three years. The article should cite some supporting evidence. 216.193.37.6 06:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Investment banking is one of the highest paid professions in existence, so this isn't "an extraordinary assertion"; it's also now sourced. Harro5 01:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)'

Now. About time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.191.171 (talk • contribs)

The article is internally inconsistent on this. First it states that "He left the White House to accept a well-paid position at Dresdner Kleinwort investment bank in Chicago, where he worked from 1999 to 2002 and reportedly earned US$18 million." In the next section, it says that "Following the end of the Clinton presidency, Emanuel went into investment banking, reportedly earning $8 million in his three years as managing director of Wasserstein Perella & Co./Dresdner Kleinwort." This should be made consistent by someone who knows more about this than I. I've also seen $10m as the figure: [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzahradka (talk • contribs) 06:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoof video

The Democratic caucus just put out a video promoting Rahm Emanuel for vice president, featuring people li ke Nancy Pelosi and James Carville. I think it's supposed to be funny, but I don't know the guy well enough to fully get the joke. If anybody want to add something, the video can be found here. Lampman (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

President Obama's chief of staff?

Rumors are already running that he may be president elect Obama's chief of staff. AugustinMa (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed by ABC News this morning, President-Elect Obama has offered him the job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.43.205 (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: NBC just retracted it's claim that he accepted the position.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.119.199 (talk • contribs)

Way to go Wikipedia. Publish rumors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.191.171 (talk • contribs)

Huffington Post reporting that MSNBC and AP are reporting that Emanuel accepted the offer. [[7]] --solonmonkey (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Emanuel needs to be confirmed by Congress before he gets the job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktyler6183 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickwolf (talk • contribs) 04:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so there seems to be an edit war brewing, adding and deleting the sentence that said he's been tapped by President-Elect Obama for CoS. Given the number of reputable sources reporting that he's been officially picked by Obama, I think we should consider this worthy information to keep in the article. I have cited three articles that attest that it is not a rumor but fact. Valley2city 06:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

FOX is reporting that he's accepted, as is the the UK Daily Telegraph. I've updated the entry. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 10:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Chief of Staff position(2)

This article needs to be updated. President-elect Obama selected Emanuel as his Chief of Staff today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsWang (talk • contribs) 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh in his program November 5, 2008 expressed his disappointment with Obama's choice of Emanuel as Chief of Staff due to his history of being a "Clinton operative and thug for the liberal left". He opined that this appointment does note bode well for any expectation that Obama will reach across the isle to act in a bipartisan way.Rrsjd (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh had a negative opinion about Obama? Perish the thought! Mind you, I think the NY Post had a fun blurb: H.R. Haldeman, White House chief of staff to President Richard Nixon, famously said, "Every president needs a son of a bitch, and I am Nixon's." And many observers believe Emanuel fits nicely in that slot. Overall, it's a good move - having a tough Chief of Staff means Obama can still play good cop while Rahm takes out the trash. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 10:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois has been offered the White House chief of staff position, and is reported to have informally accepted the offer. Emanuel spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg has contradicted such reports, denying the acceptance as of November 6, 2008.

• -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And now it's official. AP reported it a few minutes ago. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Amy Rule

Under Personal Life, it states that Amy Rule, was non-practicing before converting to Orthodox Judaism. For clarification purposes, what was she non-practicing? There needs to be a reference to what she was not practicing. Factcorrect12 (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

When I first clicked on that article this am I could find no ref to her Judaism at all; then 20 minutes later when I clicked it was a dead link (unless I goofed first time). Anyway I found a much more up to date source and in what it says. I'm sure people will be coming in and fixing up all such sloppiness in the article if he accepts appointment. Carol Moore 14:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

David Robinson link wrong, no link for Bruce Reed...

the first David Robinson wiki link on the Rahm Emaunuel Wikipedia page links to a politician from Australia, not David Robinson of Ohio. This page is semi-protected or I would've updated it myself. Here's the correct David Robinson URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Robinson_(Ohio_politician).

