Jump to content

Talk:Jan Schakowsky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robert Creamer

[edit]

I am going to delete the paragraph on Jan's husband Robert Creamer. First and foremost, there were no sources cited. I think this is especially important when discussing legal matters. Secondly, the article is intended to cover Jan Schakowsky. I think a brief mention of her husband is appropriate, but a more detailed discussion should be done on a page dedicated to Robert Creamer.

I am not trying to conceal any information, but I think we must be careful to present it in an appropriate manner. If you wish to add back the deleted content, please discuss first before doing so. Thanks. 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, you are acting as a censor to prevent information that could potentially damage Representative Schakowsky from ever being published. How about a nod to publishing the facts over your wiki-coverup? --Jbpo 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an anonymous user's deletion of information relating to Sckakowsky's husband, Robert Creamer, but added a "citation needed" tag following that paragraph, which is more appropriate than simply deleting the information. If somebody disputes the inclusion of that info, they should discuss it on this Talk page BEFORE deleting the information. --TommyBoy 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The annonymous deleter also removed notice that Cremer was a lobbyist, which is a defining characteristic of the trial. A US congresswoman married to a lobbyist, who is then convicted of a felony is certainly mentionable in her biography. I have re-inserted Creamer's occupation. I also found a citation from the Chicago Suntimes for Creamers sentencing. Jbpo

Jbpo made an edit that I find questionable. There was a sentence with a source cited (USA Today), which specifically said Jan Schakowsky was not accused of any wrongdoing. This was reworded to state "charged with" in place of "accused of". While the wording may seem minor, I believe it violates the NPOV policy. I think this was intended to insinuate that wrongdoing occurred on Schakowsky's part, but that she had been successful in avoiding prosecution. Also, this user states Schakowsky was on the board of the organization but no source was cited. 68.78.129.198 06:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a condemnation of Schakowsky's involvement with Creamer's criminal enterprise in the Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/premium/printedition/Friday/chi-0604070150apr07,1,3270729.column. She certainly HAS been accused in the press, albeit not the court. So saying that Schakowsky has not been "charged with" is 100% correct. Here is citation for Schakowsky being on the board at IPAC. http://capitalfax.blogspot.com/2006/04/jan-schakowsky-robert-creamer-and.html. :Jbpo

At some point, shouldn't anonymous edits be barred from this page. There is definitely a repetition of attempts to hide Schakowsky's husband's conviction from the public view. :Jbpo

If you're so worried about anonymous edits, then try signing your comments here! You might want to check you're spelling of anonymous while you're at it too. I left the mention that Schakowsky served on the board of the organization in question. I feel much better about it after a source was cited. I added back that the funds were repaid. I also reverted the deletion of the judge's favorable comments. You may not like these items; you may even think they're an excuse, but that doesn't matter. They are objective facts with properly cited sources, so they should remain in the article. By the way, I read Mr. Kass' article from the Tribune (the link above) and I don't see any explicit accusation of wrongdoing on the part of Schakowsky. There was a veiled criticism of a trip, but his main point was that Jan should not point a finger at Republicans. Also, consider the source, Kass is admitted conservative Republican with a general distaste for politicians (including most Republicans). Don't present your sources as offering more than they do. It diminishes your creditability. 68.78.34.178 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are biased? As biased as the father-in-law of an employee of Bob Creamer-who happened to be the judge in the Bob Creamer case? Can we please ban the anonymous editors? This is a clear case of a shill/censor trying to squash an unfavorable story. As the anonymous poster is identified, I suggest a truce and mediation. Until then, I will post the actual results of the case:Jbpo

Jbpo, you essentially accused a sitting judge of improper conduct and didn't even bother to cite your source. Your edits have not been NPOV and have frequently included deletions of properly sourced information. My edits have typically been to ADD information to the article, and I always cite sources. I request that Jbpo be blocked. This user has launched personal attacks against me, calling me a shill/censor, when in fact his/her own conduct has been suspect. 68.78.39.163 13:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are 10, I am 0. I called you a censor, because you were censoring this entry to suit your propoganda. A shill, kind of a stretch, but you are acting like a shill, but hard to tell as you remain annon. I apologize for calling you a shill. A sneak, yes, but a shill, not yet. Now, can you please identify yourself so that we can declare a truce.:Jbpo

