Talk:Jack Abramoff/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

COPYVIO

This article and it's sister screed are embarrassments to wikipedia. They're essentially the same and both reflect the authors politocal hatred and zeal. Both also have severe irredemable copyright problems and are and embarrasment to wikipedia. They need to be deleted immediately. --John Henry 03:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Alot of this article DOES seem to be a blatent copyvio. Tyco, as below, was edited (the text was accurate, but half the news story was pasted in here). You cannot just wholesale paste in paragraphs of text from a news story, attribute a link, and it not be a copywrite violation. It's called Plagerism. [1] [2] --B.ellis 18:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Tyco

Almost the whole tyco section is a blatent rip from the WAPO article. I've removed part of it, as it needs to be re-written.--B.ellis 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I've cleaned much of the CopyVio stuff up, hopefully. There is alot of non-essential stuff in this article about peripheral people, and not about Abramoff, however. It needs to be cleaned up more, as the article meanders alot here and there. --B.ellis 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted some things you took out (outside the Tyco section), like in the "Early years" section and in the intro about DeLay. That material is not copyright infringement because it is properly sourced when directly quoted. --Howrealisreal 19:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It still needs to be rewritten to not be a direct copy paste unless you are going to quote it. Just providing a link is not attribution, and copying entire paragraphs out of an article is plagiarism, not 'fair use' unless you are quoting. Also, if you are going to say 'the los angeles times reports' you need to source the times, not a secondary source (i.e. democracy now).

I modified the quote and attributed properly.

--B.ellis 19:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The speech from Tom DeLay is a direct quote (it's in quotations) so of course it is taken word-for-word from the source. I'll tweak the setup to the quote a little better as per your request. Here's the primary source for the other thing. --Howrealisreal 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


No problem. If I see something that is probable CopyVio I tend to chop it out first, and then rework it (I don't usually just leave it out, if the quote is accurate). Btw have you found a link for the franken quote, I can't find anything other than on blogs. Honestly I'm not sure what the relevence to an article on Abramoff is, really, anyway.

The "forced abortions" part was originally reported by Brian Ross at ABC News for 20/20 on March 13, 1998. It also appears in Al Franken's book The Truth (with jokes) in the "Tom DeLay Saipan Sex Tour and Jack Abramoff Casino Getaway" chapter. Since we've agreed that primary sources are key, i've change the attribution in the article. --Howrealisreal 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Indian tribes scandal

--Eric 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC) This area is a mess, I have tried to clean it up a bit and structure it better. It may be best to create a new page on the tribes scam and point the Reed, Norquist etc pages to it.

Basically we need fewer facts and more context. At the moment the page is simply a list of transactions that may or may not have been legit with a strong implication that they were not legit.--Gorgonzilla 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved the whole scandal to its own page. This makes much more sense since although Abramoff is a major player in that scandal there are several others who are significant players, in particular Ralph Reed. I am not doing this to hide the scandal, I think that people looking for info on it know that there is more than one player.--Gorgonzilla 00:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The email trail

This section does not appear to say very much that is already said. It should probably go.--Gorgonzilla 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually it looks pretty good in the context of the tribes scandal article so I moved it there

Isn't abramoff conected to the murder of a florida man too?

RALSTON IS ROVE’S RIGHT-HAND: ABC News reported on August 2, 2005 that Susan Ralston, Karl Rove’s long-time right-hand, testified before the grand jury. The National Journal reported, “If Karl Rove is Bush’s main man, then it’s Ralston who makes this White House go — because she’s indispensable to Rove.” According to Newsweek, Ralston was suggested to Rove by ethically-troubled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, for whom she previously served as a top aide. [ABC The Note, 8/2/05; Newsweek, 4/20/05; National Journal, 6/18/05] Israel Hernandez Personal assistant to President Bush (2001-2005)

See the SunCruz scandal. Police state that Abramoff is a person of interest in that investigation. At the moment too busy reorging the Abramoff-Reed thing. --Gorgonzilla 00:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

should we mention John Doolittle and the Nor Cal Morman cabal?

should we mention John Doolittle and the Nor Cal Morman cabal?

timeline=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/01/AR2005050100091.html

of use http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34520-2004May17.html

Who first blew the wistle on Abramoff?

five federal agencies don't just start investigating a lobbyist at the same time for no reason.

Ronnie Earle started investigation?

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Cy1uxOMqo5MJ:makesmeralph.typepad.com/makesmeralph/2004/07/delay_ally_subj.html+abramoff+%22investigation+started%22+&hl=en

Ronnie Earle seems to be the guy

For over six months Earle and a grand jury investigated violations of Texas campaign finance law in the 2002 election. His ongoing investigation of two political action committees that spent a combined $3.4 million on 22 Republican Texas House races is now focused on a PAC founded by DeLay and directed by {Jack Abramoff]]. "This is an attempt to criminalize politics," claimes DeLay. "Ronnie Earle", he told reporters at his Feb. 24 press conference, is a "runaway prosecutor."

better pic need one that doesn't violated copyrights

http://slate.msn.com/id/2116389/

better info+can we use this pic?....please?

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0533/050817_news_abramoff.php

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/123075/2112264/2116388/050407_Jack-Abramoff.jpg

new stuff

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0829lobbyist29.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3233abramoff_indict.html (Aug 26, 2005 editorial/analysis)

I don't see anything here about Abramoff's connection to extreme right-wing Israeli politics. I recall that he played a role in getting the law through Congress that reduced aid to the Palestinians after Arafat died. Also that he raised money to train sharpshooters among the settlers. -- RWM

The murder indictment

I updated the story from the piece in the Post [3]. However this will need ongoing revision, there are clearly details that have not been given. The prosecutors clearly are investigating a link to SunCruz. Although the target is almost certainly Kidan rather than Abramoff this cannot look good for either of them. --Gorgonzilla 04:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of speedy deletion tag.

I have removed the speedy delation tag placed on this article by John Henry. Tag read {{db|COPYVIO - use of copyrighted image w/o citation of reason}}. This is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. The contested image has been removed pending confirmation of source.  BD2412 talk 03:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you even read your link? Look on the right and you will find COPYVIOS as a reason for speedy deletion. Click on that link and you will be taken here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems

on that page you will see the statement "Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied" " Given Gorgonzilla has repeatedly infringed copyrights and for an extended period of time that clearly meets the qualification of BLATANT. Don't vandalize the tags again. --John Henry 03:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Please allow me to clarify the deletion policy. A copvio is a reason to speedy the image, not the article containing the image. There has been no allegation that the text of the article is copied from another source, nor would this comport with the edit history.  BD2412 talk 04:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please allow me to post text from the image page (click the image to see):

"This work is copyrighted and unlicenced. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images or Wikipedia:Fair use#Audio_clips. However, the individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, as well as subsequent persons who place it into articles, asserts that this use qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law. For each use of this image, please provide a detailed rationale as to why this image qualifies as fair use.

Gorgonzilla used the image. As such, it was Gorgonzilla's COPYVIO not the uploaders'. Since you appear to be running cover for Gorgonzilla who thinks the image is of "Grover Norquist" - I've decided to report his extended crime to the image's owner. He is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and to all producers of intellectual property everywhere. Wikipedia's cavallier attitude toward Gorgonzilla's crimes are similar embarrassments. --John Henry 04:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Please read WP:CSD. Thanks. Guettarda 04:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The same user tried to do the same at the Reed-Abramoff article as well. He also accused me of a 5th revert today which is odd, unless he is as I suspect LJS returned yet again and thinks that the 3RR applies to Wikipedia as a whole. I strongly suggest it is time to cfp the user and ask for a very long prohibition. --Gorgonzilla 03:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to delete important facts

The most significant fact about Abramoff at this point is the fact that he is under indictment for his involvement in a $30 million fraud. The murder of Boulis and the payments made by the company controlled by Abramoff and his partner to the three alleged killers is absolutely relevant.

Trying to delete these relevant facts is clearly an attempt at POV spin.

The same invididual then tried to delete all mention of the casinos article altogether. This despite the fact that it is one of the most significant political scandals in Washington today.

This looks to me like an attempt to eliminate this scandal from Wikipedia.--Gorgonzilla 03:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Can someone explain what aspects of the article are of disputed neutrality. Thanks. Guettarda 04:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

User John Henry is an astroturf sock puppet who spends his time trying to bend wikipedia articles about current events to whatever the GOP talking points of the day are. He is clearly acting in bad faith and a cfp is about to be filed. --Gorgonzilla 12:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again - if the {{NPOV}} is going to remain on the article you need to outline the NPOV problems here, so that they can be discussed and sorted out. Thanks. Guettarda 19:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


I'd say there is a slight NPOV issue, as Abramoff also contributed to Democrats, including Daschle, Gephardt, Patrick Kennedy, Harry Reid, etc.

From WAPO: "Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation." [4]

To paint this as a republican only thing is less than ideal, it seems Abramoff was a crook hitting on both sides of the isle, but primarily lobbying the Repubs because they were the majority. --B.ellis 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is bias to paint this as Replublican... as Dems are a close second.

National Republican campaign groups received $1.24 million from sources linked to Abramoff since 1999, while Democratic groups took in $844,000 during that period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.134.68.93 (talk • contribs) .

I definitely agree that this is not just a republican thing, but are you sure those numbers are correct? I think they are probably higher on both sides, as per this Capital Eye report from the same group. The Contribution Summary sets the Democrat figure at $1,541,673 received, vs $2,912,088 for Republicans. --Howrealisreal 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To say that this scandal is being 'painted as Republican' is dishonest and ignores facts about Abramoff which are certainly undisputable. He was chairman of the College Republican National Committee and worked for Reagan's 1980 campaign. The reason he got a job at Greenberg Traurig was because they needed someone in 2000 with Republican connections, the same reason Preston Ellis needed him in 1994. Abramoff's personal relationships with DeLay and other Republicans he had met in his student activist days. To point out that the firms Abramoff was associated with gave to both parties is taken completely out of context. Abramoff and his wife donated exclusively to Republicans, becoming a Bush 'Pioneer.' [5] In fact, between Michael Scanlon and SunCruz Casinos, there was only one donation to a Democrat, one Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) in the amount of $3,500 from SunCruz. Now, some of the tribes who were defrauded by Jack Abramoff made contributions to Democrats. But those contributions seem to be legal, as they were made toward the legal goals of the groups—Abramoff is accused of lobbying against them and then getting these tribes to give him money to lobby for them. --Djw bklyn 04:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack Abramoff painted *himself* as a Republican. "Jack is directly involved in the Republican party and conservative movement leadership structures and is one of the leading fund raisers for the party and its congressional candidates." -Greenberg Traurig CV, 2003 That's how the man described himself professionally and publicly to his clients and associates. --Sorenr 18:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

news on his ex-partner

Abramoff ex-partner pleads guilty to fraud charge

Speculation on guilty plea

(Moved this to Discussion after 15 December 2005)

Kidan is expected to plead guilty next week to federal conspiracy and wire fraud charges.

If the deal goes through, Kidan, who was looking at up to 30 years in prison, could now face a maximum of 10 years. That sentence could be reduced depending upon the extent of his cooperation as a witness, not only against Abramoff but also in the prosecution of the men charged in the murder of Boulis.

Lawyers for Kidan and prosecutors are finalizing the deal in which Kidan would plead guilty to one count each of conspiracy and wire fraud. A "change of plea" hearing has been set for Dec. 15. [6]

Remove fraudster cat

Removed fraudster criminal category until conviction. This is consistent with other Wikipedia articles about people with indictments.--FloNight 02:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Other than a very few exceptions, we do not have "accused criminal" categories, and merely accused persons should not be convicted by our categories. -Willmcw 09:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Since he pled guilty today, the "Fraudster" cat has been restored.--RattBoy 02:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Rightly so - he's now quite thoroughly an admitted criminal (if not yet a "convict"). BD2412 T 02:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

can we use this?

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/05/06/abramoff-inside.jpg

grazon 23:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mental health treatments?

This could use a bit of elaboration, methinks. What's he being treated for? --Eric 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with my own suggestion, I've edited the page. "Mental health" is a bit of a broad category, and could be read to mean that Mr. Abramoff is seriously disturbed. He's actually being treated for stress, and an insanity plea is out of the question, so I thought this was more accurate and less potentially POV. Reference here. --Eric 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

useful links

to those of you working on this article, here is a Yahoo! search of *.gov for Jack Abramoff. Maybe these links will be of use to you as you work on this article. Kingturtle 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

they can run...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/abramoff.fallout/index.html

Osama Bin Laden, Mohamed Atta, and Abramoff

The following paragraphs appear midway through the article. I'm concerned about its verifiability.

"In 1995 Abramoff worked for the Global Council of Islamic Banks, whose chairman, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, was under investigation for allegedly funding terrorism and terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden. [7]

"Prior to the events of September 11th, 2001 chief hijacker Mohamed Atta and several of the other 9/11 hijackers were reported to have made multiple visits to the SunCruz casino cruise ship off the Gulf coast in Florida. [8] This has led some to speculate that Mohamed Atta was using the casino to launder money for al-Qaeda and that possibly Atta was involved in a scheme with Abramoff and the mob to smuggle heroin. [9] To date none of these allegations has been confirmed or investigated."

The former paragraph has the ring of truth, though I'd be happier if it were sourced to something more mainstream than "TPMCafe." The latter paragraph sounds like wild a conspiracy theory, citing Casino Watch and Mad Cow Morning News.

I suggest removing, at least, the latter paragraph—unless someone can come up with better citations.

(Sorry, forgot to sign the above.)--RattBoy 01:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried removing that before, but it was replaced. Unless someone has better sources, I'll do it again soon.--Cuchullain 03:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Education

Where did Abramoff go to law school? I'd like to know... Never mind, it's Georgetown. Google is my friend.

I'll edit the section accordingly.