No link to Big Ideas For America co-author and DLC President Bruce Reed's wikipedia page near the top of the Raum Emanuel page (third paragraph from the top when I typed this): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Reed

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darinmarshall (talk • contribs)

Schools

For what it's worth, the junior high school and high school listed are incorrect given his age. Wilmette Junior High School wasn't formed until 1979, when Rahm was 20 years old. He would have attended Locust Junior High School most likely, or else Avoca or Howard. Also, from 1965 until 1981, he would have attended either New Trier West High School or New Trier East High School, there was no single New Trier High School during the 1970s when Rahm was a teenager. If his enrollment at Romona Elementary is correct, then New Trier West is the likely choice, which would fit with the description in the Bumiller/NYT story of their house as being in west Wilmette. However, it's not documented when the family moved to Wilmette from Chicago, and the Bumiller story says it was as Zeke was about to enter high school. This timing suggests that Rahm, two years younger, would have been in Junior High School (grades 6-8) not elementary (K-5). The Henderson/Post story cited only refers to New Trier, and not East or West or any K-8 schools in Wilmette. More documentation is needed. 75.22.201.143 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A Tribune article November 12 2006 and an article November 6 2008 confirm Emmanuel as a 1977 graduate of New Trier West High School. 75.22.201.143 (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

School is not Conservative

The Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School is not affiliated with the "Conservative" Jewish movement as the article suggests. The Anshe Emet Synagogue, with which is shares a building is Conservative, but the school is pluralistic. Students at the Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School are drawn from many forms of Judaism, including secular Jews. I propose making this modest change in the description of the school

Old version:

Amy is “heavily involved with the Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School in the Lakeview neighborhood of Chicago. They have three children, son Zacharias and daughters Ilana and Leah. The children attend "the Conservative Jewish day school, which Emanuel himself attended as a child".

New version:

Amy is “heavily involved with the Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School, which is a pluralistic Jewish Day School that shares a building with the Conservative Anshe Emet Synagogue in the Lakeview neighborhood of Chicago. They have three children, son Zacharias and daughters Ilana and Leah. The children attend "the Jewish day school, which Emanuel himself attended as a child".

Jstoper (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Jon Stoper

I've changed it in a different way than you requested. I've tried to remove a lot of the quotes for readability, which necessitated rewording it. I took the opportunity to remove the Conservative label, but I don't feel comfortable adding in that it's pluralistic without a source, especially since the cited article clearly states that it's Conservative. If you can find a source, please post it here and add another editsemiprotected template above it. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Speculation has been raised regarding the connection of Emanuel's Congressional election success to convicted former Chicago water department boss Don Tomczak.

Is it proper to include speculations in an encyclopedia? If it is, 'boss' should at least be changed to the more neutral 'First Deputy Commisioner' which was the position Donald S. Tomczak held until january 2004 according to the U. S. Department of Justice [8]
--DanniDK (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hiding the truth about the Irgun

Some user on here is trying to protect Rahm Emanuel by hiding the truth about the group that his father was a member of between 1931 to 1948. Rahm Emanuel's father was a member of a Zionist terrorist group known as the Irgun. The Irgun was responsible for many atrocities and crimes against humanity against Arab civilians and British soldiers. There is a lot more information about the Irgun on wikipedia and other websites. Type in "Irgun" in the search bar and read about them. The American people have a right to know all there is to know about the people running this great country. You cannot hide important facts just because they make you look bad.Patriot007 (talk) Patriot007

Enough about Israel

Okay, we get it! He's part of the grand Zionist conspiracy and undoubtedly a puppet of eeeevil Jews. Could this article possibly have made any more references - howsoever trivial - as background? Geez... Of course, any attempt to clean this up will be seen as part of a Grand Zionist Black-Op Coverup. Good grief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.188.184 (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it can't any of it be true, because only Republicans are pro-Israel! 198.169.65.1 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

First it is wp:attack to make slurs about those who add factual info so please stop it - and consider deleting your first comment, oh anonymous IP. Second, obviously Emanuel serving even as a civilian in another govt's military is relevant, whether he stays in congress or even more so becomes chief of staff. If it turned into several paragraphs, then one could claim WP:Undue but that's hardly the case now. Carol Moore 14:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

