Talk:Chuck Schumer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Waco

Someone should write a section about this guy's instrumental pro-government interrogations during the Waco aftermath. --81.99.118.248 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Omitting Information as to How Schumer Avoided Military Service is Like Not Mentioning the Elephant in the Room for a Guy Schumer's Age

The bio just ignores the context of the Vietnam War era and simply says Schumer went to school. The simple reality is that 2.7 million American boys went to Vietnam during those years, and the Vietnam War and the draft were THE BIGGEST ISSUES on campus and in America generally. But the article completely ignores them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but what is the actuality of why Schumer did not serve, was it student deferrments or a high lottery draft number or something else, I have just looked on the web and there is nothing I could find, there must be an answer something this is bound to be something that some reporter has asked sometime and Schumer must have given an answer. 12.50.76.130 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Schumer Jewish?

I support and respect Jews, however, Senator Schumer is not Jewish. He said so on Real Time with Bill Maher this season. 70.5.90.212 02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Matt Brooks mathewbrooks@gmail.com

Matt, I saw the episode of Bill Maher's show you are referring to. Senator Schumer was making an obvious joke when he said he wasn't Jewish. Google "Chuck Schumer interview with Bill Maher" and you will see what I am talking about. ---Above comment: Revision as of 18:41, 28 January 2007 by CleanEdit (Talk | contribs)

Low level vandal

Just to point out that 207.127.241.2 seems to be developing a lengthy history of low-level vandalism on this entry. Insertion of unreferenced material concerning FBI files, deletion of text, and tweeking of the numbers for the election results Schumer v. D'Amato. 24.41.39.124 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a non-NPOV article

Most of the text of this article has been written by supporters of Schumer who do not acknowledge the Senator's intense partisanship and potential conflict of interest regarding his chairmanship of the DSCC and the U.S. attorneys matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.168.83 (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, this is what wikipedia is about. If you have something to add, and you have credible sources, and it meets the wikipedia standards for inclusion, then go ahead and add and edit as you wish and as the facts guide you. --Geekish 04:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Specter makes a valid point about the conflict of interest: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259448,00.html
However, we aren't going to resolve the attorney's matter here, I don't believe. 65.254.168.83 did not write an entry about the conflict of interest, however. Rather:
Schumer has also been criticized for hypocrisy regarding his stance on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys by the Bush Administration, allegedly for political reasons. Critics, most notably Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, say Schumer is manufacturing the controversy to raise money for the DSCC. Others point out that then-Congressman Schumer did not criticize President Clinton's mass firings of 93 U.S. Attorneys in 1993, a moved deemed the "March Massacre" by then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole. Nor did Schumer show his indignation over Clinton's firing of career employees of the White House Travel Office so that they could be replaced by his friends and relatives.
Where is a reputable reference with criticism of hypocrisy? "allegedly for political reasons"? The evidence is entirely that it is political reasons, though the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, to be sure. Nothing wrong with politics, but witness the backpedaling from the original assertion that they were fired for performance related reasons. "manufacturing the controversy to raise money for the DSCC?" I've not heard an assertion anywhere that the controversy is "manufactured", or that its all about raising money for the DSCC...the evidence is otherwise; Schumer is not at the center of this controversy, Gonzales is. Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys at the start of his term, true, but, as has been pointed out in many places, recent presidents have replaced all US Attorneys at the start of their terms, which has become standard practice. They serve at the pleasure of the president. It is very unusual, however, to replace a number of US Attorneys midterm as has occurred recently (right after an election), together with the widely acknowledged mishandling of how that was done. With all due respect, the White House travel staff does not quite rise to the level of US Attorneys. All this to make the dubious claim that Schumer is hypocritical, while spinning the nature of the attorney replacements controversy. Nothing wrong with politics, but politics does not imply hypocrisy. In short, the above paragraph is completely POV (and completely unreferenced.) 65.254.168.83's claim of non-neutrality does not stand to reason, so I suggest that assertion be removed.
As for the article, the large section on United States Senator has become rather long and rambling and should perhaps be broken/organized into subsections. That would allow, I hesitate to suggest, a very brief, NPOV, well-referenced section on Schumer's roll in the Attorney's issue, including Specter's assertion about the conflict of interest. But that section should not balloon into a lengthy discussion of the U.S. Attorney's; that issue will not be resolved here. (This reorganization will not be done by me; I have expended my wikipedia capital with this discussion...) 24.41.39.124 11:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia link on the attorney's issue: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy (nothing there about Schumer manufacturing the controversy to raise money for the DSCC...) I also note that both 65.254.168.83 and 65.254.163.168 have a very brief history of wikipedia editting and their contributions have been limited to this article. 24.41.39.124 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is working overtime to protect Schumer from any criticism. Whatever. It is sad that he has assigned a supporter of his to watch over his Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.163.234 (talk • contribs) }