Needs Revision in Light of 1/04/06 Guilty Plea

I reworked the first sentence in light of the second guilty plea today, but the restitution and other information now needs reworking, too. UncleFester 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Lobbyist works

Apparently, Abramoff was a former lobbyist for Channel One News. Should this be included in the article somewhere? --D-Day 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

    -Sure, that seems like a good idea.  There's no POV issue, and it's relavent information. --Rembrandt

Byron Dorgan

In the Indian tribes grand jury investigations section, the role of Senator Dorgan was listed first—with citations to the National Republican Senatorial Committee! This smacks of POV spin. Considering that Dorgan hotly disputes charges of "tit-for-tat" favors given to Abramoff, I moved his paragraph to the end, following those who certainly did receive donations from Abramoff. I also added some context and a reference to Dorgan's response.--172.131.44.81 12:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine

I don't think the section should be called "Israel-Palestine," just "Israel," as it has not called Palestine anymore, and has not been for years. This is a fact, regardless of your views on a Palestinian State...this state has not been formed, therefore, in this article, it should be referred to as Israel.--152.163.100.7 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The West Bank is not part of Israel, it has never been annexed and the general internationally accepted usage is "West Bank" and not "Judea and Samaria," which is definitely POV. "Palestine" is also the generally accepted term for, at least, those portions of mandatory Palestine not annexed by Israel. Also, while the illegality of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank may be disreputable, the illegality of the Jewish settlements there is not disputable. It is well-settled in international law that an occupying power cannot settle its nationals in occupied territory. Changes reverted.--64.18.236.129 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Kwh, it is not POV to state that Abramoff diverted funds to "Jewish settlers illegally occupying the Palestinian West Bank." Only the Israeli government and its apologists dispute the legality of these settlements; the international consensus is that they are illegal. It is informative that Abramoff diverted the money--probably, illegally-- for another illegal purpose supporting illegal settlements. Furthermore, it is not POV to point out, as Juan Cole does, that The Hill misreported the purpose of the sniper workshops. The IDF does not need private funding for sniper workshops. Finally, the quoted source, Newsweek, uses the spelling "Schmuel Ben-Zivi" not "Scuahmua Benwvi"[10]--64.18.236.217 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are - you falsified your edit summary by calling it "Revert vandalism", you linked Belligerent military occupation, and you are only at this point identified as several random IP addresses with edits only on this article. You added the POV information initially, and several other people have edited out your POV at various times, which you consistently consider 'vandalism' and 'POV'. This article is not your personal soapbox on the meaning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'll let someone else remove your latest reversion, and I won't say another word to you because I have no regard for editors who feel the need to do nothing but pick fights on every damnable Wikipedia article that mentions Israel or Palestine. It's not that I have a certain opinion about the conflict, I just don't like you. -Kwh 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Kwh, whoever you are, I didn't falsify my edit summary. I consider the extent and manner of the edit in question to be vandalism of a sort although I'll admit that was probably not the best choice of words. I only used it once, though, and I regret it--your point is taken.
Just what is wrong with linking Belligerent military occupation? The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is exactly that and I think that the fact Abramoff is helping equip Jewish paramilitaries in that occupied area is informative. Maybe that info can and should come out but let's hear a cogent argument to that effect, first. Also, so what if my identity is unknown? What difference does that make?
FYI - According to the Israeli Government, because of its population size, Betar Illit has the status of a city. Though I'm not sure what that is as of now, they do have 35,000 children of elementary school age. It is Ultra orthodox, of the Lakewood, flatbush style. Half of its boundries are in the pre six day war Israel and the other half is beyond what is known as the "green" line. Two small arab villages neighbor Betar Illit. With a population of around a hundred familes each and make their living by working in Betar and for the cities municipality. On a visit last year, I spoke with the Arab residents of these two villiges and everyone I spoke with told me that they were glad that they were isolated from the Palestinian authority who they veiwed as cruel and were happy with their orthodox Jewish neighbors,who they viewed as "kind", got along well with them and were happy to have employment in the city of Betar. I spoke with many residents of Betar who voiced the same sentiments. - Rosco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.170.46 (talk • contribs) .
In any event, I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue and your forbearance on revertings my reverts. You're right, this article is not my personal soapbox on the meaning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I don't think I've used it that way. I'm actually open to further edits to the section in question but I resent people just coming in and imposing their POV with nary a comment.--64.18.236.189 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Some editors obviously don't like Juan Cole's remarks since they've deleted them several times. However, I think it is an important and accurate corrective to the information from The Hill. It's also been properly included in the article: "When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited."[11] --64.18.236.189 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I will keep reverting unjustified edits to this section. If you have a problem with the language in the section then let's hash it out here but please stop the mindless, unexplained reverts. Also, can someone please explain to me why the spelling of Schmuel Ben-Zvi's name keeps getting changed even though it comes froma direct quote from Newsweek?--64.18.236.109 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, another unexplained, unjustified revert by 85.250.166.7 (talk · contribs). How do you know that Schmuel Ben-Zvi is an "IDF officer" and why do you keep changing the spelling of his name? A complaint about your behavior and numerous reverts/edits to this article has been submitted to the Mediation Cabal. We'll see how that works out.--DieWeibeRose 23:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

66.166.4.238 (talk · contribs) wrote "Connection to Israel-Palestine - replaced with just Middle East, so called 'Palestine' irrelevant." The use of "Israel-Palestine" is NPOV and relevant. It refers, in this context, to territory occupied by Palestinians and Israelis--most of which has never been annexed by Israel. "Palestine" is also the term used by the UN in reference to this territory.--DieWeibeRose 09:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Would it be possible to interview Abramoff? - RaisenBran

Donations to Republicans and Democrats

A paragraph in the Intro reads:

Although Abramoff himself has long been an ardent Republican activist, Republican individuals or groups received US$2,912,088 from sources linked to Abramoff since 1999, while Democrat groups and individuals took in US$1,541,673 during that period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. [12]

"Sources linked to Abramoff" is a slippery phrase of limited value. The paragraph obscures the fact that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics website, Abramoff has not donated one red cent to Democrats or Democratic groups in the period covered. (One has to do a lot of digging to determine this fact—but the info's there, if one is willing to put in the time.) A search on "Abramoff" in www{dot}politicalmoneyline{dot}com yields the same results for the 2002-06 election cycles: he has given over $140,000 in the last three election cycles—all to Republicans or Republican groups.

In the Center for Responsive Politics website, "Sources linked to Abramoff" includes many Indian tribes, whose donations were not necessarily connected to Abramoff. (It also includes his wife, Pamela, and SunCruz Casinos—examples of direct links, none of which gave $$ to Dems or Dem groups.) Although the tribes' connections to Democrats could reasonably be included in the article, it is POV to muddy the waters by continually ignoring the fact that Abramoff's direct ties are entirely in the direction of one party. I'm editing the text to better reflect Abramoff's connections. If an editor wishes to revert it or significantly change it, I trust they'll explain their changes here.--RattBoy 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This is also not true, and when I get time I'll back it up firmly with sources but I've seen it in several reputable locations that not only did 40 of 45 Dem Senators take Abramoff money, over a hundred Dems in the House did too. -- Jbamb 14:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You're saying that Dems received funding directly from Abramoff? In recent years?? If you have data that backs that up, please share it with us. The two reputable sources that I list have no record of it. (As long as you're doing research, you might want to check into the number of Dem Senators; my sources say that there are 44, not 45.)--RattBoy 16:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Typo. Though to be honest, I think seperating out his personal donations and his lobbying firm's donations is odd. If Capone's organization was giving donations, would you exclude them too? As far as I know, there is no one saying his lobbying firm is lilly white and Abramoff was a lone wolf. -- Jbamb 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Separating out his personal donations and his lobbying firm's donations is odd, I agree. However, that's not at all what I'm doing. I'm drawing a distinction between his donations and the donations of Indian tribes that, while connected to him, do not answer to him.
To make the point clear, here's what I'm talking about. Let's look again at CapitalEye.org. Click on the Byron Dorgan entry. You'll find donations from a bunch of Indian tribes—Choctaw, Chippewa, and Cahuilla. Though connected to Abramoff, they're independent entities. They may have had their own reasons for donating to Dorgan, unrelated to Abramoff. Thus, it may be unfair to taint him by association withAbramoff.
In contrast, let's look at Tom DeLay: along with donations from the Cahuilla and Chitimacha groups, there are several donations directly from Abramoff. There's a clear money trail to DeLay, but at most a dotted line to Dorgan.
Representative Number One himself has not only donations from Jack & Pam A., but also one from SunCruz Casinos, Abramoff's little slush fund. That's why Rep. Ney is in deep doo-doo.
I looked at every one of the Dems listed in that (apparently comprehensive and trustworthy) website. Not one was listed as having received funding from Abramoff or the groups controlled by him.
Similarly, a search on "Abramoff" in www{dot}politicalmoneyline{dot}com , looking at the last three election cycles, not only doesn't show any Dems or Dem groups—it only lists 126 donations. So, based on this source, there's no way that 40 Dem senators and 100+ Dem reps have received contributions from this felon.
Again: if you have sources for information that are more robust than the sources I listed, I'd be interested in seeing what you find. Until then, the article should reflect the reality of Abramoff's donation history.--RattBoy 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
And true, Jumpin' Jim Jeffords is not technically a Democrat. -- Jbamb 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer is to remove the disputed paragraph from the preamble and at the same time to remove the disputed tag: QED.Phase1 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? Is the information not relevant? In IMHO, a corrupt lobbyist's political donations are very important in assessing his/her place in politics and history. Since I've given citations that back up my contention (and neither Jbamb nor anyone else has yet rebutted them with contrary references), I strongly belive that the paragraph belongs in the article, without the disputed tag.
The [NPOV Article]says, in part:
The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are 
perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in 
itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited
accordingly.
See also Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. It doesn't endorse simply removing offending text to resolve a dispute. The paragraph is well referenced by two reputable sources. It belongs in the article.--RattBoy 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand the logic of trying to make Abramoff's $200,000 in personal donations to Republicans over 5 years significant, but not the millions in donations from his lobbying clients to both parties. Hello? He's a lobbyist who charged millions just for the access he could grant. Why would the Tribes spend this money to consult with him and then continue to donate thousands to other candidates if he did not direct the donation?
Anyways, as far as this dispute goes, that question is entirely rhetorical; the information in the disputed sentence is completely factual. I would simply remove the preceding clause:
Republican individuals or groups received US$2,912,088 from sources linked to Abramoff since 1999, while Democrat groups and individuals took in US$1,541,673 during that period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwh (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 January 2006
Well, if you can demonstrate that his lobbying clients donated money based on his recommendation, you might have a point. However, I doubt that you can demonstrate that he was the chief director of all the Indian tribes' donations. They had various projects, and a variety of advisors. Thus, the one-sided nature of his donations is the only meaningful measurement we can make of his connections. Given the partisan nature of the K Street Project and the fact that Abramoff was one of Bush's "Pioneer" fundraisers in 2004, his fundraising direction unquestionably points Republican.
By the way, "Democrat" is a noun. It's only used as an adjective by Republicans who dislike Democrats. The correct, NPOV, adjective is "Democratic." If I see "Democrat" used as an adjective in this article or elsewhere, I'll be forced to correct it.--RattBoy 13:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Re-read the text in dispute - it does not claim the clients donated based upon Abramoff's reccommendation. That's a separate argument (which I have an opinion on). With regards to the disputed text, it states a fact which is attributed to CRP. It's significant because he is a lobbyist, and part of what lobbyists do is direct their clients to make campaign contributions. There's no bias if you take out the "Although Abramoff…" part.
However, I would assert that this information is specifically relevant to the Tribes and the lobbying scandal, therefore it might not belong in the article 'preamble'. -Kwh 20:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You miss the point, perhaps deliberately. I don't dispute that the Indian tribes' donations to Republicans and Dems might be relevant in the article; I believe that it should be balanced by citing the fact that Abramoff, clearly a partisan Republican (one of GW Bush's "Pioneers," who has been a sleepover guest at his White House at least three times!), has donated exclusively to Republicans (at least in recent years).--RattBoy 22:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Rattboy - I resent the fact that you think I am missing anything deliberately. I'm only trying to make this the best article it can be and keep it from devolving into a partisan pie-fight. But here's my $64,000 question to you - if Abramoff's clients' donations to Democrats are not significant, why are Democrats returning some of them? -Kwh 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the implication. (I did use the word, "perhaps," so it's not a "fact."
In answer to your question: some Dems may be returning donations because they don’t want to be caught with their hands in the till. However, they may be doing so only to remove any appearance of impropriety.
As this scandal continues to unfold, some Dems may turn out to be as dirty as a pig wallowing in the Senate floor. Until such info comes to light, however, this is a Republican scandal. Those who wish to write about Dirty Dems would do well to visit the Dan Rostenkowski article.--RattBoy 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why this should be omitted from the article:

Abramoff is a central figure in a series of high-profile political scandals directly linked to over 200 Republican members of Congress. Abramoff has never directly contributed any money to Democrats. [14] Some of Abramoff's clients have contributed money to some Democrats, however, there is no evidence that these independent contributions were linked to any corruption. For more information, see Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal.

It was originally deleted by User:69.116.90.247 [15]. When I tried to revert it, User:Phase1 erased it again claiming that "there is nothing anon about him". Why not log in when you make edits? And what is the point of not putting an overview of Abramoff's campaign contributions that are connected with the scandal in the preface of the article? --Howrealisreal 21:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. He HAS given money to Democrats, just not recently. And he's a lobbyist consultant. Don't you think as part of advising his clients in how to lobby Congress he might just tell them where to donate their money? Just a thought... -- Jbamb 21:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

While possible, you'll need a source for your beliefs. Right now it seems that Abramoff's personal motives are aligned exclusively with the GOP. What other entities that he worked for do with their money is another story.It's total speculation to say what extent Abramoff played in those cases. While it is fair to say the lobbying problem (auctioning off public policy to the highest bidder) is equally as bad for Democrats and Republicans, this specific case seems to connect more strongly with the GOP. --Howrealisreal 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jbamb, you have twice asserted that others' claims about this issue are untrue. In the former case, you disputed my well-referenced claims–without coming up with anything to support your statement. Again, in your paragraph above, you fail to back up your POV with a citation. While I accept it as possible that Abramoff may have donated to a Democrat someday in the past, I don't know of any such instance—and you haven't enlightened us. Would you please do the research and cite it prior to your next assertions of this nature?--RattBoy 22:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
RattBoy, there is a link at the end of the introduction to a wikipedia article discussing the corruption allegations (Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal). It is stated there that the corruption involves the indian tribes he represented. I'll concede that Abramoff personally gave money to Republicans, but that's not what the story is about. And in reponse to Howrealisreal, one can not say for sure what Abramoff's motivations were without asking him directly. However, I'd have no qualms wagering that Abramoff's interests were aligned exclusively with his own pocketbook. --Stolencdz 17:28, 8 January 2006 (CST)
Read carefully. Abramoff's scandals are not confined to the Indian tribes he represented. There’s also the little matter of Suncruz Casinos, the entity which apparently wined&dined Bob Ney—and which did not donate any money to any Democrat.
This article is about Jack Abramoff. In assessing who he is, one should look at his political affiliation and interests.
There are scandals re. his work on behalf of some of the Indian tribes he represented. Does that mean that all the tribes he represented are dirty, and that their donations are tainted (or even suspect)? I doubt it. Since we don't know the level of potential "dirt" associated with those donations, it's impossible to say whether the tribes' donations are more important than Abramoff’s personal donations. Therefore, both aspects of the story should be factually laid out.--RattBoy 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