The consistent push to sterilize this article of any possible political controversy amounts to censorship. People come to Wikipedia to be educated, not indoctrinated. I for one would appreciate if personal political agendas were removed from what should be an academic article. Prereantiposticated (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason I can possibly think of to omit this information or attack those who add it in. It's as relevant as anything else, and in fact, is a prominent feature of Rahm's political background. It should get the attention it deserves. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

:Feel free to opine the same in the below section where it is argued that in second paragraph of Personal life section Irgun should not even be described as a paramilitary group, not to mention that it engaged in attacks on civilian and govt targets. I am willing to give up calling it "terrorist" for this article. This despite words "combatant" and "killed in skirmish with Arabs" are used in previous paragraph. People have constantly re-added this info to the page and complained hereit was deleted and it keeps getting deleted, despite many articles stressing that Irgun "militants" were not just chanting loud in the streets, or other innocuous but militant activity. I'm not sure what other WP:RS has been deleted today. Carol Moore 00:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Hebrew translation of name

Curious why we have a Hebrew translation of his name on this page. He isn't Israeli and this is not normal for US Congressmen articles (even those who are Jewish). Is this some kind of finger pointing about how pro-Israel he is? I vote it be removed. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's interesting enough to warrant mention. I mean, *I* was curious about where the name came from. That being said, I think it should remain as part of the "Miscellaneous" section, near the bottom. It's not significant enough to be at the top of the article. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 12:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a Hebrew name and usually when the name is not common it's acceptable to mention the origin of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.168.143 (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous or personal would seem more appropriate. Go for it. Carol Moore 14:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep his Hebrew name in there. His first and last name ARE both Hebrew names bestowed upon him by his Israeli parents. He also served in the Israel Defence Forces during the first gulf war. I think that merits his Hebrew name, the name he was referred to when he lived in Israel (which, again, happens to be his birth name, entirely a Hebrew name). Valley2city 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Many English names, such as Miriam, Deborah and Maia, are also Hebrew names. My three (American Jewish) nieces all have Hebrew names, but it would be weird for them to write them in Hebrew characters except in a religious setting. I think the Hebrew transcription of his name should only appear in the Hebrew translation of the page. Espertus (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't hugely important but is also not so clearcut. He did serve in the IDF, and his father is Israeli - that makes him pretty close to Israeli. However, I don;t see Hebrew characters attached to many other Israeli American figures' names on English wikipedia. And actually I'll admit that I'm not sure I, as an Israeli, want his conservative views on Israel to be associated with my native language. You know, there's that whole world-jewish-conspiracy thing. He is after all an American and he is going to be Chief of staff in the US, not of Israel.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this source, he did not serve in the IDF, but volunteered for a few weeks as a civilian doing support work. Tvoz/talk 03:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, can somebody tell how his first name 'Rahm' is pronounced? 'Raam' or 'Rachm' or so? --Cspan64 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Raam. Tvoz/talk 03:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Cspan64 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. What is the "standard" for including Hebrew translation for Americans? TIA --Tom 18:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cameo unsourced?

The statement, "made a cameo appearance at the same restaurant as Josh Lyman in the 7th season episode "The Wedding."," is marked with the "citation needed" tag. This seems counter-intuitive. The source is listed in the statement (the 7th season episode of the West Wing, "The Wedding"). Do we need a footnote that says, "the 7th season episode of the West Wing, "The Wedding"," or is this a disagreement about his being in the credits for that episode? If the latter, perhaps there could have been a better way to request confirmation than to request that an inline citation be cited (which would be as odd as <ref>...</ref>{{fact}}). -Miskaton (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be verifiable other then watching the episode for the credits. IMDB does not list him in the episode[9] and g'hits only show WP mirror sites. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Some citations to add to current version

Since this page is currently locked down, here are some citations for the current version. For his support of the US Public Service Academy Act, http://uspublicserviceacademy.org/in-congress/ he is listed as a co-sponsor For his political beginnings at the consumer rights organization Illinois Public Action, http://www.house.gov/emanuel/aboutrahm.shtml Bsx (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The page has been unprotected. Go for it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Misspelling

{{editsemiprotected}}
I'm unable to make the change. "Emanuel" is misspelled as "Emmanuel" in section 3, "White House Chief of Staff" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFitz (talk • contribs)
 Done Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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 [10], 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)

← 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)

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)