A user named Carlton, without consulting this discussion directed a link concerning Robert Creamer to Robert Creamer, the writer from Sports Illustrated. If this is going to be policed, shouldn't we have a minimal competence level in the policemen? I started a new link to Robert Creamer-Political Activist. Please feel free to add info.--Jbpo 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that this member of congress existed or that her husband was convicted of crimes, but the section describing her husband's felony convictions reads like it was a positive thing. I don't think that multiple felony convictions of the spouse of a member of congress, in an organization in which that member of congress played a role, is a positive thing. He was convicted of two felonies, but it's OK because his heart was in the right place? And it's even more OK because the member of congress had no idea that her spouse was carrying out his noble bank fraud scheme? The entire section makes me think that many Wiki authors are not objective people. Frankly, I don't know how you could read the section and think anything else.Goateeki (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article say OK or not OK? The paragraph is a reasonable summary of WP:RS. Each sentence in the paragraph except the last is a paraphrase of leads from multiple WP:RS. He's done his time under our system, what is your attitude in general toward ex-felons or is it just this one? Hugh (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for House Resolution 333

[edit]

Editors, Your attention is requested in the matter of an AfD nomination for House Resolution 333. I invite your participation on the associated debate page.--OtisTDog 01:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field in Infobox for Religion

[edit]

To clear up the matter of Schakowsky's religion, these sources:

  • "As a Jewish Congresswoman, Schakowsky has a deep personal connection to the State of Israel and pledges a continued friendship." [1]
  • "Jewish Members of Congress: Jan Schakowsky (Representative, Illinois)" [2]
  • "Jan Schakowsky (D) Jewish" [3]
  • "I am the only Jew on the House Intelligence Committee and I am Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. (spoken by Jan Schakowsky)" [4]
  • "We're Jews. (spoken by Jan Schakowsky)" [5]
  • "Schakowsky, who is Jewish, calls the insinuation 'hurtful'. [6]

I think the above establish satisfactorily that the field for "Religion" in the Infobox should be reading "Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this nonsense. "Jewish" is not a religion, it's an adjective meaning "of, relating to, or characteristic of the Jews; also : being a Jew ". "Judaism" is a religion, and we have no sources saying she practices that. That she is culturally/ethnically a Jew is not in question, but we have no sources on her current religion. You were quite insistent that we could not state that Ed Miliband had "no religion", insisting that it was unsourced, yet you now insist we can insert this unsourced claim here? This is highly inconsistent, and part of an on-going disruptive set of behaviors that really must stop. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is nonsense. Firstly, the Infobox field for "Religion" is intended to represent the person's religious identification or affiliation. Jayjg will not dispute that Ms. Schakowsky is Jewish. However, he insists that she not be identified as such here without proof that she "practices" Judaism. That a person identifies onself as Jewish, and is accepted as such within the Jewish community should be sufficient. It is not for any of us to judge the authenticity or depth of another's faith. Secondly, is this standard being applied to other Wikipedia articles with respect to religious identification, whether as Jewish, Catholic, or any other faith?

I would also like to point out that in the article by Steve Sheffey, in the first paragraph of Ms. Schakowsky's opening statement, she says, "I grew up not far from here, in West Rogers Park, and spent much of my time at Temple Menorah, where I celebrated my Bat Mitzvah." This indicates that she fully embraced her Jewish faith upon entering adulthood, and clearly indicates that her identification as Jewish is not simply cultural or ethnic.