The introduction currently reads that Abramoff directly contributed to over 200 Republican congressmen. Is this figure correct? I have seen lists from many of the political contribution websites that are publicly available, but never bothered to count how many distinct names appeared. Furthermore, whenever I looked at such lists I saw contributions to Senators and the President. Where did the firgure 200 Congressmen come from? Thanks --Stolencdz 17:39, 8 January 2006 (CST)

I'm skeptical. The CapitalEye.org site lists 196 Republican entities that have received $$ from Abramoff and "sources linked to" him since 1999. That includes ten groups such as "National Republican Senatorial Cmte," as well as candidates who didn't win (and thus couldn't be correctly called "congressmen"). I suppose if one went back another decade, one might find 200 Republican individuals getting $$ from Abramoff and his associates (again, whatever that means). However, I very much doubt that as many as 200 Republican members of Congress received $$ directly from him.--RattBoy 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The CRP data shows direct contributions from Abramoff to 112 different entities in the election cycles 2000-2006. I think that CRP is also subtracting off the donations returned, since they show -$1000 ($1000 from) Frank Lobiando in 2006. The thing is, nothing in and of that is illegal or even unethical. It's the 'quid pro quo' which goes against Congressional ethics and may be illegal. -Kwh 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Indian gaming groups have donated to Democratic and Republican groups since before the Indian gaming industry was legalized. What's important isn't whether Democrats got Indian money, but how Abramoff effected his clients' donation habits. Washington Post reporter Susan Schimdt, February 22, 2004: "Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes -- Michigan's Saginaw Chippewas, the Agua Caliente of California, the Mississippi Choctaws and the Louisiana Coushattas... have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they have donated to federal candidates since 2001, records show..." Abramoff didn't bring more money to Democrats. He *reduced* the money that Democrats were taking and diverted that money to Republicans. --Sorenr 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro removal by Phase1

The intro must be re-written. A paragraph or two that deals with abramof's life from zero to now. This is the second (and last) time i have reverted edits such as [16], keep an eye for it.- 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is good to note the current, succinct intro excludes the section that I previously had to edit out.Phase1 15:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

I think this article needs a re-org to focus on the things of significance with regards to Abramoff. I'm going to try to form an outline on the main significant facts about Abramoff to create a better section layout from, and re-org the article to focus in on what is significant for a reader. Don't yell at me, I don't have all night to cover everything so please correct and add to this outline as appropriate, and bold the outline items so that they can be distinguished from discussion. As far as I can see, the significant things about Abramoff are: (Note: I put in a lot of quick notes below which could be considered very POV. These all need to be supported with facts and cites in the rewrite. I'm just trying to put things I have read in different places together to make more of a 'story'.) -Kwh 17:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Intro: He is a businessman and a political lobbyist, implicated
  • 1980s - He was in the College Republicans with Reed and Norquist.
  • 1986 - He cut his lobbyist teeth at the International Freedom Foundation (IFF) where he recruited a number of so-called useful idiots.
  • 1994 - He rose in prominence as a lobbyist at Preston Gates following the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.
  • 1997 - Tom Delay, Northern Marianas lobbying.
    • Frank Murkowski, then Senator from Alaska, and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee writea a bill to extend the protection of U.S. labor and minimum-wage laws to the workers in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas. Then, and now, they are allowed to use the "Made in the USA" label.
    • So compelling was the case for change (91 percent of the workforce were immigrants, and were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage, were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks minus plumbing, work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, etc.), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Murkowski worker reform bill.
    • In the meantime, the Northern Marianas hires Jack Abramoff to lobby for them and paid him roughly $9 million to prevent this
    • As part of Abramoff's lobbying, Tom DeLay took a trip with his family and some staff members there in 1998. (On New Years Eve, there, is where DeLay made the famous comment of Abramoff: "one of my closest and dearest friends."
    • Abramoff funneled much of the money to his pet charities, including to Rabbi David Lapin for promoting ethics in government, and many DeLay charities.
    • At least two people who worked on Abramoff's team at Preston Gates wound up with Bush administration jobs: Patrick Pizzella, named an assistant secretary of labor by Bush; and David Safavian, chosen by Bush to oversee federal procurement policy in the Office of Management and Budget. (Safavian has recently been indicted relating to other lobby type problems with Abramoff).
    • By 2001, DeLay has succesfully stopped Murkowski's bill, and the Islands gained at least $2 million more in federal aid from the administration.
    • this section needs more work, but I wanted to get something rolling here. Sholom 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 1999-2000 - Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
    • Ralph Reed and Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition helped Abramoff with a pro-gambling campaign to prevent Internet Gambling from being federally outlawed.(!)
    • Reed and Sheldon focused on parts of the bill which allowed loopholes for dog, horse racing, and jai-alai. This enabled them to oppose the bill on the basis that it was 'pro-gambling' even though it was a bill to restrict internet gambling (and the bill was otherwise supported by Dobson, Focus on the Family)
    • eLottery Inc was Abramoff's client[17]
    • Money to Reed was laundered through Norquist's ATR, then through Robin Vanderwall, director of the Faith and Family Alliance, a "shell". Vanderwall was later convicted of soliciting minors via the Internet and is serving a seven-year term in Virginia state prison.
    • Tony Rudy, Delay's Chief of Staff, funneled inside information on the bill to Abramoff.
    • Abramoff funneled eLottery money through "Toward Tradition", which employed Rudy's wife
    • Shandwick Worldwide - hired by Abramoff to get letters opposing IGPA from Jeb Bush.
    • Florida man, Matthew Blair, told authorities in a plea bargain agreement that he was hired to get letters opposing the bill from Bush and others, but created a forgery when this failed.
    • Forged letter from Jeb Bush opposing IGPA circulated on House floor, caused confusion
    • Delay voted down on the bill, helped keep the bill off the floor for the rest of the session through procedural tricks (suspension calendar).
    • eLottery paid for part of the 2000 Delay Scotland golf trip, Tony Rudy was invited as well.
    • The bills sponsors gave it another shot by trying to attach it to an appropriations bill.
    • Reed and Sheldon focused on lobbying 10 conservative representatives in vulnerable districts
    • The representatives told Delay that their constituents were angry about the bill and did not want it passed; Rudy worked within Delay's office to 'trump up' the concerns (manufactured by Reed and Sheldon) and get Delay, Hastert to tell the caucus not to pursue the bill.
    • Abramoff later hired Rudy after he left Delay's office.
  • 2000 - Delay Scotland golf trip (Remember that Delay's problems with not reporting this donation was one of the first things that brought Abramoff into the spotlight). Also, the Skyboxes. Need to focus specifically on JA's part in this
  • 2000-2001 - He was part of the 2000 Florida Recount legal effort This is not currently mentioned
    • In 2001 moved to Greenberg Traurig. and poached some clients.
  • 2000-2005 - He was investigated, indicted, and pled guilty to bank and wire fraud in the SunCruz case. Suncruz purchase deal was done in 2000.
    • (IIRC)He convinced a bank he was worthy of credit to make the Suncruz purchase by using transfers of lobbying cash ($23m) to represent assets which he did not have.
    • remove the last sentence and replace with the following three bullet points
      • He heard from another lawyer at his lawfirm that the owner of Suncruz needed to sell. Abramoff said that the knew of potential buyers. He concealed his own interest from his lawfirm, becuase, without full disclosure, it is unethical for a single lawfirm to represent both a buyer and a seller
      • He pleaded guilty to committing fraud by producing fraudlent documents that purported to show he came up with a $23m down payment
      • Although the seller, Boulis, needed to fully divest, Abramoff made a side deal with the Boulis in order to let him keep 10%
    • Dana Rohrabacher, Tony Rudy (Delay aid) helped him pull off the bank fraud by providing credit references.
    • Ney helped out with comments in the congressional record, by admonishing the previous owner (Boulis) and praising the purchase.
    • Delay may have helped out by giving Boulis a flag which had flown over Capitol, and one of Abramoff's financiers for the purchase came to a skybox fundraiser for Delay.
    • We need to put the full details on Boulis's murder at the Suncruz article, not here. Abramoff has not yet been implicated in the murder, only his associate Adam Kidan.
  • 2001-2006 - He lobbied Congress and the administration on behalf of Native American tribes, some of which he has plead guilty to defrauding.
    • Abramoff TribeScam outline:
      • Around 2001, JA went in search of a lobbying client who was naive and had a lot of money to spend.
      • Abramoff found the LA Coushattas, whose casino was in debt. ($30mil)
      • Abramoff gained the Coushattas trust, Coushatta needed help with LA people who wanted to shut them down.
      • Some of the Coushatta expressed doubts against trusting JA, JA exploited the intra-tribal (and inter-tribal) politics to discredit 'dissidents'. Excellent perspective from the tribehere.
      • In October 2001, JA convinced the Coushatta that TX legislature was going to allow indian gambling. Exploited tribal fears of Tigua and AL Coushatta casinos in Texas, stealing their revenue from gamblers commuting from TX.
        • This was the initial 'Phantom Menace' pitch to get the Coushatta to dish out $3.5mil in the first six months, to lobby against something which wasn't going to happen anyways.
      • Jena #1-In January 2002, Jena Choctaw submitted compact to get approval for a casino (in LA). [18]
        • Abramoff had Reed and Dobson do the first 'anti-gambling' crusade, resulting in first Jena shutdown. (Reed got $4mil altogether)
        • Abramoff funneled cash to Federal level (Dept. of Interior, indirectly through CREA ($225K), Gale Norton's former PAC, now run by Italia Federici to get access to Griles and Norton in Interior) and cash to Senators and Representatives to write letters to Interior to stop Jena.
        • Abramoff was on first-name basis with Griles, Griles arranged meetings between Coushatta and MS Choctaw chiefs (MS Choctaw also an Abramoff client, also opposed Jena) and Norton. Meetings occurred at CREA functions as well as officially, at Interior.
        • Vitter wrote letters to Interior, got 26 other house members to sign. Reed promoted Vitter in postcard campaign, who later won LA Senate race.
        • Senators Breaux, Lott, Cochran send letters to Interior.
        • March 6 - After all the letters have been written, Coushatta cut the checks to 61 members of Congress. Also, one check on the list makes the CREA->Norton link implicit: "Council for Republican Advocacy (Norton)."
        • March 7 - DoI rejects Jena compact.
      • Jena #2
        • After rejection, Jena hired their own lobbyists (Patton-Boggs) and tried again, this time with tacit support of Billy Tauzin and Breaux.
        • March 2002 - LA Rep. McCrery's chief of staff, Bob Brooks (who later went on a Scotland golf trip with Abramoff) writes up legislation to block Jena.
        • June 2002 - Strongly worded, Abramoff-written letter to Norton opposing Jena is signed and sent by Delay, Hastert, and Blunt.
        • more cash to CREA to get influence with Interior. Also, cash to CREA from Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan tribe? Why was this?)
        • Griles tries hard to influence Norton within Interior. He is challenged by Michael Rosetti, Counsel at Interior, 'who did not want Norton's decision process on the Jenas influenced by "outside people".'
        • Vitter tries to urge Interior to block Jena via language in Appropriations report.
        • December 2002 - Norton eventually allows Jena compact, but the tribe ultimately gets shot down by LA gov. Kathleen Babineaux-Blanco, who does not want any expansion of gambling.
      • Tigua
        • Abramoff funneled cash to Cornyn, cash to Reed, Dobson, Christian Coalition to defeat Tigua in TX. Funneled cash through bogus American International Center, Delaware shell corp, as well as through Grover Norquist orgs. Abramoff used Reed as cover, Reed went on 'anti-gambling' crusade, brought in numerous pastors and evangelical sources to lobby and 'propagandize'. Abramoff hid the fact that he was behind the Tigua defeat.
        • February 2002 - Abramoff knows through Reed that the Tigua casino is about to get shut down by Cornyn. Abramoff and Scanlon make a move to take on Tigua as clients.
        • Abramoff and Scanlon soak the Tigua (who historically donated to Democrats) for vastly inflated rates, because Abramoff looks like an extremely powerful lobbyist (by what he has been able to do for the Coushatta and others) and because he is the Tigua's last hope.
        • JA sells the Tigua on a massive, national political campaign. He is basically charging them enough for a presidential campaign. The actual work described in this campaign is not really ever started.
        • Abramoff starts shipping out Tigua cash to Delay, ARMPAC, Blount, Ney. Big payoff to Ney. This is to get a clause put into the Help America Vote Act to 'save' the Tigua from Cornyn. Delay, Blount, Ney, will use their power to make sure the amendment doesn't get debated too much. Dem. Sen Chris Dodd is allegedly supposed to help the bill pass the Senate. Per Dodd, someone from DNC (Democratic National Committee) and 2 Ney staffers approach Dodd, but he will not help. Abramoff emails Scanlon - "get our money back from that mother fucker who was supposed to take care of dodd" (Interesting fact to research here - Ney staffers went to Dodd because they were wondering whether the amendment (which Ney supported in the House) was going to pass the Senate. Ney claims he realizes he was 'duped' by Abramoff when he found out that Dodd was not going to support it. Who was the person from the DNC? was this the person Abramoff/Scanlon paid to try to coerce Dodd?)
          • Abramoff/Scanlon had to get a Democrat (Dodd) on-board because the Senate was a Democratic majority at the time, due to the Jim Jeffords 'flip'. It's also possible that Dodd was on the appropriate committee for 'reconciliation' of the bill amendments.
        • The bill will not pass, but nobody tells the Tigua. Abramoff gets the Tigua to pay for Ney's scotland golf trip. (w/Safavian, Reed, Abramoff)
        • Tigua get hosed, complain ... eventually this all gets investigated by SIAC.
    • Above details are on LA Coushatta and Tigua scams. Need details on JA's other tribal clients - Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Clara.
    • He committed income tax fraud in the amount of millions of dollars in perpetrating that fraud.
    • He admitted to bribing "Representative #1" (Ney)
    • However, much of this detail belongs on the Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal article
    • Need to get down to brass tacks on what money was given and who wrote letters/did favors - the 'quid-pro-quo'. The fact is that both Republicans and Democrats did write letters or otherwise use influence on behalf of Abramoff's tribal clients. - this should go to the scandal article
  • 2003 - He was paid by Tyco to carry out an 'astroturf' grass-roots lobbying campaign (while at Greenberg Traurig), but allegedly defrauded Tyco (money paid, but work not done)

Things which are less significant/belong in an "Other" section:

  • The "Red Scorpion" movie (but note the IFF connection).
  • The "Channel One News" lobbying.
  • Connection to Malaysia.
  • Homeland Security contract? (I hadn't heard about this, not sure how significant it is)

Things which belong in an "Other investigations" section:

  • 2002 - Connection to Guam.

