Talk:Rahm Emanuel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

---

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)

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.wiki.x.io/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)