I should also mention that Jayjg left a message on my Talk Page warning me to refrain from adding "unreferenced biographical content" and that "content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy." And he threatened that I may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. That this simple entry of "Jewish" could be regarded as defamatory is complete nonsense. BlueMesa171 (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg—standard English usage equates "Jewish" with "religion." If a piously observant Jew was asked, What is your religion?—he would answer—Jewish. If a nonobservant, secular Jew was asked, What is your religion?—he would answer—Jewish. This is the way the language works. All that our role is, is to follow sources. "Religion" is asked for? Answer is supplied: "Jewish."
You say, "That she is culturally/ethnically a Jew is not in question…" Actually—it is in question. None of the sources are saying that "she is culturally/ethnically a Jew". The sources are only saying that she is Jewish. That provides us with justification for saying that she is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm with Jayjg here. A plain understanding of the term "Religion" means aspects of holding certain shared theological beliefs, participating in certain sacred rituals, and perhaps having one's values influenced by such. If there are no sources to indicate the person fits that type of description then you can't label them religious. Of course, that someone isn't religious may not preclude them otherwise being described as Jewish in terms of their identity (I understand Jewish can be more than the associated religious practice and belief) - but you can't say their "religion" is Jewish - unless they hold some distinctively Jewish sacred beliefs, or engage in some distinctively Jewish sacred practice. To say otherwise is simply to muck about with the plain meaning of words and risk giving the reader a false understanding about the subject. Now, stop repeating yourself. Your argument has been rejected by Jewish and non-Jewish editors alike.--Scott Mac 13:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mac—you are referring above to some generalized description of religion, but religions vary. Sources are saying that Schakowsky is Jewish. Therefore in our deliberations we should be concerned with a definition of Judaism. You can certainly present your own alternative definitions at variance with the following:
"A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do."
The above quote is from the fairly reliable "Judaism 101 web site. In your above post you are speaking of "beliefs" as being central to a religion. That may be true in some other religions but it is not true in the Jewish religion. The above definition is stating clearly that: "…being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." These are relevant factors. You can't just skip over them. They may be specific to Judaism but that happens to be what we are talking about, so I don't think your broadening the discussion to include a generalized definition for all religions is helping us to understand what is applicable here.
Let me repeat: you can and you should bring other definitions. If the outcome is different—so be it. I have no ax to grind. I don't know who you are referring to when you speak of editors being Jewish and editors being non-Jewish. We are all engaged in the same project here. Our religion, if any, should play no part in our roles as editors. I am not even aware of whether anyone involved in these discussions is Jewish or non-Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that Schakowsky is Jewish, or that being Jewish is not defined solely (or even essentially) by religious characteristics, so your case isn't relevant. I accept your argument, but your conclusion is a non sequitur. Being a Jew may have "nothing to do with what you believe or what you do" - but being religious does. Anyway, this is tedious. You are not convincing anyone. It is time to move on.--Scott Mac 14:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that Schakowsky's opponent in the 2010 election was an Orthodox Jew. Might this explain why out of 39 Jewish members of the incoming Congress, only Jan Schakowsky has no religion identified on her Wikipedia bio? Perhaps someone does have an axe to grind here.

Jayjg is attempting to impose a standard in this case that is nowhere else applied in Wikipedia biographies. I understand the distinction he makes between "Jewish" and "Judaism," but it is not really pertinent here. Catholics are identified as "Catholic," not as practitioners of "Catholicism." There is no requirement for sources that prove the person attends Mass regularly.

What we are looking for here is simply the person's religious affiliation. Such religious affiliations are reported by congressional staffs to Congressional Quarterly, the Almanac of American Politics, and Project VoteSmart (VoteSmart.com). The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life relies on information provided to Congressional Quarterly.