-Kwh 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yours is a constructive rewrite. As regards your statement: "The fact is that both Republicans and Democrats did write letters or otherwise use influence on behalf of Abramoff's tribal clients":
I don't think that's necessarily very relevant to the scandal. Senators write letters on behalf of their constituents all the time.
Dorgan says, in his rebuttal to media stories inspired by the Republican National Committee, that he intervened on tribes' behalf months before receiving donations. It's easy to recognize that a Senator from North Dakota, a state with a high Native American population, would support schools and hospitals for them, merely as part of his constituent service. See http://dorgan.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=249313, linked twice in the Article. Time will tell whether or not any Dems are as dirty as DeLay and Ney or not. For now, emphasizing the "fact" that you list risks assisting RNC POV spin.--RattBoy 01:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant, and so is Dorgan's rebuttal, as well as any rebuttal Delay or Ney might make. One of the most critical things in distinguishing a 'quid-pro-quo' from a representative simply accepting support from constituents and then representing their concerns is the correlation of the money to the act. Example: this story from Sign On San Diego[19] implicates both Reid and Hastert by this sort of timing correlation, which they all (of course) deny. My personal opinion (as a citizen) is that this shouldn't be about who plays the best spin game. We all lose (those of us who are US citizens) if anyone gets a free pass on this. Every politician - any party - who's been playing this farcical 'see no evil, hear no evil' game of pretending that hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions from a single source isn't tied to a 'quid-pro-quo' has the chance to confess their 'sins' and beg forgiveness, or else they can all share the same fate. As far as the article goes, It's not assisting RNC POV spin if the facts speak for themselves. We have a duty to the truth. -Kwh 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to back up on that, just a little. I forgot which article I was discussing. On review, this particular article is about Abramoff himself, and his crime is defrauding the Tribes, bribing "Representative #1" (Ney) (specifically, conspiracy to corrupt public officials, mail fraud and tax evasion). Logically, most of the details on the tribal money debacle belong in Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal. I stand by my rant on campaign finance, though.-Kwh 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, Time Magazine has a good overall/summary article on all of this. I would suggest that whoever (who has more time than I) re-writes use it as a resource. It's at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1147156,00.html, although you need to be a subscriber to get web access.

Proposed rewrite -- Reinventing a Wheel anywhere?

OK, I'm new at this, so somebody help me out please? It seems to me that the entries for Jack Abramoff, and for the Abramoff Scandal, are almost completely overlapping. E.g., the above re-write is almost all the scandal part, right?

So, we're either reinventing a wheel over here, or over there they need to reinvent a wheel.

Somebody help me out here? What should we do? Sholom 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'abridged' version of the rewrite would be about Abramoff's life. The individual scandals can be broken out into their own (linked) articles. The idea is to eliminate the overlap, eventually. The reader can go to Jack Abramoff for a capsule biography of him, including a summary of the scandal, and then click to the scandal article to get the full meat and potatoes.-Kwh 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure how it works, practically, with an open-document situation like this, but your idea, if it can work, is sound (imho). Furthermore, are we to have one, or more than one, scandal articles? E.g., I've already written the SunCruz Casinos article, which is the longest treatment of it in Wikipedia. And here (above) we now have the summary. So, then, what goes into the generic Abramoff scandal article? (Note: Suncruz has nothing to do with lobbying, it was just -- for the most part -- an ordinary fraud case. But, even aside from that question: where do we go from here? Users are already simulateously working on this article and the Abramoff article and Abramoff scandal article -- in an uncoordinated independant fashion. So, where do we go from here? (Please note: two separate questions: (a) conceptually, how do we connect Abramoff article, Abramoff scandal article, and SunCruz Casinos article; and (b) how do we get a better handle on coordinating the Abramoff and Abramoff scandal articles?). (Also, I just learned that case matters! Note the difference between Abramoff scandal and Abramoff Scandal and SunCruz Casinos and Suncruz Casinos. Is there anyway to fix that? Sholom 14:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the insanity

I'll try and keep this as civilized as possible...

Abramoff's CLIENTS did also give money to Democrats, but it's totally irrelevant. He's a Washington DC Lobbyist.. Of course he's going to have clients who contributed to both Republicans and Democrats. That's not an imporant link.

This is a load of garbage designed to push a POV. Abramoff is a lobbying consultant. He's in trouble for getting access to his clients. It is simply unreasonable to believe that part of this influence buying for his clients makes his clients and firms donations irrelevant. -- Jbamb 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Simplistic scenario for those who lack the sense referred to as common

  • I shop at JewelOsco. Therefore, I'm a client of JewelOsco.
  • I am also a supporter of Bryon Dorgan (D-ND) and I went online and donated $100 to him last week.
  • Let's suppose that a JewelOsco scandal erupts where it is revealed that at weekly board meetings, members of the board decapitate innocent baby kittens for their own entertainment....
  • Let's suppose we have an article about the scandal: JewelOsco Kitten Slaughetering Scandal
  • If someone wrote in the top paragraph "Democrat Bryon Dorgon has received donations from clients of kitten slaughterers", WOULDN'T YOU THINK THEY'RE BATSHIT INSANE?!

Jack Abramoff:

  • Hated Democrats, and never had any dealings with any Democrats. Period.
  • Never gave a single red penny to Democrats Period.
  • Gave money to some 200 members of Congress. ALL OF THEM WERE REPUBLICANS.

Please stop the lying. This isn't the Fox News Channel: it's an encyclopedia. 202.76.188.214 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Give this a little more thought and come up with a more accurate scenario (though the use of analogies offends my senses):
  • I am a conservative. I consistently vote for Republicans and donate to Republicans all over my state and across the nation.
  • I work for an evil oil company that wants to drill for oil off the shore of Massachusetts. I use my employer's (ie, the company's; if you'd like the company can be owned by an indian tribe) to bribe every federal politician in Massachusets to push through a bill allowing my company to drill.
Now what has happened? I, a conservative person who has personally donated large - yet legal - sums of money to Republicans, have broken the law by bribing a bunch of Democrats. Am I saying that is what happened? No. I don't know exactly what happened. Nobody in the general public does. It is very possible that every Republican in the national government is driving a Mercedes personally delivered by Abramoff. Until we find out, however, it is unnecessary, irresponsible, and misleading to portray the situation otherwise. This is an encyclopedia. It's not Fox News, or the New York Times, or 202.76.188.214's personal blog. Until guilt is admitted or found, let's leave the conjecture to the pundits. --Stolencdz 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the opening paragraph is total conjecture. My analogy was supposed to demonstrate how ridiculously tenuous that link is. I completely agreee with you: let's not insinuate junk we don't know about. That's why I think the sentence about "well, abramoff's clients gave money to democrats, so you know, it's all fine, right?" (i'm paraphrasing) ought not be in the article: at the very least, not in the opening paragraph. That correlation doesn't have any place in the article at all IMO, but certainly not in the opening paragraph. It trivializes the link between Abramoff and the REPUBLICANS who he wrote checks to. I hope that explains it "more better" (to quote Shrub). I wish I could have worked something about decapitating kittens in there... 202.76.188.214 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you guys are arguing about. The intro paragraph is totally legit as of right now. It states that Abramoff has not donated to Democrats personally (based on the information that is available) in recent years, and that his scandal has also implicated his buisness partners who have donated to both Democrats and Republicans. What's wrong with that? The real question that I think you guys should be asking is: why Abramoff? I bet that there are tons of people like him on K Street, each with their own political connections and motives, but yet Abramoff is the one that got snagged. It seems to me that Abramoff is just the tip of the iceberg here, and that the lessons learned from this can easily be applied to all the other "super lobbyists" out there for either political party that we just don't know about yet.--Howrealisreal 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I will admit that my opposition to the opening paragraphs stems from a personal bias. I am a conservative-leaning individual who has been frustrated by the repeated references to "Jack Abramoff, Republican lobbyist, ..." (such a description implies that he lobbies *for* Republicans; if anything it should read 'Jack Abramoff, Indian lobbyist'). When I first encountered the article it read "Jack Abramoff, Republican attorney and 'super' lobbyist" and have struggled since then to establish a more nuetral openning.
And responding to HRiR's post, I agree. I was happy with the paragraph that explained his personal contributions and his clients contributions separately. It's been changed since but I'm fighting the urge to revert it for fear of unleashing all hell on myself. I've avoided giving my input to the rest of the article for two reasons: First, I expect I may tear what's left of my hair out as I edit our rumor after rumor. Second, I don't know enough detail about each particular incident to accurately assess what is a rumor.
But in the end we all seem to agree on the same point: An encyclopedia is a depository for facts. If we can all hold true to that credo, and look past our personal biases, we won't have any problems - and wikipedia will be stronger for it. --Stolencdz 06:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, Abramoff is (or was) a Republican fundraiser and an activist Republican. Given DeLay's K Street Project, which essentially consisted of arm-twisting lobbying firms into hiring Republicans in top positions, I think it's completely factual to describe Abramoff as a "Republican lobbyist." Considering that his manifold scandals encompass far more than a few Indian tribes (see Mariana Islands[20], SunCruz Casinos, Guam, and Osama bin Laden)1, calling him an "Indian lobbyist" would be incomplete and incorrect. I don't insist that the word, "Republican," appear in the initial sentence, as long as his partisan nature is clear from the text of the article.
I also agree with HRiR's post. I would be happy if the paragraph re. political contributions contained the following information:
  • He has personally donated a bunch o bucks to Republicans, and
  • Sources "linked to him" (again, whatever that means) have donated to Repubs and Dems in approximately a 2-to-1 ratio.
  • It would also be appropriate, in IMHO, to note that he was one of Bush's "Pioneers," raising $100,000+ for his re-election campaign—but I don't insist that that be included.
An article which contains this information might not be kind to the Republican Party, but it would be factual and NPOV. From my point of view, the reason that this whole discussion has taken place, is that every time I tried to point out his partisan Republican history, some editor or other would revert it—ignoring my citations and claiming sans references that Abramoff had donated to Dems. If the description meets the above criteria, I'll go and find something else to whinge about. I think the article is pretty close to the criteria that I list; as it stands, it's pretty good.
(1) (I'm kidding about his purported bin Laden connections, which have a VinceFosteresque ring to them.)--RattBoy 11:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of Party Affiliation

The latest in this category is from 69.116.90.247, who deleted the word, "Republican," from the Intro. I restored it. I feel we've reached something approaching a consensus on this aspect of the Jack story. If they delete the info without any discussion on the Talk Page, I'll have to revert it.--RattBoy 11:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Representative #1 ?

The antecedents section says "whom many believe to be Bob Ney" and the indian tribes section says "but who is confirmed to be Bob Ney" Which one is it?32.97.110.142 14:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by Ney's lawyer.[21] I've changed the Antecedents section to reflect that fact.--RattBoy 11:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Is it really important to include Abramoff's religion in the introduction? I don't see this as a typical practice. For example, no where in George W Bush's opening does it talk about his religion. Nor does it say 'Roman Catholic' in the openning of Ted Kennedy's. --Stolencdz 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Attention: Unless all references to Israel or Jack Abramoffs being Jewish are permanently removed, I will continue to edit this page FOREVER. The authors are obviously Jew haters, and are using Wikopedia as a weapon to both slander Jack Abramoff and by inference all other Jews. Why else would you have to write about his Jewish upbringing or his friend in the ultra orthodox city of Bietar Illit. Most educated antisemitic vermin like yourselves realize that you can't spill forth your venom by claiming that the Jews own the media and banks so you do it with subtleties like mentioning how he changes his "Yarmulke" at will in order to fool his clients. Or refer to him as a "SUPER ZIONIST using references from articles by other antisemites as if having been printed lends legitimacy to your slander.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.111.138 (talk • contribs) .

  • I also see little reason to reference his religion -- but I think there is one place where it is legitimately mentioned: he founded a private Jewish school (Eshkol), where he sent his kids, and used it to launder money. I would point out that almost all the mainstream press also takes this tack -- that is, specifically: ignoring his religion except when mentioning the school, and, even there, just mentioning it once. Thoughts? Sholom 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well if a random person intends to edit this page FOREVER if even the causual mention of Mr. Abramoffs religion or religion-related dealings remains on the page, I would think that section of the page should be protected :/. But if this religious school he founded really existed and if he really used it to launder money, it seems right to put that part in there at the very least, but those are just my thoughts :). Homestarmy 16:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Naturally you would, I bet you would like to see the UN protect Neo Nazi Concentration camps if they were built too. "CAUSUAL" Jew hater that you are. This edit by 85.250.166.7 (talk · contribs)
    • The school is called Eshkol Academy. What we do know, for sure, is that funds from at least one of Abramoff's "charitable organaizations" (specifically, the Capital Athletic Foundation) were used to help fund it (whether it was used as a pass through to launder money to other places is strongly suspected, but not proved anywhere). I think to ignore that it was a religious school is silly. However, I generally do agree that, otherwise, the article need not mention his religion. Sholom 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


I completely agree with Stolencdz: It certainly shouldn't be in the introduction. Also, Sholom's change was necessary and a clear improvement. Some time ago, I also had made a related change [22] and my rationale was thus: The distinction I make is what I may call "inward" and "outward" religion.
I can't look into other people's heart, so, as a rule, the question how religious they are is none of my business, and does certainly not belong in an encyclopedia. That is inward religion. Wearing a yarmulke, a burqa, a rumāl or a "Jesus Loves you" badge are outward signs, and there's nothing wrong with noting them. I found it an interesting tidbit that Abramoff chose to remove the outward sign.
But if this is really encyclopedic is a different question altogether. I think Howrealisreal (above, 15:15, 9 January 2006) hit the nail on the head when he wrote "I bet that there are tons of people like him on K Street". That's what we should turn our attention to! Common Man 18:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think because he funded pro-israel projects, because he started his own jewish school, and because he has stated in interviews that he is very proud what he has done to promote the jewish religion, I think it is very relevent that his faith be included as long as it does not say something like "he is a dirty jew", but instead says "he is a jew". You can't deny this fact about his life without betraying objectivity. --M4bwav 03:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert war about a Juan Cole link

This link: http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/abramoff-and-al-arian-lobbyists.html has been added and reverted numerous times. I wonder what's the consensus about this? On the one hand, the charges are inflammatory. On the other, I was under the impression that Juan Cole was a recognized expert on the Middle East. Should the link stay or go?--RattBoy 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Leave it, Cole is a recognized expert. Even if "inflammatory," the "charges" are true and informative.--64.18.237.141 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Juan Cole is an opinion blogger and Professor of History. As the by-line on his site notes, these are "Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion". He is most definitely expert, but in this case, Professor Cole is rebutting the speculation from The Hill that the sniper classes are for the IDF. He is also commenting on the ME situation by posing the hypothetical that if a Muslim had sent sniper equipment to a Palestinian, they would be arrested, thrown in Gitmo, etc.
It needs to be given the weight of an opinion, not fact. (IIRC the text was "as Professor Cole points out," a phrasing which gives the opinion the weight of professorial research and fact; one does not 'point out' an opinion) I would argue that it would be better yet to cite and state the facts (Baytal Ilis is an Israeli settlement in the contested West Bank, Schmuel's "Kollel" was there, that's where JA sent the money.) Let the reader form the opinion. Beyond that we get into the arena of Middle East politics which is best left in articles about the Middle East. -Kwh 03:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Juan is a Jew basher, his entire article is conjecture. Why do you assume that he is an "expert" He has no way to verify the facts so he continues to make them up as he goes along. Abramoffs friend happens to be an IDF Sniper trainer and officer in the IDF Sniper training course.
Please substantiate your assertion that Juan Cole is a "Jew basher." How do you know Abramoff's friend is "an IDF Sniper trainer and officer in the IDF Sniper training course"? Source, please.--DieWeibeRose 06:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion & Israel- Striking a ballance

Calling Abramoff a "Super-Zionist" is clearly out-of-bounds.