Excellent! I have now been accused of being on the staffs of Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, JOhn Edwards, and Chuck Schumer! As I've said elsewhere, those paychecks just keep rolling in.... Tvoz |talk 22:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you read? I said you were a supporter of his, not on his staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.163.71 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes I can read - what's on the lines, and what's between the lines. For the record, I remove POV unreferenced material from articles when I see it, regardless of whether I support the subject, dislike the subject, or have no opinion about the subject. If you have something to add that you think is missing from a well-rounded article about Sen. Schumer, get some reliable sources and by all means edit the article. Tvoz |talk 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I (who am not Tvoz) took the issue seriously and made a careful reply to all the points of your entry. Since you did not provide any references for your assertions, I even did a google search and found the Specter article for you, and then also found the wikipedia article on the Attorney's issue. As a reply, I got something a drunk might say as he got kicked off the bus. Do you mean to tell me you have no references at all for any part of that paragraph? You've made a complete fabrication and have been wasting everybody's time with nonsense? Well, that's just dishonorable. 65.254.163.XXX, since you are new to wikipedia, having made no other contributions than the recent ones to this article, I suggest that before you edit anymore, you should take a look at the various wikipedia policies and try to understand better what wikipedia is about. The wikipedia is about NPOV, referenced sources, and avoiding original research. Because we adhere to that policy here does not make us all partisans, just wikipedians who care about accuracy and believe that the wikipedia is a noble thing and worth looking after. 24.41.39.124 06:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not agreeing with your view =/= non-NPOV. Fifty7 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done some snooping around with google, and believe there is an important issue for this biography in regards to the attorney's issue. See below. I won't apologize for the above discussion; those who advocated the inclusion of the paragraph in question rather brought the problem on themselves (no references despite repeated warnings, revert warring, declaring the entire article to be POV, then calling us all Schumer partisans). I have not much sympathy. There are better ways of going about things on the Wikipedia. Let's start over again, see below. 24.41.39.124 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Can someone add that he has a NYC pistol permit (which is near impossible for the average person to get) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act#Notable_New_York_City_license_holders despite that he is an advocate for the anti-gun movement? I think that is fair to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.62.168 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

quality

I did an overall edit of the article, but it still needs a lot of work - his years in the NYS Assembly, his years as Congressman, his first term as Senator - all could be fleshed out with citations and more information. As it is now, it's not much more than a stub, and as an influential politician, there must be more to report here. I hope someone will take it on. Tvoz |talk 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but it has not happened. 12.50.76.130 (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Schumer and the Fired Attorney's issue

I will make a request on the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy talk page for the experts there to perhaps help us develop this issue for this article.

I don't know all the details of the Fired Attorney's issue, and even less about Schumer, but some google searching produced the following information:

Schumer was apparently instrumental in bringing the issue to the forefront: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usschu0401,0,3612817.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

Schumer is a key player in the investigation, though Patrick Leahy is apparently leading the investigation.