We have ample sources indicating that Ms. Schakowsky is Jewish and that her religious affiliation is Jewish. Without sources indicating that she professes no religious faith, Jayjg is arguing from silence. BlueMesa171 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "We have ample sources indicating that Ms. Schakowsky is Jewish". No one is arguing otherwise. "and that her religious affiliation is Jewish." I see no sources to support that whatsoever. Am I missing something?--Scott Mac 23:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. And BlueMesa171, you think there's some sort of conspiracy here because "Schakowsky's opponent in the 2010 election was an Orthodox Jew"? Seriously dude? I don't know who Schakowsky is, much less who her opponents were, and really don't care. I just know what the sources say – and more importantly, what they don't say. And they don't say what religion she practices. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following sources list Jan Schakowsky's religous affiliation as Jewish:
  • Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life - Members of Congress - Religious Affiliation[7]
  • Project Vote Smart - Jan Schakowsky, Biography[8]
  • Adherents.com - U.S. Congress - Religious Affiliation[9]
  • On Faith - Faith Facts - Religious Affiliation on Capitol Hill[10]
In terms of the comment Scott Mac made in the earlier post regarding "perhaps having one's values influenced by such," we have these quotes from Jan Schakowsky:
  • " I grew up not far from here, in West Rogers Park, and spent much of my time at Temple Menorah, where I celebrated my Bat Mitzvah. It is wonderful to see that building, which was such a big part of my life, now home to reform, conservative and orthodox congregations, a great example of how those of us with a shared heritage can share space as well." (Opening comments, KINS debate, 10-17-10
  • "my summers at Camp Herzl, my religious education, to my long time support of the Jewish Federation and the programs we sponsor for the sick through Mt. Sinai Hospital where I was born, the elderly, the children and the poor in our community and beyond." Closing comments, KINS debate, 10-17-10
  • "Part of our tradition is Tikkun Olam, the mandate to heal the world - the commitment of the prophets to justice." Closing comments, KINS debate, 10-17-10
  • "I think people know me as a standup progressive who is fighting all the time for working families, for middle-class America, to help the poor," she said. "I don’t have anything to do with special interests. I’m the voice for people who don’t have a voice. All of these are Jewish values. They come to me from my Jewish upbringing." Interview with Chicago Jewish News, 10-29-10
"Jew vs. Jew: Interviews with Pollak and Schakowsky"
[11]
This should be sufficient evidence that Jan Schakowsky identifies religiously as Jewish, and lists her religious affiliation as Jewish.
And so far no one has addressed the issue of why a different standard should be applied to this particular article.

BlueMesa171 (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to begin with, a number of those sources (e.g. votesmart) fail WP:RS, and the fact that she had a Bat Mitzvah and learned religion at a Jewish summer camp over 50 years ago aren't really relevant to what her religion is today. Can you provide a short list of links to what are actually reliable, citeable sources stating her current religion. As to why people aren't responding to your comments about other articles, that's because it's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I don't know what's in other articles, I'm only trying to ensure that this article meets the requirements of WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This source has an infobox of sorts. For "Religion" they insert the word "Jewish". This is what I am referring to:
Background Information
Gender: Female
Family: Married, Husband: Robert Creamer

2 Children: Ian, Mary
1 Stepchild: Lauren
Birth Date: 05/26/1944
Birthplace: Chicago, IL
Home City: Evanston, IL

Religion: Jewish
It's a similar sort of field for information. Bus stop (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess you missed that votesmart isn't a reliable source? Yworo (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, Congressional Quarterly, The Almanac of American Politics and Project Vote Smart collect information directly from candidates for public office. The Pew Forum uses info supplied by Congressional Quarterly. So now you challenge the reliability of the sources I've cited? The On Faith site is from the Washington Post. You cite WP:RS, but all you've done is to dismiss these very reliable, respected sources out of hand. Are we actually now required to defend the reliability of Project Vote Smart? You can start by reading the Wikipedia article.
Then we have the National Institute on Money in State Politics (Followthemoney.org), which says Project Vote Smart is "one of the largest and most widely respected sources of comprehensive, unbiased information on elections and public officials in the country."
The American Political Science Association at its annual convention in Boston has honored Project Vote Smart as 'The Best' source for accurate political information on the Web.
The San Diego Union-Tribune says "Project Vote Smart specializes in reliable, unbiased political information..."
The Indianapolis Star says Project Vote Smart is "one of the nation's most trusted voter research organizations."
More praise for PVS from mainstream journalism outlets here:
Project Vote Smart - What the Media are Saying
How Ms. Schakowsky practices her Jewish faith (or religion) today is not really material. All we know is that she identifies her religion as Jewish. It's not for any of us to judge whether or not she is sufficiently observant. BlueMesa171 (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, "How Ms. Schakowsky practices her Jewish faith (or religion) today is not really material"? Who is even bringing that up or cares? Please stop veering off into irrelevant topics. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's is a source identifying Schakowsky's membership in Beth Emet Synagogue in Evanston, IL, affiliated with the Union for Reform Judaism. This quote from Jan Schakowsky is featured in the 2004-2005 Year in Review from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism:

