Talk:Jack Lew

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

Five Things You Should Know About Jack Lew[edit]

The article cited what itself called a rumor: That Jack Lew initially refused Pres. Clinton's call to work on the Jewish Sabbath in an emergency. The claim is unsubstantiated by the NYTimes, Washington Post, or any other legitimate news source. The unverifiable claim makes religious Jews look bad. If you notice, Stephen Walt, known for his book against the Jewish state, is a major contributor to the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDoeDefender (talk • contribs) 14:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the source. I does not cover the statement, so I have removed it per wp:BLP. - DVdm (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems strange to censor all information about the man's religious faith, something that has been widely noted and reported on. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Censor"? Nothing has been censored here. Please review WP:BLP and use more appropriate language. Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please consult a dictionary and then explain the reasoning to suppress this content. It's unclear to me why it's objectionable that he's an Orthodox Jew. It's definitely notable and would ordinarily be included in an encyclopedia's biography. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The one point valid is if the religious orientation is impacting the work. People in that position can't really take time off for the Sabbath, muslim prayers or go to anther part of the building when pizza with ham arrives. One would assume that people in positions like that could put the religious parameters on ice for the few years they are in office. What astonishes me is that no marriage or children are mentioned. That would probably have the same strength of impact as religion. 144.136.192.38 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Lew's signature[edit]

FYI: <http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/a-new-scribble-on-your-dollar-bill/>. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can actually vaguely make the letters out. Probably because mine's almost as bad.
Uploaded by yours truly
— Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure this isn't upside down and back to front or both? Are we sure it's in English?144.136.192.38 (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can see how the first letter could be called a "J". And there's clearly enough method to the madness to allow for the creation of this beautiful invention. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did his father come from?[edit]

I have some doubts about changing "Poland" to "former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (Russian Empire) territory". If Jack was born in 1955 then his father could have come to USA either before WWI (in which case it should be described like "Russian Empire (currently Poland)") during the war (in which case we could refer to current territory of Poland or the territory of Second Polish Republic), after the war (in which case it must have clearly been Poland) or even during WWII (in which case referring to Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth would be completely absurd). Especially that the referenced article refers clearly to "Poland". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.108.60 (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet[edit]

Hi, I've been lightly editing and updating the Treasury section at Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet (which makes me also update the section on Chiefs of Staff) and see that this article has already covered some of Lew's hearings in a little more detail. It seems a little silly for me either to commit second-rate plagiarism or to laboriously duplicate the research that others have already done here. Would any of this article's editors be interested in visiting and adding a few details to Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet#Jack Lew (February 2013) and Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet#Chief of Staff? I'm not seeking huge blocks of text (I just collapsed four paragraphs about Tim Geithner's taxes into a template because they took up undue space), but more than bare, simple dates and vote-counts seems appropriate. (Feel free to put any questions or comments on my personal talk page.) Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

needed update[edit]

in the article opening 2nd paragraph, it states: and as the COO at Citigroup from 2006 to 2008, which is in bad error as he was COO of a very tiny small part of citibank the alternative investments group , about 1/1000 of 1 % of the overall citibank... such endless mindless hyperbole is inappropriate and the key important huge big difference is, as COO of the whole of citibank, IF he had been, would be some qualifications to be sec of US treasury but as, COO ONLY OF the alt inv group (and dir of OMB), he is not ... at all ... wllie bob midas,9th !! 68.195.88.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was indeed a COO at Citigroup. If the sentence had read "he was the COO OF Citigroup" then your point would be valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.92.164 (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New signature[edit]

File:Jacob Lew new money signature.png

I uploaded Lew's new signature on Commons. Use it if you want. --Excolis (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've put before and after signatures on the page. -- Dauster (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jack Lew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for citation for religion in infobox[edit]

Concerning religion in infoboxes (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".

From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."

Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox.There is a better list of requirements in the section below)

The word "Jew/Jewish" is a special case and has has several meanings, some nonreligious. The source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion (Judaism), as opposed to someone saying "I am a Jew", which could refer to nonreligions such as ethnicity or culture. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing religion from infobox[edit]

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content
  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)
  • Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lew has publicly identified as Jewish. [1] [2] [3] I think it is appropriate for the infobox. Knope7 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong signature[edit]

His signature is the one with loops, not the "publicity" signature on money. 75.170.42.21 (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jack Lew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Lew&oldid=1208158572"