Talk:Joshua Bolten

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


Contents

[edit] Unknown?

How can one justify calling Bolten "completely unknown"? He is certainly well-known in Washington, DC, even before taking the reins of OMB. Low-profile, sure. But "completely unknown"? Also, what are these "controversies" in reference to? I think that entire sentence should be removed from the article. Any objections? - Walkiped 05:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] April 14th

Josh doesn't take office until April 14th. Isn't this article jumping the gun?

[edit] Wikipedia mention in the media

Thom Hartmann mentioned referencing this article on his local Portland radio show (620 KPOJ, Portland). He was disappointed that there was so little information on this future Chief-of-staff. -- llywrch 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And in the other direction, Jeff Caplan at WCBS 880 praised the update speed of this article (and others) in this "Dishin' Digital" report. --AySz88^-^ 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John R. Bolton

is he related to John R. Bolton? Kingturtle 16:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not. Bolten/Bolton.

[edit] Birthdate correct?

This entry says 1955, the Who2 link in the entry says 1954, although it does say some sources show 1955. Who2 link: [1] Gibbative 12:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goss resignation

I removed most of the text from the "Bush Administration" section, for a few different reasons. Some of it appears to be commentary (calling the handling of the Goss resignation a "misstep"); some of seems NPOV ("a resignation ceremony that looked like it had been choreographed by a junior high school drama project"); and much of it appears speculative or frivolous without citations (Negroponte "lurking", Hastert being "furious"). If someone thinks any of the text has any salvage substantive value, please try to rework it. - Walkiped 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh was born in 1954

Josh was born in 1954, on August 16, not 1955. I know this for a fact - I knew him at Princeton, and I have a hard copy of the "facebook" from when he was a freshman, which contains birthdates. How do I fax this or otherwise document it?

[edit] Question

Shouldn't the fact that he plays bass guitar for a band be placed somewhere besides government service? P!3r(3 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Or omitted? Might as well add that he likes long walks on the beach and strawberry daiquiris. 192.231.128.67 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of category

[WP:BLP] states that

"Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life"

Category tags that do not meet these criteria (i.e. case must be made in article text, subject must publicly self-identify with beliefs, beliefs must be relevant) will be deleted. Notmyrealname 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It has repeatedly been established that Jewish categories are ethnic categories hence not covered by WP:BLP. Now please do not delete properly sourced information.--Runcorn 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide some evidence of this? That doesn't seem to be the consensus on the category page in question. What constitutes Jewish ethnicity then? One parent? A mother only? What about converts? Notmyrealname 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish ethnicity is defined in the same way as any other ethnicity or nationality, or indeed any category - a reliable source says that the person belongs to that category. That is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and is not negotiable. Obviously, a convert to Judaism publicly self-identifies with Judaism so the question does not arise.--Runcorn 09:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From looking over the debates on this, it seems that there is NOT consensus on this issue. Some users, like IZAK argue that it is a complicated mix of ethnicity and religion. Usually the reliable sources do not distinguish between the two. Given this, I think that given the caveats in WP:BLP about caveats in general, and religion, beliefs, and sexual orientation in specific, editors should have to demonstrate some level of self identification and relevancy. Notmyrealname 14:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The American Jews category does not distinguish between "ethnic" and "religious" Jews (a fuzzy line to begin with). It is not related to Bolton's notability. Most high-level members of the Bush administration do not have their religion listed (and Bolton is not even a Cabinet member). I suggest that we bring in other editors to this discussion or raise it on WP:BLPN if you disagree with my assessment. Notmyrealname 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that confirms that he is Jewish. Please do not violate Wikipedia policy.--Runcorn 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Izak. Thanks for your opinion. My problem is really basically what I wrote above. Also, the way it is currently worded in the article strikes me as both awkward and trivial (is it really necessary to include a nickname that Karl Rove gave the guy "half in jest?" The cited article seemed to give much more importance to Bolton's love of motorcycles. And yet, I would question putting that in as well. WP:BLP cautions against putting in too many categories, lest they lose all meaning. I only noticed the single link to the Stanford Law alumni mag (or whatever it is -- it's not properly cited) mentioning his Jewishness. It just doesn't seem that it's that relevant. Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that you had come up with some novel theory about Jewish ethnicity versus religion. I just thought you had written very clearly about it in some of the debates I'd come across and was trying to point people towards what your other posts (although I fully agree with you, it would seem that others, including perhaps Runcorn, might not agree that your position is an established fact). I'm not on some kind of campaign to get rid of this category tag or its use, but I do think it requires some explicit justification beyond "somebody published it so let's include it." Notmyrealname 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with IZAK. Someone may be Jewish by religion or ethnicity or both.--Runcorn 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! So, do you also agree with my contention that they ARE covered by WP:BLP? Notmyrealname 23:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are ethnic categories covered by WP:BLP?--Runcorn 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, ALL categories are covered by WP:BLP--

"Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given, and the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty."

Then, under [2]

"Currently, the Wikipedia also supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity. The placement of people in these categories may be problematic."

So, they are indeed covered, as are all categories. I think one of the points that IZAK brought up (and is shared by many others) is that it is very hard to split apart when someone's Jewishness is ethnic and when it is religious. My feeling is that we should treat all references to people being Jews or not as a religious one. If we wanted to take it a step further, there are no references cited that show that he had Jewish parents, rather than being a convert, or adopted, or something. Not trying to make a major stink about this whole thing, but I sincerely believe that I am raising valid questions. If you can provide more references showing that it a) is relevant, b) is something that Bolten has publicly acknowledged, and c) is referred to by more valid sources than an aside in what appears to be an alumni journal, I would have no further objections. Notmyrealname 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Runcorn's point is that there are no special requirements placed on ethnic categories as there are on religious ones. If anyone wants ethnic Jewish categories to be treated as different from all other ethnic categories under WP:BLP, let them make such a proposal in the appropriate place (which is not here). Unless and until WP:BLP is modified, it must be applied as it stands. Now, either he is an ethnic Jew or a convert. (The adopted child of Jewish parents is not Jewish unless he/she has gone through a conversion.) If he is a convert, then he has made a very clear statement of his religious beliefs so under WP:BLP he should get those categories.--20.138.246.89 16:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, in the interest of good faith, I dug a little deeper than the original source (what appears to be a law school alumni magazine passing reference to the whole issue in question) and found a better article, so that the bio now makes an explicit case for why this is relevant to his bio. My earlier concern was that editors here were making claims about his Jewishness being mentioned with greater frequency in the press but without citing sources. As to 20.138.246.89's point, I agree that the current WP:BLP policy treats ethnic and religious category distinctly, but I think that people who want to place this tag need to show that the person in question actually fits the ethnic condition rather than the religious one (i.e. is the person an ethnic Jew or a convert?) if they don't want the greater religious restrictions to apply. Notmyrealname 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The anon's point is sound. If someone is Jewish and is not an ethnic Jew then by definition he is a convert, hence by definition has made a public avowal of his Jewish faith.--Runcorn 23:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that it's always relevant and always a matter of ethnicity and not religion? How is a conversion a public avowal? Notmyrealname 20:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that since Judaism is usually an ethnic category it is not covered by the provisions that relate to faith categories but not ethnic ones. It is only not an ethnic category if the person has converted to Judaism, which means of course that he or she has gone through a long conversion procedure and has had to make a public avowal of his or her new faith.--Runcorn 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure most other editors would agree that this fits the definition of "public" self-identification. In any case, don't we still need to demonstrate "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life"? Notmyrealname 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related talk

See the related talk at User talk:IZAK#Seeking input on category and User talk:IZAK#Hi IZAK. Thank you, IZAK 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)