"As a member of Beth Emet The Free Synagogue, I knew the RAC’s work and how Jewish social activists so often draw upon its resources. Since coming to Washington, I have gotten to see the other side of the RAC, and, especially, its effectiveness as an advocate for the values I hold dear." [12]

I hope this settles the question. BlueMesa171 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that will do. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then her religion is Judaism. "Jewish" is not a religion, it's an ethnicity or matrilineally-inherited designation. Someone who is Jewish may be of any religion they choose, just as someone who is Asian, black, indigenous, or white may choose their religion. I happen to know quite a few Jewish people whose chosen religion is Buddhism. See for example the Infobox on Isaac Asimov, who was Jewish by descent but whose religion was Atheistic Humanism. (You'll have to edit the article to see the religion field in the infobox, it doesn't display for writers.) People who are Jewish may call themselves "a non-practicing Jew", which is shorthand for being of Jewish descent but not adhering to Judaism as a religion. It's quite commmon and they don't stop identifying as Jewish simply because they don't believe in Judaism. Yworo (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yworo—I disagree with what you are saying above but I don't think it is necessary to get into that discussion which could go on interminably.
What we are talking about here is a "Religion" field in an infobox. If you scroll up to my above post at 04:50, 18 November 2010 you will see an infobox with the "Religion" field there completed with the word "Jewish." I realize you feel that Project Vote Smart is an unreliable source but presumably they know how to create and use an Infobox.
This (Kirk Douglas) is an infobox on an Notable Names Database. The "Religion" field is completed with the term "Jewish."
These are some others from NNDB: (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), (Rabbi Leo Baeck), (Frank Gehry). In all of these instances the "Religion" field is completed with the term "Jewish." Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other people and sites are ignorant doesn't mean we have to be. The correct term to fill in the field is Judaism. That's the name of the religion. Arguing that we also have to be inaccurate because other sites are is simply stupid. It's about the dumbest argument I've ever heard. And I've heard a lot of pretty dumb arguments on Wikipedia. Get over it. Yworo (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NNDB is not a reliable source, and this is one example of why. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have The Washington Post specifically creating an infobox for Jan Schakowsky. You will notice that the field "religion" is completed with the term "Jewish." Bus stop (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck is your problem? Do you have some kind of informed argument that the word Judaism is inaccurate? Your insistence on using the incorrect term makes me wonder if you are anti-Semitic? Yworo (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy was whether Jan Schakowsky was Jewish in the religious sense, i.e. an adherent of "Judaism" as opposed to simply being Jewish ethnically but non-religious or secular. Jayjg and Yworo are quite correct in noting that being "Jewish" does not necessarily mean that a person adheres to "Judiasm" as a religion. Our controversy has been complicated, I think, by the fact that we've had a number of sources saying "Religion: Jewish."

"Jewish" can mean various things, depending on the context in which it is used. And while I agree that we should be careful not to assume that all Jewish people are religious, or adhere to Judaism, it is also correct for a Jewish person to identify religiously as simply "Jewish."

Yes, technically the religion is known as "Judaism." Just as "Roman Catholicism" is a religion. But a Catholic will say his or her religion is "Roman Catholic," or simply "Catholic." Protestants likewise will say the name of their church or denomination, "Lutheran" not "Lutheranism."