Much of the other stuff you cite as well is far out-of-bounds and clearly anti-semitic.

However, I trust you will weild a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer in your edits and refrain from deleting legitimate references? -- NiftyDude 10:54, 11 January 2006

"Pleaded" vs. "Pled"

Sometimes the opening sentence says he "pled" guilty; sometimes it says he "pleaded." Should editors be rv'ing this back and forth?

Dictionary.com gives "pleaded" as more common. However, I think "pled" is more elegant. I'm not bigtime invested in this, but it seems that editors oughta decide on one, and then spend their time on more substantive edits.

What do you-all think? "Pleaded" or "pled?"--RattBoy 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pled (in a legal context) is the more correct of the two. From [23]: The past tense is pleaded, pled, or plead (this last pronounced PLED), and the past participle, pleaded, pled, or plead (PLED). Pleaded, the regular weak verb form, is more frequent for both parts of speech, and the pled and plead past and past participle forms are labeled Colloquial by some dictionaries, Standard by others.

Plead not guilty and plead guilty are Standard idioms (His lawyer advised him to plead not guilty [guilty]), and the media almost always uses pled to report a defendant’s actions: The defendant pled [not] guilty.

  • But check out all the newspaper reports -- they seem to only use "pleaded" (and, if so, then we ought to, no?) Sholom 04:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That seems to be the case (google news results for "abramoff pled" are less than 100 while "abramoff pleaded" results are in the thousands). In that case, I guess pleaded should be used unless any specific guidelines are posted in the WP style guide.--216.165.33.63 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think 'pled' sounds better. This sounds like a hung/hanged arguement to me. --Stolencdz 08:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I think 'pled' sounds better, too, but have been going with 'pleaded' b/c that's how all the news media seem to be reporting it.Sholom 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite!

I've been working on a rewrite here. Normally it's not good form to do a rewrite/re-org on a temporary page, but it's taken me a few days to get this far. Feel free to be bold and help me finish it. My method is start with the outline as a 'new view', then take some of the existing sentences from this and the scandal article to fill in the outline, and write my own stuff to fill in the blanks and make it into a story. You may notice that this article is getting very long; my method is to write out everything, then cut pieces out to go to other 'breakout' articles in a way that makes structural sense.

One thing you'll notice is that Abramoff's life, like Wikipedia, is extremely interlinked.

You'll also notice a link there to a Wikisource text where I am transcribing the contents of Abramoff's emails, memos, and checks (which are available from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee only as a bunch of poorly scanned print pages). The text of these documents will eventually be very useful to citation, so if you have any skill with OCR software, or can just type, please help out with transcription. Eventually I plan to upload the individual TIF images to Wikisource and link them to the individual pages shown there. -Kwh 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved the rewrite out of user space to make clear that this is not intended to be a POV Fork. Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor. -Kwh 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Transition Team

Air America keeps talking about how Abramoff was on Bush's transition team. I haven't found anything to corroborate that. JI

Well, we have the Texas Observer: "He was a friend of Bush advisor Karl Rove. He was a Bush “Pioneer,” delivering at least $100,000 in bundled contributions to the 2000 campaign. He had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior. He had sent his personal assistant Susan Ralston to the White House to work as Rove’s personal assistant."
And Newsweek: "Yet Abramoff’s ties to the administration extended well beyond campaign checks. In 2001, Bush tapped the lobbyist as a member of his Presidential Transition Team, advising the administration on policy and hiring at the Interior Department, which oversees Native American issues."
Hope this helps...--RattBoy 23:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI, based on my research, Abramoff's initial contacts on the DoI had a lot to do with the Marianas Islands lobbying. Basically, CNMI had no inroads in the Clinton White House for many years; in 2001 Abramoff lobbied heavy in DoI on behalf of CNMI, and made contact with Griles. He also was lobbying on behalf of a few tribal clients, but the Coushatta/Tigua "TribeScam" was just getting started in 2001.
There's 1,001 sources that mention the same blurb that "he had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior." However, there's no source which really makes clear what JA did on the transition team, nor exactly how he got there. Why JA, why not someone else? That's what I want to know. Yes, he plunked money into a lot of campaign funds, but so did a lot of others. This link indicates that Norquist had something to do with it. This would be an interesting topic for research. -Kwh 00:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a historical document with sundry announcements from the White House in 2001, including announcements of many of the sub-cabinet level appointments, such as J. Steven Griles. A look at some of the names associated with Interior might give insight on what Abramoff was working on. -Kwh 01:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is another useful bit of info - there were 474 people in all on the transition team, and "the vast majority of the members are industry lobbyists, corporate executives, trade association leaders and others with a pro-business agenda." However, this list from opensecrets claims to show 261 of the members who were also campaign contributors. Where's Abramoff? We do have William Jarrell, who worked alongside JA at Preston Gates, and also worked for DeLay, but that's 'sensible' since Jarrell also worked in the Dept of Interior during the Bush 41 Administration. This page also has a list of registered lobbyists on the transition team... again, where's Abramoff? (Note: there's a second list on that page showing lobbyists who are contributors which does include Abramoff, so don't get confused). So has Abramoff's appearance on these lists been censored (even from some highly critical sites), or is that much-repeated report in error? -Kwh 06:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Request to lock

Get the facts in and lock this thing. We've got people trying to spin it as hard as they can to the left, and others, notably John Henry, trying their absolute hardest to downplay the things. Just get the essential facts in there, like what he's charged with and who he's connected to and lock the article-otherwise, there's going to be fighting over this for weeks, and it's going to be vicious.-72.21 Same guy-a rewrite is pointless, this is extremely charged politically, and no version of events is going to be acceptable to everyone. The Republicans would like this article outright deleted, while the Democrats would like to paint this guy as the Devil Himself and George Bush's best friend. Just get it as objection as possible, and protect it.-72.210/UmlautBob

Comment moved to end-of-page. Also, I'd like to note that a rewrite is required to make the article readable and better organised, currently it is a mish mash of sections, w/ almost no hierarchy. I agree the article should steer away for political finger pointing and just present facts. This user has left wikipedia 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Contributions to Congress

My contention is that the artice says he contrubuted to several republican candidates, which is true, but he also contributed to severa democrat candidates, Debbie Stabenow is one, so why can't it just say he contributed to candidates without referencing which political party? Is that not the most objective way to write it. It is certainly not fair to mention only republicans.-unsigned by User:24.11.154.78

Where do you find that he contributed to Stabenow? FEC records show he contributed solely to Republicans. There are also no allegations that Abramoff directed any money to any Dems. OTOH, Stabenow did, I believe, receive money from Abramoff's clients, but as I wrote above, I think it is unfair to tarnish every single recipient of any money from an Indian Tribe. I'll even go further, it looks like Levin and Stabenow both might be involved, but that's a different question, and pretty speculative. The bottom line, at least here, is that Abramoff did not donate to any Dem, nor did he direct any donation to any Dem. Sholom 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Well, there is the Washinton Post artice here [24] Also, Den. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has acknowledged he did not properly report two fundraisers in Abramoff's sky box in 2002 and 2003. Montana Senators Max Baucus, a Democrat, returned $18,892, including $1,892 he had failed to report for use of Abramoff's skybox at a Washington, D.C., sports arena. Senator Byron Dorgan, a Democrat who sits on a congressional committee that oversees Indian tribes' issues with Sen Burns (a R who gave back money), returned $67,000 in Abramoff-related donations

According to Internal Revenue Service records, and substantiated by the Campaign Finance Analysis Project, forty of the forty-five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and their Indian tribe clients. These recipients include: Charles Schumer ($29,550), Harry Reid ($68,941), Patty Murray ($78,991), Mary Landrieu ($28,000), John Kerry ($98,550), Ted Kennedy ($3,300), Tom Harkin ($45,750), Dick Durbin ($14,000), Barbara Boxer ($20,250), Hillary Clinton ($12,950) and Byron Dorgan ($79,300).

When tallied, Senate Democrats and their national committees accepted $3.1 million from Abramoff, his associates and clients, compared with $4.3 million in contributions to Republicans. So, the statement that this is exclusively a “Republican scandal” is simply not true." source [25]

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave money to a third of the members of Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, according to records of the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. At least 171 lawmakers got $1.4 million in campaign donations from the group. Republicans took in most of the money, with 110 lawmakers getting $942,275, or 66 percent of the total, I do concede that, but 66 percent is far from 100 percent. The Democrats were part of it too. -unsigned by User:24.11.154.78

Just before someone else tears into you for this, you did say that "Abramoff gave money to a third of the members of Congress", which is technically untrue. The indianz.com article said this money was from "Jack Abramoff, his associates, and their Indian tribe clients", which is a large set of people. Abramoff himself gave to about 90 candidates. (I don't have a separation of that for Senators vs. Representatives yet)
I agree with you, but there's still much interesting research to be done on how and why that money was contributed to each party. Also, for what it's worth, this amount may be dwarfed by the amount of 'soft money' which Abramoff funneled through non-profits and other hidden channels, and non-campaign money items like golf trips and skybox visits. -Kwh 03:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Mr./Ms. 24.11.154.78, I'm sure you made your edits in good faith, but as Kwh points out, you appear to have misread the sources you provide. The fact is that Abramoff did not give money to Democrats. He gave money only to Republicans. This issue has been discussed at length elsewhere in this page. It appears that a consensus was reached at that point: the article should include the fact that Abramoff has donated money exclusively to Republicans. Since consensus has been reached that the information is factual and relevant, I'm reverting your edit again. If you have further research, please feel free to edit the article to reflect your information. But please take care to ensure that your edits accurately reflect the sources you cite.--RattBoy 11:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Since there is a distinction between money directly given from Abramoff to only Republicans and money given from clients, etc to both, why not include all of this in the article? So far all of the corrupt politicians linked with Abramoff have been Republicans, and there is much more to play out of this whole deal as more of the people Abramoff has fingered come out.--Paraphelion 11:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Paraphelion - I think that this particular element is one of the least interesting things about Abramoff's life; there's tons more to talk about. Folks should remember that this particular article is titled "Jack Abramoff", so it is about a person and his life. These facts need to be fit into a context of describing his life. There can be other linked articles that dive to the level of detail of lists and how much money he gave to Person X and how much they gave back. That's my standpoint. -Kwh 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It may not be one of the most interesting things about Jacko's life, but it's noteworthy. Mentioning Abramoff without referencing his Republican partisanship is like writing about Brian Epstein, but ignoring his connection to the Beatles.--RattBoy 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I made that intro paragraph a little clearer to draw the distiction between what Abramoff personally did with his money, and what his clients did with their money. --Howrealisreal 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I will stop my edit. I guess there has been enough discussion so that if someone reads the article that is unfamiliar witht he scandal, they can read these discussions and infer what the specific facts are. It is all very confusing and I suspect it will be a while before all the facts are out. I just did not want to this to be directed at the Republican party in general, but rather negativity should only be imposed upon the individuals involved in wrongdoing, regardless of their political party. It does appear that only a few members of congress, who are all republicans, have been implicasted in actual scandelous activities thus far —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.11.154.78 (talk • contribs) .
Gee, I guess there's little more that can be added to the Abramoff debate after the above erudite offering by 24.11.154.78. The latter wouldn't happen to reside in the immediate vicinity of the White House by any chance?Phase1 00:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was a pretty succinct (if not erudite) way of describing a proper NPOV perspective. Maybe you're reading it wrong. -Kwh 00:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It's NPoV, as a Republican might wish it to be. 24.11 seems to think it's a minor scandal, not tainting the Republican Party on the whole. However, considering his direct connections with the most powerful lights of the Party, including Tom DeLay and George W. Bush—and considering that this whole scandal was a predictable result of the K Street Project—Abramoff's importance is that he's emblematic of the way that the Republican Party has been doing government since 1995.--RattBoy 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that researching and gathering more info on how much the Abramoff scandal has to do with the K Street Project is an excellent idea, and will add a lot to the article! Thanks for volunteering. -Kwh 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Cute. I didn't know I was "volunteering," but I might take you up on your suggestion anyway. I do recall reading that Greenberg Traurig hired Jacko in an effort to get more Republicans on staff—doubtless to curry favor with Tom DeLay and his gang. Here are some lynx, found by Googling "Abramoff 'K Street Project'":
WaPo, 1/3/06:
Abramoff was among the lobbyists most closely associated with the K Street Project, which was
initiated by his friend Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), now the former House majority leader, once the GOP
vaulted to power. It was an aggressive program designed to force corporations and trade
associations to hire more GOP-connected lobbyists in what at times became an almost seamless
relationship between Capitol Hill lawmakers and some firms that sought to influence them.
NPR: "In Washington, K Street is synonymous with the lobbying industry. The K Street Project, a Republican initiative to integrate lobbyists into the political power structure, had been linked to the current scandal with lobbyist Jack Abramoff." (I'm on dialup, so I'm not gonna try to download the audio.)
LA Times:
The corruption investigation surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff shows the significant political
risk that Republican leaders took when they adopted what had once seemed a brilliant strategy for
dominating Washington: turning the K Street lobbying corridor into a cog of the GOP political
machine.