Many reliable and authoritative sources follow the practice of denoting religious affiliation as "Jewish," "Roman Catholic," "Lutheran", etc. And it is quite correct to use these terms to refer to adherents of these religious traditions. And when a reference says "Religion: Jewish" we know by the context in what sense that term is used. It is not out of ignorance as Yworo has suggested, nor an indication of unreliability as Jayjg believes. It is simply standard usage.

In any case, the "Religion" in the Infobox is to identify a person's religious affiliation. If you give a fill-in-the-blank questionnaire to someone and ask "Religion," very few will write "Judaism," "Roman Catholicism," or "Lutheranism." You will get "Jewish," "Catholic" or "Lutheran," etc. It is an entirely proper as a way of refering to one's religious identification. But yes, it can also be an adjective, depending on the context. And with the term "Jewish," special caution may be in order.

Of the 27 incoming members of the House of Representatives, 17 are identified by Wikipedia as "Jewish," and nine have their religion listed as "Judaism." As I noted earlier, out of these 27 Jewish members of the House, and 12 members of the Senate, it's only Jan Schakowsky who's religion is not noted in the Infobox on Wikipedia. For members of the U.S. Senate, "Judaism" is the more common usage, with nine out of 12 listed this way. Senator Lieberman's Infobox is more specific with "Orthodox Judaism." This also goes to show that even the word "Judaism" does not fully define the varying beliefs found within the Jewish community. And Jan Schakowsky herself used the old saying, "Two Jews, three opinions."

And Yworo's suggestion that usage of "Jewish" rather than "Judaism" as a religious identification may indicate anti-semitism is ludicrous and uncalled for. BlueMesa171 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't given a convincing argument for using an ambiguous term rather than an unambiguous one. And I never said that preferring "Jewish" rather than "Judaism" was anti-Semitic. I said that being so insistent about it makes me wonder about motivations. It's a damn stupid thing to get so stubborn about. There's nothing whatsoever wrong or inaccurate about putting "religion = Judaism" into an Infobox. Why write so many paragraphs which basicallly boil down to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We got that. So what? Yworo (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Interesting IP address. I never knew the CIA used AOL. Though it does make me wonder why the CIA prefers that members of Congress who are adherents of Judaism have their religion labeled as "Jewish" rather than its correct name, "Judaism". (That's a joke, son, just in case you for one moment took it seriously.) Yworo (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing for or against using one term vs. the other. But that seems to be the debate you now want to have. I'm only disputing the notion that "Judaism" is the only correct term to use. The category "Religion" in the Infobox here is to indicate a religious affiliation. When asked, "what's your religion?" people answer "I'm Jewish," or "I'm Roman Catholic," or "I'm Lutheran." Perfectly proper usage. The Infobox, as I understand it, is a shorthand way of putting this.
I don't have any real beef about using the term "Judaism" here, but what I'm arguing -- and what I think Bus stop is trying to explain also -- is that saying "Jewish" in response to the question of one's religion is a correct usage. In fact, it is the more standard practice, followed by such publications as Congressional Quarterly and The Almanac of American Politics. It's also the usage followed by numerous online resources, as I've noted above. Ambiguous? In this context, no more so than saying "Buddhist." Since, for example, Nancy Pelosi's religion is identified as "Roman Catholic" not as "Roman Catholicism," I would prefer "Jewish" here, being both proper and for consistency. But this is not the controversy we were seeking to resolve. And I don't get the CIA joke.BlueMesa171 (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMesa171, I already agreed above, based on her membership in a synagogue, that her religion could be listed as "Judaism". Not "Jewish", of course, that's still an adjective not a religion, but I have no objection to "Judaism" going in the infobox. Jayjg (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMesa171, the field requires a noun. Jewish is an adjective, and it has multiple meanings, not all of which have directly to do with religion. I would in fact argue that since we are more specific with respect to Christianity, we should be specifying where known the branch of Judaism in this field, e.g. Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism, etc. Yworo (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see Yworo went ahead and entered "Reform Judaism." I was thinking along the same lines. Still, I feel that the burden of proof demanded here to warrant either "Religion: Jewish" or "Religion: Judaism" was excessive. Next are we going to be requiring to see a birth certificate to confirm place and date of birth? BlueMesa171 (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, a birth certificate is a primary source. Wikipedia relies primarily on reliable secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As concerns the term to be inserted in the field next to the term "Religion" in the Infobox for Schakowsky, I think the best choice of term is "Jewish"—not "Judaism." My choice of term is specific to this article, because the reliable sources that apply to only this article are guiding me in my choice of terminology. The actual word used by sources referring to Schakowsky is that she is Jewish. Reliable sources, when speaking about Schakowsky, do not mention "Judaism" at all. Schakowsky, when speaking of herself, says that she is Jewish. She doesn't mention the term "Judaism."

Furthermore we have numerous instances of actual "Infoboxes" presented at websites positioning the word "Jewish" opposite the word "Religion". The Washington Post creates Infoboxes about Schakowsky that position the word "Jewish" after the word "Religion". I have yet to find a web site positioning the word "Judaism" after the word "Religion" in an Infobox for Schakowsky, and I have located several, though none as prominent as The Washington Post. I think we should be following the lead of The Washington Post:

Washington Post example A

Washington Post example B

Washington Post example C

You will notice that in all of the above The Washington Post chooses to complete their "Infobox" field for "Religion" with the term "Jewish". This is not surprising as Jewish is considered a religious attribute of an individual. The arguments that have been made for using the term "Judaism" in an Infobox opposite the term "Religion" make only limited sense in the absence of confirmation in actual reliable sources.

Policy calls for adherence to sources. At WP:NOR I find:

  • "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."
  • "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. "
  • "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."
  • "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."

What all of the above quotes from policy are indicating is that we should not be choosing a term that is not supported by sources (Judaism) to replace a term that is supported by sources (Jewish). Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding. The religion field takes a noun. Jewish is an adjective. It's not "original research" to use the correct part of speech. You are welcome to continue tilting at windmills, but you are clearly on a fool's mission, and I warn you I at least will consider continued harping on this topic to be disruptive and will find an admin to deal with it. You are wasting people's time. Yworo (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yworo—you say, "The religion field takes a noun." Why does the religion field take a noun? "Jewish" in common, everyday English, is considered a religious attribute of a person. You might argue that Jewish is also an "ethnic" attribute, and that the person who is Jewish, may actually be practicing another religion. That would be a fair point. But you would have to bring a source that suggests this. You would have to bring a source that says that perhaps the individual being written about converted to another religion, or disavowed being Jewish, or even informally adopted another religion. You have brought no source asserting anything like that. Each individual being written about has specific attributes relevant to their identity and their identity only—be they religious attributes or other attributes. As sources are unanimously saying that this individual is Jewish that is the obvious choice of terminology for us. As WP:NOR says, "stick to the sources." Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't even bothered to read the Wikipedia article, Who is a Jew? If you had, you'd know that all these issues are well documented and cited. Yworo (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a fascinating thread. I can't imagine there's any real reason to fight about it, and I don't really care what the outcome is. I'm posting once only because I like to take on crappy arguments: "The religion field takes a noun"? Says who? Someone had better fix Mother Teresa, then, because the religion field there says Catholic, not Catholicism -- OMG, an adjective!! As it happens, in my search for an example I went first to Pope Benedict XVI but found only disappointment: no religion field at all. Hmm -- maybe he's an atheist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Catholic" is noun, e.g. "I am a Catholic." See wikt:Catholic. "Jewish", however, is not also a noun, and has multiple meanings, not all of them related to the practice of religion. The related noun forms are "Jew", which doesn't imply the practice of a specific religion, and "Judaism", which is specifically the religion and best fits the field. Yworo (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your roundabout reasoning does not replace basic policy which says, "stick to the sources." "Jewish" is perfectly acceptable in an Infobox for "Religion" unless sources can be brought that "Jewish" is not the religion for the person. This can be established if sources can be brought that for instance the individual has renounced the Jewish religion or converted to another religion. This presupposes of course that it has been established in sources that the attribute of "Jewish" is applicable. Bus stop (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, with the passage of years, I see that the Info box format no longer includes "Religion". What's up with this change? BlueMesa171 (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent headline additions/info regarding Caroline Glick