Abramoff thrived in the political climate fostered by GOP leaders, including Rep. Tom DeLay
(R-Texas), who have methodically tried to tighten the links between the party in Congress and
business lobbyists, through what has become known as the "K Street Project."

GOP leaders, seeking to harness the financial and political support of K Street, urged lobbyists to
support their conservative agenda, give heavily to Republican politicians and hire Republicans for
top trade association jobs. Abramoff obliged on every front, and his tentacles of influence reached
deep into the upper echelons of Congress and the Bush administration.
--RattBoy 13:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What connection did he have to Bush? I really don't know. Jellonuts 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you might be joking. The name "Bush" appears numerous times on this page alone. Abramoff raised over $100,000 for the Bush campaign in both 2000 and 2004, making him one of Bush's elite "Pioneers." He had close ties to Karl Rove. Those are just two examples of the close ties between Abramoff and Bush. (See the rest of this page for other examples.)--RattBoy 00:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a loose definition of close ties. Bush is surrounded by hundreds (if not thousands) of people who gave big money to any number of his campaigns in the past, or otherwise have done or can do something for him. I would say that "close ties" means having a long working relationship, seeing eye-to-eye, having the same goals, and having trust. I would say that Bush has close ties to people like Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney. Harriet Miers has close ties to Bush[26]. I would say Abramoff has very close ties to Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist. But there's a paucity of facts to say that Bush has close ties to Abramoff. It doesn't mean it's not so, just that it hasn't been researched enough.-Kwh 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, your definition of "close ties" might be unnecessarily tight. However, the point I was making was not that he has "close ties" to Bush (though the manifold connections might indicate that he does, indeed). I was merely outlining (some of) his connections with Bush. If you re-read the history of this discussion, you'll see that I wrote of Jacko's "direct connections with the most powerful lights of the Republican Party, including DeLay and Bush." In my definition set, being a Bush "Pioneer" constitutes a "direct connection." (So would attending several parties as a guest at the White House. So might doing time on his transition team, if such a role by Abramoff can indeed be fleshed out.) See WaPo: Scandal Visits the White House, which speaks of the arrest of Safavian, Bush's top Procurement Director, and of Abramoff's efforts to get his personal assistant a plum job as Karl Rove's gatekeeper. See also USA Today. Scott McClellan might try to minimize the connections to Abramoff, but they're there, hiding in plain sight.--RattBoy 13:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a connection there, but what's the back-story, as far as it can be intuited from public sources? If you want to hang this around the Republicans' necks (and I think you do), you've got to show that they were knowledgeable and complicit in Jack's illegal activities. We know that Jack took a lot of the filthy lucre from bilking the tribes and gave it to Bush. We know that Safavian worked for Abramoff and later worked for the White House (but remember, he was charged for lying about the golf trip, so the arrest doesn't imply further wrongdoing other than that he tried to lie to protect himself/Jack/DeLay). The Ralston thing is interesting, but it could be just as easily explained as Jack planting a 'mole' in Rove's office; according to sources, Ralston would take Rove's messages and then call Norquist to get orders on which calls to put through.
Right now, the most direct connection is through K Street and Norquist. K Street was Gingrich's baby, Norquist nurtured it, DeLay adopted it, and Bush sent his representative to the Wednesday meetings when he was still running for the GOP Presidential nomination. According to some sources, Gingrich "made" Abramoff as a lobbyist.[27]
Karl Rove is the smartest political operative in the world. I don't believe for a second that Rove didn't fully vet Ralston before hiring her.
I don't "want to hang this around the Republicans' necks," unless that's where it belongs. Right now, the RNC appears to want to diffuse the scandal by highlighting any connection between Dems and anyone who's ever met Jack. Complicity on this part seems rife in the Mainstream Media, and I'd rather not see Wikipedia go along, as well, simply to get along.
As it stands now, the facts are that Abramoff is a card-carrying Republican. All his important contacts are with Republicans. Does that mean that all Republicans are dirty? Of course not. But it does indicate that there's a structural problem with the Leading Lights of the party, including DeLay and Rove. The Abramoff connection in K Street Project seems to describe his connections, and the potential impact on the Party, pretty accurately and in a NPoV fashion:
"Abramoff's associates gave donations to members of both parties, but two-thirds of the cash went to Republicans.[28]. However, according to Howard Dean, no Democrat has received money directly from Abramoff.[29]. Political analysts say that the scandal currently hurts the Republican Party more than the Democrats, but members of both parties have returned large cash contributions given to them by Abramoff (as to Republicans) or his clients in past campaigns. All of Abramoff's personal campaign contributions went exclusively to Republicans. [30]. The five people charged or directly implicated so far in this scandal are Republicans. [31]."
I'd like to see the Jacko Page do likewise.--RattBoy 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
A big piece of the puzzle seems to be here:[32]
DeLay laid the groundwork for the K Street project by calling corporate lobbyists into his office after he was elected whip in 1995. He sat them down and pointed to their names in a ledger that included contributions they had made to Democrats and Republicans. Then he reminded them that Republicans were in charge and their political giving had better reflect that -- or else. The "or else" was a threat to cut off access to the Republican House leadership.
That's why I think it needs more research, also a lot more of these facts need to be added to K Street Project. Critical questions: Did DeLay corrupt Abramoff, or vice-versa? How did Gingrich tap Abramoff (former B-movie producer) to be big lobbyist at PGE? Did Abramoff "go rogue" in 2001 when he jumped to GT and he and scanlon came up with a script for bilking Indians, or was he singing from the K Street hymnbook? -Kwh 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

ummmmmmm..... FACT CHECK

From the article: Senator Byron Dorgan, the senior Democrat on the Senate committee investigating Abramoff, advocated for programs pushed by Abramoff's clients around the time he accepted tens of thousands of dollars from associates and clients of Abramoff (though not directly from Abramoff). According to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Dorgan received at least $79,300 from Indian tribe clients and lobbying associates of Abramoff. [33] Dorgan strongly denies any connection, saying that he never met Abramoff and that he had long supported funding for Indian tribes.[34] Despite this, Dorgan announced in December 2005 that he would return donations totaling $67,000, in order to remove any remote possibility of a connection to the felonious lobbyist.[35]

Um... as the New York Times reported last week, donations to Dorgan were made by indian tribes BEFORE those clients were represented by Abramoff. Where's the connection? 130.126.220.138 03:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

www.crp.org revised their numbers to remove cash contributed by tribes prior to Abramoff representation. According to the revised numbers, Dorgan did in fact receive $28,000 from (at the time) clients of Abramoff. I can't quite understand why he returned so much more, but I guess you'd have to call Dorgan's office and ask why they returned $67,000. -Kwh 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute re: "Connection to Israel-Palestine"

Under the guise of NPOV, Leifern has removed references to the illegality of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank. It is, in fact, POV to omit these references as Abramoff's, apparently, criminal diversion of funds is aggravated by sending them to illegal settlements in occupied territory. Who would dispute the relevance and significance of this aggravating circumstance if the funds had been instead diverted to Islamic Jihad?

The illegality of the settlements and the fact of occupation is recognized by both the UN and International Court of Justice.[36][37][38] Even the US gov't. does not claim the settlements are legal or that there is no occupation. Only Israel and its supporters--globally, a distinct and tiny minority--"dispute" the illegality of the settlements and the fact of its military occupation of the West Bank. Privileging this minority viewpoint is definitely POV.--DieWeibeRose 09:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks have covered some of this ground before but the pro-Israel POV keeps getting reinstated (see Talk:Jack_Abramoff#Israel-Palestine).--DieWeibeRose 09:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff sent money to an individual, Schmuel (per his emails). If you read the primary source (his emails) it's not clear that he was not even clear on what they were being used for, only that he was helping out an old friend by paying for his Jeep, and he wasn't even clear on what 'kollel' was. I think this section is slowly getting to an actual NPOV. I can't understand why you think that the text (as of my writing this comment) is pro-Israel as it makes no mention of the disputed settlement/colony/whatever. -Kwh 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Kwh, will you please provide a URL for the e-mails you cite?--DieWeibeRose 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
They are the documents at indian.senate.gov described as "Exhibits released to the public as part of the Oversight Hearing on Lobbying Practices". Abramoff's communications with and about Schmuel are mixed in amongst numerous other emails. I did a little more reading and found that it appears that Abramoff was funding Schmuel out of some pity (Schmuel's parents died young, Schmuel was raised by his aunt and uncle and decided to go to Israel, was barely getting by in poverty and told story about how his community was afraid of 'terrorists' in Israel, he was trying to help by holding these security/'sniper' courses). Schmuel uses a lot of mixed Hebrew/English and it's not clear how much of this Abramoff actually understood.
Kwh, thanks for the link but there are six large PDF files there and I don't have a fast Internet connection. Would you please narrow it down to the particular file(s)?--DieWeibeRose 07:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
To be precise, the jeep payment is talked about in part at pages 84-89 of this. KWH 04:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.--DieWeibeRose 11:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
At any rate, I noticed that there is already a Wikipedia article on Betar Illit. If anyone wants to battle it out as to the legality/illegality of this settlement, maybe it should go there. -Kwh 05:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


  • FYI - According to the Israeli Government, because of its population size, Betar Illit has the status of a city. Though I'm not sure what that is as of now, they do have 35,000 children of elementary school age. It is Ultra orthodox, of the Lakewood, flatbush style. Half of its boundries are in the pre six day war Israel and the other half is beyond what is known as the "green" line. Two small arab villages neighbor Betar Illit. With a population of around a hundred familes each and make their living by working in Betar and for the cities municipality. On a visit last year, I spoke with the Arab residents of these two villiges and everyone I spoke with told me that they were glad that they were isolated from the Palestinian authority who they veiwed as cruel and were happy with their orthodox Jewish neighbors,who they viewed as "kind", got along well with them and were happy to have employment in the city of Betar. I spoke with many residents of Betar who voiced the same sentiments. - Rosco
Rosco, The town on the Israeli side of the Green Line you mention is probably Mevo Betar; Betar Illit is entirely within the Occupied Palestinian Territories and is not described as straddling the Green Line.[39][40] Your anecdote about the "happy" Arabs living near the Jews-only city of Betar Illit reminded of white Southern apologetics for Jim Crow laws--"happy darkies" and all that. True or not your anecdote doesn't make the settlements like Betar Illit any less illegal.--DieWeibeRose 09:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Mevo Betar is a collective farm two kilometers north west of Betar Illit and totally within the green line. Betar Illit has indeed one foot in and one foot out, which is of no consiquence. Your derogatory analogy using the African Americans is totally off.

Most arabs in Israel are afraid of the Palestinian Authority, Fatach and the Hamas. They live in fear of them for the most part and fear SEVERE PUNISHMENT for falling out of line with what these various groups demand of them in the respective villages which they control. Being gun down in the street is common Hamas and Fatach policy. If you would travel to Israel and interview some of arabs then you would know that Rosco is not lying. The further the village is from intense PA, HAMAS or FATACH control the happier the arab citizens are. It's just a plain fact. * Its amazing to me just how much conjecture goes on here. It makes one wonder if anything written in the papers has any truth to it. - Brad

  • Speaking of illegal settlements, according to Native Americans EVERY city in the USA is an

ILLEGAL SETTLEMENT. We have proof that the Israelis lived in Israel for thousands of years before the arabs so why aren't the arab villages ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS? -Brad


  • REGARDING JUANS STATEMENTS - Most of these statements are conjecture. Juans assumptions cannot be proved so I have removed them. PLEASE stick with the FACTS. Unless you can prove the statement PLEASE refrain from putting it into this article. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA not a newspaper.
  • vast improvment over the previous efforts. We'll save the accolades until the finished product. But for now your on the right track.
  • I read through the letters on his friend. It's not Encyclopedia material.Who knows how many friends or family members he gave hand-outs to. It really bares no relevance to the political crimes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) .

The Secret of NIMH

Believe it or not, Abramoff did have a hand in the make of the film as a producer, so stop calling me a vandal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.233.29.75 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 24 January 2006.

Do you have a reference which verifies your claim? Or should we simply take your word for it?--RattBoy 11:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Yes any reference will do. Time, newsweek, National enquirer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer

Just like the rest of the article we need "reliable" sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs) .

early post

"Where is the discussion of his relationship to DeLay? That's the only reason this guy is in the news -- User:66.254.244.169."


lol

useful?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010506Z.shtml

2000 Election Recount

The following sentence has a credibility problem:

Abramoff and his partners at Greenberg Traurig had not received $314,000 earned for successfully representing Bush in the 2000 elections which placed Bush in Oval Office [41].

The problem is that Abramoff was still at Preston Gates in late 2000 while the recount debacle was going on. Some of the 39 GT lawyers who were 'on the ground' in Florida would later work for Team Abramoff, but not yet. Also, although Abramoff acted like he ran Greenberg Traurig, his name was not 'on the door', therefore he's not accountable nor is he in control of everything the firm does. It's quite possible that he was responsible for forgiving the bill, and his bosses thought that was a good idea based on the amount of revenue Abramoff brought in, or it was done by 'the senior partners' to curry favor with the Administration... this sentence needs to make that more clear. KWH

This edit is still not correct, but maybe it can be worked on:

Abramoff and his partners at Greenberg Traurig also gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in a donation-in-kind by successfully representing Bush in the 2000_Florida_Recount to usher Bush in to the Oval Office [42]]

KWH

Consider:

Some parties have alleged that Abramoff may have been complicit in Greenberg Traurig forgiving over $300,000 in legal bills incurred by the George W. Bush Campaign in the 2000 Florida election recount. Abramoff joined the firm in January 2001, shortly after the contested election.

KWH

Clean out massive anon mess

I guess everyone (nearly everyone) would have wanted to blank most of this discussion page, as StuffOfInterest has just done. But maybe it should have simply been archived?Phase1 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Other editors had originally blanked the content earlier as it contained more unsigned, personal attacks than anything. I just reverted back to where things stood before 62.0.181.94 stuck it back in. If you would like to recover the material from history and put it in an archive I have no objection at all. However, some of the editors who were targets of the personal attacks may have an issue. --StuffOfInterest 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting, I just checked and it looks like most of what I re-removed was already in an archive which even has a link just below the TOC above. --StuffOfInterest 19:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Correction. The content just referenced the archive. What a mess. --StuffOfInterest 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Just for ready reference, the edit Phase1 is talking about is this one and the content was added in through this series of edits. --StuffOfInterest 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Again with the Jewish & Israel remarks

Someone began adding the Jew-hate again. -62.0.170.46 23:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Attention: all references to Israel or Jack Abramoffs being Jewish are WILL BE removed, I will continue to edit this page FOREVER. The authors are obviously Jew haters, and are using Wikopedia as a weapon to both slander Jack Abramoff and by inference all other Jews.

IN PAST VERSIONS you wrote about his Jewish upbringing or his friend in the ultra orthodox city of Bietar Illit. Most educated antisemitic vermin like yourselves realize that you can't spill forth your venom by claiming that the Jews own the media and banks so you do it with subtleties like mentioning how he changes his "Yarmulke" at will in order to fool his clients. Or refer to him as a "SUPER ZIONIST using references from articles by other antisemites as if having been printed lends legitimacy to your slander.—

ANTISEMITISM WILL NOT BE TOLORATED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.170.46 (talk • contribs) .

I reported the offensive username in WP:VIP, I think it is pretty obvious what game Sigheil is playing and where he comes from, he is clearly peddling an antisemitic canard.

That Abramoff is Jewish is marginally relevant to an autobiographical article but not to the scandal article. He founded a Jewish school in New York (it collapsed after his financing disappeared). He also directed money to far right causes in Israel. It is inaccurate to describe him as a major lobbyist for Israeli causes however, he wasn't. A completely different group of lobbyists work that beat. The main reason his faith is relevant though is that it explains the now iconic picture of him wearing what has been widely described as a 'godfather' hat on his court date. The hat is of course a borcellino but one with a rather narrower brim than the orthodox generally favor. -- Gorgonzilla 03:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Watching the Jew-Hatred on the Abramoff page

After recieving many complaints about Antisemitism, we began monitoring the ABRAMOFF page and are more than ONE person watching the JEW-HATRED here.

This is our main concern. And interestingly enough a big concern of Jimmy Wales who concured with our view on the matter along with the WIK BOARD.

If YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH US, I SUGGEST THAT YOU TAKE IT UP WITH THEM.

We are compiling a fact list for them of the various writers, editors and contributors who seem to be using this page and the WIK as a forum to convey their hate toward Jews and Israel.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.170.46 (talk • contribs) .


How is it anti-semitic to mention someone is Jewish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.239.58.32 (talk • contribs) .

When your username is Sigheil it is anti-semitic -- Gorgonzilla 03:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it you ask

  • Thats a good Shaila. (A Shaila is a KASHA NOT like kasha & varnishkas)

Vell. when you mention somevones Chewish. Do you say it to be mean? Are you making such said comments cuz your envious and green. Do you vish you owned the media and all the worlds newspapers and had loads and loads of money which you stored in tall sky scrapers.

Or Yingle.

Do you say it mit such love, a gentle visper barely hoid. Do you want to keep it q'viet though the Jews had killed our loid.

This is d'criteria to know just why you said it.

If you do mean it to bash the Jews, vun day you might regret it...

Maybe when your planning voise tings to annihilate gods holy ones through your window, while your shuffing, the israeli army comes and they VIPE you off the planet mit a Jewish made SQUIRT GUN!

Best not to think of such things, go play tennis, its more fun.

Forstaies Bube?

- Faivish Viestush.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.170.46 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 28 January 2006.

We should put aside our differences and unite against our real enemy...

The Principality of Sealand

Sealand's claims of sovereignty encompass the area of Roughs Tower and surrounding territorial waters.
Sealand's claims of sovereignty encompass the area of Roughs Tower and surrounding territorial waters.

(Sorry, forgot to sign my post again). NiftyDude 16:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Insensitive clod, it's National Offshore Refinery Heritage Month! You no-good barnicle sympathizer.--Paraphelion 19:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it anti-semetic to mention someone is Jewish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.239.58.32 (talk • contribs) .


why are all mentions of abramoff's religion being taken off , this is censorship

  • .

Do we talk about your religion? No. So don't bring up t this criminal's religion.

Why?

Because children reading this article will begin to believe that ALL Jews are criminals.


Signed - Fievish—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.170.46 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 January 2006.

Cut it out. When we turn upon each other, we're only playing into the hands of or real enemy-- The Principality of Sealand! Remember, Sealand has never been brought to justice for their part in The Kennedy Assassination. NiftyDude 16:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

mentioning religion

Let's go through the Tim McVay and Adolph Hitler Wikipedia articles and make sure we keep mentioning they're both White Christians. And then, we can go through the Michael Jackson article and keep pointing out that he is a Black Christian. Come on, people. Smarten-up. We're just playing into the hands of the Sealand Menace! United We Stand, Divided We Clean Barnicles All Day!NiftyDude 01:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Go to the Bin Laden page or the Hamas page. How many times is religion mentioned. But we don't hear about Begin and the Stern Gang and all those are gangs that was part of the "peaceful" immigration to Palestine.-->


  • Abramoff is a crimminal. You don't hear that Lee harvey Oswald was a christian do you?

Or any other crimminal for that matter. Stick to the facts about his crimminal behaivor.

In the Bin Laden case, Bin Laden has declared war on mankind as a devout Muslim. Murdering thousands of people in cold blood, Believing that he must carry out Allahs holy war on the infidels. So naturally we are talking about Islam. In fact it lends a chance for all other Islamic leaders to disassociate their views from his Islamic religous views.

Abramoff commited his crimes as a devout greedy crimminal, plain and simple. Lets stick to the facts.He happens to be Jewish, but we don't have to educate children or the readers in general that all Jews are crimminals. When in fact there are millions upon millions of more non Jewish crimminals in the world. - Mike —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.193.168 (talk • contribs) .

You can't dicuss Abramoff without noting that he spent a lot of money on a jewish school, started a kosher delitecassn, and bought materials for an israeli sniper school. He claimed that he was deeply religious, and that he stated that the reason we was given so much power was do to the work of God. Therefore you cannot make the claim that mentioning these things is irrelevent or unimportant.--M4bwav 20:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Its all irrelevant. The Sniper thing isn't even proven. There has been NO investigation by any authority to find out if this is true. What does kosher corned beef have to do with ANYTHING except to bismirch the people eating kosher food. And as for "religous, deeply or not, for all we really know he might be a devout buddist by now.
  • Drop it. The "Jewish Connection" isn't going to EVER happen on this page. - Brad
It kind of seems like regardless of how much proof there is, you are not going to allow something like that to be written. No offense, but why are you at wikipedia. If you think Abramoff's funding of an Israeli sniper school isn't fact, then you really know nothing about Jack abramoff, and so I don't think you should weigh in on this issue. As far as what his true religious beliefs are you are correct, but all we can know is what he said. If Abramoff defends his actions by claiming he was motivated by his jewish faith, then it is fair to mention it in his defense. Let other people decide whether he was lying, but you cannot deny a reader access to this information, and claim to care at all about being objective. But then again your not claiming to be objective at all are you? You have agenda that you must fulfill it at any cost, therefore I think whoever is administrating this article should immediately ban your ip address for at least a week. --M4bwav 20:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) Do you know for a fact that the Sniper info is correct? Since the US government (FBI)has not been able to investigate this matter What evidence do you have that this is even true? None, I'm willing to bet.

2) ALMOST none of the info in any of the articles is being written in an objective manner. And you are correct in saying that we are not objective. We just want to make sure that a child or student reading this article finds out about Jack Abramoff the crimminal and not Jack Abramoff another rich Jew lawyer - THE "MAN WHO BOUGHT VASHINKTON"

A - I want to give you an example. In an Abramoff interview ( I will find it for you soon) Abramoff is asked how he could have said some of the HORRIBLE things that he said about the native Americans. He claims to have been "talking down" to Scalon. But that is not included in this article. Many of the writers and editors on the WIK are either not aware that this is an encyclopedia and not a magazine or newspaper OR they aren't able to keep themselves from expressing their hatred toward Mr. Abramoff or members of his faith. I don't know which. But again thats not our concern. Anti-Semitism is.

3) We have too many volunteers too many computers and IP addresses to be banned. Its been tried. The moment they ban one we switch. And its been exhaustive for them to try and match the speed in which we do it. We have other, more harsh ways to make sure that there isn't a scent of Anti-Semitism or Jew-hatred in this article and we are hoping that the writers and editors contributing to it will find their humanity and fight their natural inclination toward the worlds oldest hatred. - Brad

I think that the threat that you are making here is effectively to wage an edit war. That assumes that you are going to persuade the administrators not to lock the page to stop vandalism. You are assuming bad faith here, that is not acceptable. If you look through the edit logs you will find that I reversed out the edits from our Neo-NAZI friend 'sigheil' and asked for the nym to be banned in vandalism in progress.
FYI, Sigheil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is already blocked indefinitely under the standard username policy. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Being jewish is not the most notable thing about Abramoff but excluding it from his biography entirely is wrong. If you look at this article in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles [43] you will see that religion has played a major role in Abramoff's life and politics even if he picked it up watching fiddler on the roof.
The interesting question is what Abramoff does next. If his show of contrition is not fake he may well spill information on DeLay and co willingly. He cares a great deal what others think of him. The Republican party must reject him utterly but he can still demonstrate that he is not entirely wicked. Knowing that he is reliogious is essential to know the man. --Gorgonzilla 03:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Brad, you know people who are trying to suppress information to carry out a Pro-Semitism agenda, are only hurting their own cause. Instead of trying to force everyone to write what you want, by using threats of multiple ips and infinite reverts, you should instead be trying to make your case by pointing to evidence, and making a good argument. Because of your use of bully tactics, you are ultimately hurting your case, and your hurting your own agenda. As passionate as you are about a Pro-Israel agenda, there are just as many people passionate about discovering and recording the truth, something that can go beyond agendas. A lot of anti-semitism is generated by (usually) unreasonable suspicion, trying to suppress debate will never lead to end of anti-semitism, only reasonable, open recording of history can do that.--M4bwav 05:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I want to answer you on this in as clear a manner as possible.

I agree with what you just said on many points. HOWEVER. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Not, a newspaper, magazine, or chat room. CHILDREN AND STUDENTS read this. We have enough newspapers and magazines telling us that he is JEWISH "devil in disquise". We don't need it here. The first thing a child will see when he does a current events or history report on ABRAMOFF is WIKOPEDIA. Let him find out about Jack the crimminal from a reliable source and then he'll hear about the "devil Jew" from the rags.

Thats our concern. - Brad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.193.168 (talk • contribs) .

What is the problem with only saying he was born into an Orthodox Jewish family? Just because he is Jewish does not mean all Jews are bad. And if this isn't your view but merely are worried others will have this view, Wikipedia is not edited keeping in mind what racists and others are going to think.
  • Do we say that Richard Nixon was born into a white Christian family, or George Washinton? No. So why should we do it with Jews. - Brad
Why, yes we do! Richard Nixon:
"Richard Nixon was born in Yorba Linda, California to Francis Nixon and Hannah Milhous Nixon. He was raised by his mother as an evangelical Quaker. His upbringing is said to have been marked by such conservative evangelical Quaker observances as refraining from drinking, dancing and swearing. His father (known as Frank) was a former member of the Methodist Protestant Church who had sincerely converted to Quakerism but never fully absorbed its spirit, retaining instead a volatile temper."
George Washington:
"He sometimes accompanied his wife to Christian church services; however there is no record of his ever becoming a communicant in any Christian church, and he would regularly leave services before communion—with the other non-communicants."
Now get over it! KWH 12:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. But Kwh, having to see the number that was tattood on my fathers forearm in Auswitz extermination camp. "GET OVER IT", The antisemitism, the Jew-Hatred. I don't think so.
I don't believe you asked me whether I was Jewish, black, white, Native American, or otherwise, nor what pain I have endured in my or my family's life. You asked a rhetorical question as to whether religion is mentioned in other biographies, and guess what, it is, and indeed you are corrected. So get over the argument that there's some sort of double standard being applied here, because it's false. I have continued to discuss this issue with you respectfully and reasonably, and I will be damned if I'm going to continue to be insulted and accused of condoning or spreading anti-semitism. I have crossed out your disrespectful comment. If you want to continue this conversation in mutual respect, then leave it crossed out, and we can continue to discuss the content of this article. If not, I will have no more response. KWH 01:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, You can edit my lines anyway you please. But the fact still remains that when African Americans or Native Americans or Armenians (at the hands of the TURKS ) see their parents suffering, they will be sensitive to rascism and bigotry, in my case it's seeing the number that the nazis tattood on my fathers arm. And the fact that his brother can't be in a grocery store or supermarket when the stock people are putting prices on the shelved items because the clicking that the handheld machine makes reminds him of the train ride to the concentration camp. And he faints right there in the supermarket isle. So it will be a little difficult for me to "get over it" as you put it. Knowing what race, creed or color you are is of no concern to me. ALL HUMANS ARE THE SAME.I love everyone who is good. I remain wary of anyone who isn't trying to be. I'm not saying that you arn't. But if you can do it then please try to be good. Humane. -Brad
Then we have absolutely no disagreement. The history of mankind is a tale of continual cycles of retribution and grief. Only by telling the story truthfully and without omission can we hope to understand and rise above it in the future. KWH 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Brad wrote: "We have enough newspapers and magazines telling us that [Abramoff] is JEWISH 'devil in disquise' ".

Here are some examples--and they're all from a major Jewish-American newspaper:

Before his legal troubles began, Abramoff was one of the chief pillars of the budding political alliance between Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians. …

In the Jewish community, Abramoff promoted a conservative Republicanism based on a strong association with evangelical Christian politicians such as DeLay, who hold strongly pro-settler views on Israel. …

Of his relationship with DeLay, Abramoff once told the Washington Business Forward: "He's a religious Christian, I'm a religious Jew."

"He's very actively pro-Israel. I'm rabidly pro-Israel," Abramoff said. "We had a lot of mutual friends, as well."

Source: E.J. Kessler. "Senate Probe Of Lobbying Puts Heat On DeLay Ally." Forward. November 26, 2004.[44]

In addition to his close ties to Christian conservatives, DeLay has worked with the Zionist Organization of America, which vehemently opposes Israel's Gaza disengagement plan and regularly criticizes Israeli and American efforts to support Abbas. DeLay was also close to Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew with hawkish views on Israel, until Abramoff's recent legal troubles involving claims that he overcharged Native American tribes involved in casino gambling.

Source: Ori Nir. "House Sets Limits on Palestinian Aid As DeLay Defies Calls of Bush, Rice." Forward. March 18, 2005.[45]

Abramoff's main contribution to national Jewish communal causes was a stint in the 1990s as chairman of Toward Tradition, a social conservative group based outside of Seattle that frequently criticizes the Jewish community's liberal majority and many of its more-established organizations. Toward Tradition, led by a South African-born Orthodox rabbi, Daniel Lapin, made its mark by becoming a leading proponent of the idea that Jews should return to a "biblical faith" and ally themselves politically with Evangelical Christians because of their moral qualities and support for Israel.