[edit]

I'd like to respectfully suggest that you may have thrown the baby out with the bath water re: the Schakowsky edits. In particular, adding headings for each paragraph--each of those was either an already-existing direct quote from the paragraph below it or a brief summary. They are no more promotional than what has already been approved, and less biased than the headings that current exist. Was each individual heading improper, or was it limited to a few? (I admit that "champion of health care" instead of "Supporter of ACA" was perhaps a bit biased.)

I am also confused regarding the clarification outlining the bias and reputation of author Caroline Glick, which was sourced via a 3rd party nonprofit.

Also, why is Caroline Glick's opinion of the issue valid, but John Dodge's commentary about it isn't? They were both published in respected sources.

Some of the current paragraphs with headings under "US House of Representatives" are nowhere near as relevant to the Congresswoman's overall career as the preceding sections, which is why I feel that those earlier paragraphs should also bear headings.

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:9800:212B:286D:5F2C:57BB (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a bold heading on each of a major platform piece reads like a campaign brochure. Specifying a position on major issues is one thing, making an encyclopedia entry look like a piece of campaign literature is another. That sort of formatting will be reverted as promotional regardless of party affiliation or content. Scr★pIronIV 18:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a lot of this makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification.

In the spirit of that, can you remove 2 of the 4 headings that currently exist? To have all of that information about an 18-year Congresswoman be lumped together, only to have two mentions of essentially the same, narrowly-focused, negative issue seems to create a perceived bias. Those would be "Comments on Joel Pollack" and "Boycott of Netanyahu Speech"--can we remove those headings but leave the information within? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:9800:212B:286D:5F2C:57BB (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed an entire paragraph which was sourced only by opinion pieces; however, those two items are specific events in which she was a central figure. This does warrant a separate section, where a list of political poistions does not warrant one for each. I will look more closely at them, but it is a decision that needs to be made by more than one editor. Scr★pIronIV 18:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about being the central figure in an event, rather than a policy position. Does that mean that the two section headings that I added for the paragraphs that describe her central role in an event--the Nation endorsement for VP & her appointment on the Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Committee--will be restored? She is certainly the central figure in these specific events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:9800:212B:286D:5F2C:57BB (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The long direct quote from Spero, is there any evidence this view is significant, that is, held by anyone beyond a minority of one? Was this quote actually published anywhere other than the NewsMax website? Was this NewsMax report picked up by any noteworthy secondary source such as a newspaper? Please advise. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two long direct quotes from Glick, might this give undue weight to one person's point of view? What is Glick's expertise that our encyclopedia include her assessment that the subject of this article is a "radical leftist"? Might these long direct quotes benefit from a brief, neutral summarizing paraphrase? Hugh (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur that more neutral wording is warranted. Scr★pIronIV 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing the subject of this article as someone "who happen to be Jewish," might that indicate a possible disqualifying bias in the source? How can inclusion of this characterization be appropriate, even with in-text attribution, in a biography of a living person in our encyclopedia? Hugh (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my edit removing opinion pieces, which were not balanced out by opposing views, has helped restore some neutrality? Scr★pIronIV 18:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jan Schakowsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jan Schakowsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USVSST FUND

[edit]

Please CO[SPONSOR H.R.8419 My wife and family were VICTIMS on the 1985TWA HIJACKING and have been waiting almost 40 years. Thank you.

Edward A. Kowaldzyk 2601:246:5480:4ED0:6404:21CC:B3BB:410D (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jan_Schakowsky&oldid=1256334103"