It was Lapin, in fact, who introduced Abramoff to DeLay, according to press accounts.

Source: E.J. Kessler. "Felony Plea of GOP Lobbyist Sets D.C. Players Scrambling." Forward. January 6, 2006.[46]

--DieWeibeRose 12:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Voonderbar DerRose - You get extra rations this krachmas. But no Cigar.

This is just wonderful, Thank you. CASE IN POINT. Let the papers and tabloids handle the gosip. WE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA can print the dry facts about his career and crimminal activity. Phew! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.193.168 (talk • contribs) . (and please watch WP:CIVIL --StuffOfInterest 21:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

Brad, is that you? In any event, the Forward is not a tabloid. It is a respected, major Jewish American newspaper. The quotes include direct quotes from Abramoff and other "dry facts." Where's the gossip?--DieWeibeRose 03:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ya Voll, it's me. Oh, I can just see you on a Sunday morning, skipping Church, sitting in your lounge chair sipping a nice cold Borsht & sour cream cooler munching on a Bagel & Lox mit a sthickle Tzebleh, PARUSING THE FOWARD. Unh huh, The FOWARD White Americas TRUNK publication. Give me a break. - Brad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.193.168 (talk • contribs) . (and note WP:NPA yet again --StuffOfInterest 11:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

A change

In a hundred years from now this will look much better on an encyclopedia page:

Federal investigators believe more than $140,000 of Capital Athletic Foundation funds were diverted to a high school friend of Abramoff's for "purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as 'security' equipment. US Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearings reveal that the Capital Athletic Foundation "also paid a monthly stipend and Jeep payments to a high-school friend of Abramoff. The 'high-school friend' is, apparently, an old friend he knew from Los Angeles."

Of course you are are welcome to change it back. Thats the wonderful thing about the WIK. You get to read it the way you want to read it and we get to read it the way we want to read it. We read it about every five minutes and will continue to do so until kingdom come. (I know thats a loaded one). For students reading this it'll kind of become a "CATCHERS CATCH CAN", "WHO'S VERSION ARE WE GONNA GET TO READ THIS MINUTE?!" - Brad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.193.168 (talk • contribs) .

Actually neither of you are. You arre both breaking the 3RR and both of you are likely to be blocked if you continue. Also the page is likely to be blocked. You are both introducing distortion into the article. --Gorgonzilla 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC on Brad/85.250.193.168

I think that the time is comming here to have an RFC on Brad. He is breaking the rule on incivility and the 3RR.

  • I'm breaking the CIVILITY RULES. How? -Brad
Accusing others of being motivated by anti-semitism is a breach of civility. Attempting to bully others into accepting your edits by throwing accusations of anti-semitism arround is a breach of civility. --Gorgonzilla 00:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. Calling you a discusting name is a breach of civility, accusing you of antisemitism when indeed it appears to be so is NOT uncivil. It might be uncomfortable being "uncovered" when you have taken the time to seemingly down-play the level or type of antisemitism. -Brad & friends

It is not acceptable to accuse everyone who disagrees with your edits as being anti-semitic. It is a reasonable inference when they take the username 'Sigheil'. It is not reasonable or acceptable to use the accusation to try to intimidate others. Nor is a whitewashed article acceptable.

  • Well, Antisemitism like most bigotry happens on many different levels, I am not under the impression that any of you are Jew-Lovers or PRO-Israel.But thats just an opinion.

Abramoff has made a big thing of his Jewish faith in much the same way that his co-conspirator Ralph Reed has made a big thing of his Christian faith. They are both humbugs and phonys in my opinion but they have both been playing a similar game. Both claim dramatic conversions. Removing the information from the biographical article makes it useless. --Gorgonzilla 13:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion, furthermore I would like to say that promoting an agenda in an article because it might be read by children is unacceptable. Most children will read the Jewish part and not even realize there is supposed to be some kind of significance there. An encyclopedia is not designed to push one agenda or another, but simply to provide unbiased information. --M4bwav 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes UNBIASED is the key word here. -Brad
  • Did you just actually type this-"Most children will read the Jewish part and not even realize there is supposed to be some kind of significance there". HA,You probably don't have any kids!
I support the motion but please note that this individual or group has worked from at least three other IP addresses which have all earned blocks. You can see related activity under the following addresses:
For any RfC claims, you'll want to include block evasion, personal attacks, and threats against Wikipedia. --StuffOfInterest 13:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Two things - I believe Sigheil was the same person as User:69.239.58.32, as evidenced by these edits: [47] [48]. Secondly, I support the RFC to clear the air but the individual/individuals behind the listed IPs have modified their behavior recently and are at least slightly more civil. This should be taken into account in RFC and any following RFArb. KWH 14:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
KWH, although I support your idea that Sigheil (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and 69.239.58.32 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) are the same person, I don't think they are related to our Jewish deletionist friends. If anything, this person seems to be the exact opposite as seen with his edits to the Karl Rove article. As for point two, I would say very slightly. Although the direct threats have lessened, the POV pushing is still very evident and definitely goes against consensus. --StuffOfInterest 14:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not unknown for the holocaust deniers to do this type of thing so they can do their favorite 'jewish conspiracy' whine. I don't think it is likely in this particular case given the IP address in Israel but perhaps if our revisionist friend would realize he was giving the neo-Nazis ammunition here he might lay off. --Gorgonzilla 00:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and agreed (That was my meaning, that 69.239.58.32 is a completely different person, stirring up trouble). However, another thing to note; our friends have not actually claimed to be Jewish, only that they are concerned about anti-semitism. As a matter of fact, the timing of their edits seems to show that they are not observing Sabbath in a typical Orthodox sense.KWH 14:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well that would depend on where you are in the world ;) - Brad
I did some research on the IP addresses they used earlier (in the 62.0.x.y block) using dnsstuff.com (great little site by the way) and it is in Israel. Guess it just means they are not Orthodox. --StuffOfInterest 15:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That's cool, looks like it's coming from Haifa, Israel. It appears that they have a couple of big technology universities there. It's possible one of the vandals is just hopping from one computer-lab computer, to another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M4bwav (talk • contribs) . Oops sry--M4bwav 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm thats interesting, perhaps our friend won't mind being identified as the individual who got the entire university blocked from Wikipedia with this childishness. --Gorgonzilla 00:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "VANDAL" is a HARSH word. We are giggling about the Technology Universites comment because we are directly responsible for providing important elements in EVERY piece of US military hardware. We don't think that you quite appreciate everything involved. But no matter. We have some, really really good computer people here. Some so good that they have already explained to me how the Wik software works, the servers its stored on "Mirror servers, if you know what that means , I certainly don't, but they're good. Its amazing. Up to snuff as the saying goes. They can really do anything with a computer.

And we are laughing at the fact that you don't appreciate how many people are monitoring this site not just in Israel but the US, canada and the UK. And are emailing each other on the status of the page. Very few are students some are doctors, lawyers and house mothers. Some religous, some not.Some like you, Some have expressed displeasure at your comments.

Let me make this clear to you. Our intention is NOT to harm your page or to keep you from your obvious pleasure in writing and editing and contributing to this very wonderful work. We just don't want to see the Jew-hating. -Brad

So then your cool if we mention the sniper school, the Kosher Deli, his comments about his deep religious faith, and uh..... the fact that his jewish. I mean these are all relevent facts, if you would just allow us to write a fair article, you can get back to being a Pro-Israel watchdog, and we can get back to writing hopefully unbiased articles. --M4bwav 01:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you have no proof that there was an sniper school,The FBI doesn't have a clue. Thats conjecture for sure, leave the salami out of it. It serves no purpose except to hurt people who eat Kosher, we know who they are. This is an encyclopedia, not your chance to be an ace newspaper reporter. And you are FOR SURE, NOT UNBIASED. Its true that the Sigheil charactor was "Jew-baiting", we're not saying that the others here are doing that so blatantly, but there definitely is the air of a lynch party in the article. So lets leave the Jack the Jew out of it and stick to Jack the crimminal. Pro-Israel, why thank you. I'll take that as a comp.-Brad
Media and wiki consensus, as well as email records, tends to suggest the sniper school funding is as true as anything else in this world. The Kosher deli is important merely in listing his assets, his motivations, and deep religious faith(which ties him to christian conservatives). I don't think there would be any air of a lynch party, if you hadn't started overdoing it in the Pro-Israel department, by malicious editing. Most of us have more than enough evidence to mention Jack's religious faith and tie him to religious conservatives of other faiths, who are also involved in his scandals. If we mention that christian conservatives are involved as well, will you allow us to mention the facts surrounding his Jewish background?--M4bwav 13:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember people mentioning that the september 11 hijackers were muslims. Can only the religious faith of non-jews be mentioned, I don't think you have a leg to stand on, academically or even morally (good-faith)?--M4bwav 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

We deleted the Jew baiting. None of the people you are arguing against is jew baiting. Sigheil was but he is long gone and will be dealt with if he returns. What you are doing is the sort of thing Stalin used to do when a minister fell out of favor. --Gorgonzilla 00:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Now, is saying that I'm like Stalin, a mass murderer being CIVIL?

Give yourself two demerits Gorgy. BTW, that really is ugly. I read his daughters biography. Just for kicks Stalin used to call one of his ministers into his office, ask him to think about what he did wrong and would laugh as the man wanting to avoid being sent to Siberia or worse jumped out the window when he returned to his own office. - Brad


EVERY TIME WE FIGHT AMONGST OURSELVES THE PRINCIPALITY OF SEALAND DECLARES ANOTHER SMALL VICTORY! KEEP IT TOGETHER, PEOPLE! NiftyDude 13:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sealand's power has been greatly exagerated.--M4bwav 13:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel like I'm speaking to cereal boxes, high tech sound players or surfers. Don't any of you have HUMAN names? Sheeesh! - Brad
Uh you should try registering Brad, because I think you will discover why everyone has crazy names... because all the normal names are taken in like the first 10 seconds a popular site opens up. (You can delete my message this because it is irrelevent to the dicussion)--M4bwav 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What? BradCohen1975 wouldn't work? Or ChristopherChristianson isn't good?

Or why wouldn't you have M4bwav ( Mike Williams )? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.193.168 (talk • contribs) .


Israel connection to (sniper?) training school

I would like to mention about the supplies he bought for training people in Israel. This is fair and it needs to be done to tell Abramoff's story regardless of the consequences of how it will be percieved. The paragraph is

"Federal investigators believe more than $140,000 of Capital Athletic Foundation funds were diverted to a high school friend of Abramoff's for "purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as 'security' equipment.[51] US Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearings reveal that the Capital Athletic Foundation "also paid a monthly stipend and Jeep payments to a high-school friend of Abramoff. The 'high-school friend' is, apparently, an old friend he knew from Los Angeles.""

I would like to change it to

"Federal investigators believe more than $140,000 of Capital Athletic Foundation funds were diverted to a Jewish settler in the Israeli West Bank for "purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as 'security' equipment. It is believed that the equipment was for the town of Beitar Illit, to be used to defend against the Palestinian Intifada[51] US Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearings reveal that the Capital Athletic Foundation "also paid a monthly stipend and Jeep payments to a high-school friend of Abramoff. The 'high-school friend' is, apparently, an old friend he knew from Los Angeles.""

Does anyone have any objections or corrections to this before I make the edit?

  • Yes we object to this. It is CONJECTURE. The story has not been confirmed in the slightest. sAYING "FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS " is being nice (to or for you) because the FBI has nothing on it. I called them. For all we know it could be ficticous altogether and just a money laundering scheme. They have never found the friend or the equipment. Nothings been proven at all on this subject. - Brad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.193.168 (talk • contribs) .
Which part do you object to? Would you be satisfied if evidence or more articles backed up the claims? If you won't be satisfied then I don't think your objections can carry any water, an encyclopedia entry is not going to satisfy every single reader. From reading the various evidence that has been compiled on the topic, I think the consensus is that it is worthy of noting.--M4bwav 13:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If I won't be satisfied with any fiction you come up with? If the FBI has no way of verifing these rumors how can you? Jack Abramoff committed his crimes in the good 'ole US OF A, I believe that everything will come out in one of his trials because the FEDs are working very hard to gather evidence, The truth will come out BUT until that time....WE arn't going to print just any 'ole thing. - Brad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.193.168 (talk • contribs) .
I found email records to back up, a edit to the paragraph, so if anyone else objects they can change it back, but it would good if you had some kind of counter proof.--M4bwav 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

BLOCKING OUT THE JEWISH EDITORS

We are not surprised that the only way you could ENFORCE your ANTISEMITIC views upon the readers of WIKOPEDIA is to block out the Jewish editors. People visiting this page will see the truth. They will ask why the block? Lets see what the "vandals" did. When they see what really happened in the PAGE HISTORY, they will understand that the solution to the Jewish editing problem was to SHUT THE JEWS out of the page. - Mark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.116.49 (talk • contribs) .

The only people who got blocked are people who are not registered, anyone can register, it's just you have to act civil once you register. If anyone, even a impartial jewish person, looks at the record they will know that this the proper course of action. --M4bwav 21:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually everyone got blocked so I don't think you can argue that they were targeting one group or another.--M4bwav 21:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
After not following Wikipedia guidelines, jumping addresses, and behaving in a downright uncivil manner I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would take that attitude. At last count the mention of "Jew" occurs one place in the article only. How you can call that anti-semitic is going to be beyond anyone of reasonable outlook. Go back and learn how to join the community in a constructive way. You will find things go much better then. In the mean time, you probably managed to get a whole block of your computers locked out of Wikipedia as a whole for the next week. I'm sure your classmates or coworkers will be very proud of you. --StuffOfInterest 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm Jewish, I don't agree with all the edits, but I have never been blocked. (I hope you're reading this). In fact, I have previously asked unregistered users to be blocked. All you need to do is to do what others have already said: register and discuss in a civil manner. Sholom 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, it's called "Wikipedia", not "WikOpedia". You've only been coming here for the past two or three weeks, it's right there on the left hand side. And quit pretending to be different people. It's pretty obvious when "Brad" and "Mark" and whoever else all make the same spelling errors and have the same pattern of speech.

* Thats not what happened at all. You had the page blocked in order to enforce having the word JEWISH added to the Abramoff page. Thats all there is to it.

All anonymous editors are currently blocked from editing this page because of repeated vandalism. If you want to edit it, please register an account. I'm not sure how you think Wikipedia would distinguish "Jewish" IPs to block. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 01:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)