Schumer has been questioned about being a key player in the investigation, and then using that for political advantage, specifically through the DSCC: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264836,00.html (The attorney's issue was raised on the DSCC website, but then was removed, apparently.)

Specter's assertion that there is a conflict of interest has some merit. Schumer has dismissed the suggestion as a distraction.

also: http://www.nysun.com/article/50686?page_no=2

Another link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17628142/

All this is a far cry from the original assertion that Schumer "manufacturing the controversy to raise money for the DSCC". Assertions concerning Clinton's firing of all U.S. Attorneys and the White House travel staff are non-starters for this article, seems to me.

Why is this important?

I think the issue is worth developing as a paragraph or two here because it (a) highlights the prominent role Schumer had in getting the issue to the forefront and is taking in the investigation, and (b) illustrates the political tactics/approaches of Schumer, about which there is already some discussion in the article. 24.41.39.124 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a dead end, actually

Per a response on the Attorney's talk page, and given the paucity of results I am finding while trying to search for information along these lines, I'm calling an end to this avenue of development, which seems to have led to a dead end in a number of ways. The "Schumer started it all with a conflict of interest" angle seems to have been a temporary interlude in the larger Attorney's story. Those that think there is more to this can proceed if they like and can provide valid references to support contentions. 24.41.39.124 02:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Waco hearings

Just noticed that my request disappeard because of the redirection. I was asking if somebody (more proficient than me) could also fill in some facts about the very distasteful part he played on the Waco-Hearings? Would be good if somebody could write something about that. It's damn scary to me, that a character like that is still in power. --Thomas 11:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree I would like to see someone write a good summary of his role in Waco. Fatrb38 (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

New section header

I have changed the header of the first section from "Biography" to "Personal life." On most of the politicians' biographies I've read here at Wikipedia, the first section is usually "Early life and career," which would cover his birth, childhood etc. through law school, wife and children. Then there would be another section called "Personal life" at the end, just before the footnotes and other items at the end of the article.

In this rare case, there was no private career before politics. Schumer went straight into politics after he passed the bar exam. So I suggest moving the "Personal life" up to the top in this case to replace the nonexistent private career information. If you are interested in discussing this, please leave a note on my Talk page. Cheers Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not think you are right, it is better with "Early life and Education", which has been in many other pages, and then the political career starts right away as you illustrate, and then at the end there is the "Personal life" because at the end of a politician's career they still have a personal life, and so it has been changed to. 12.50.76.130 (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

IndyMac

There is no mention in the article of his alleged influence in the failure of IndyMac Bank.Lestrade (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Here is what the article you provided said:

The director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, John Reich, blamed IndyMac's failure on comments made in late June by Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), who sent a letter to the regulator raising concerns about the bank's solvency. In the following 11 days, spooked depositors withdrew a total of $1.3 billion. Mr. Reich said Sen. Schumer gave the bank a "heart attack.

"Would the institution have failed without the deposit run?" Mr. Reich asked reporters. "We'll never know the answer to that question."

Mr. Schumer quickly fired back.

"If OTS had done its job as regulator and not let IndyMac's poor and loose lending practices continue, we wouldn't be where we are today," Sen. Schumer said. "Instead of pointing false fingers of blame, OTS should start doing its job to prevent future IndyMacs."

IndyMac had been troubled for months, and investors were concerned about its possible downfall well before Sen. Schumer's comments. It specialized in Alt-A loans, a type of mortgage that can often be offered to borrowers who don't fully document their incomes or assets. The company sold most of the loans it originated, but continued to hold some on its books. As defaults piled up, IndyMac's finances deteriorated.

There's even a chart that showed the stark decline of IndyMac's daily share price well before Schumer's comments. I'm removing your non-NPOV addition. -- Fifty7 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Under no circumstances would we ever want to imply that Senator Schumer foolishly caused the failure of a major bank. Besides, as every lawyer knows, causality is subjective. Philosophers tell us that there are many events that can be seen as the cause of an effect. Senator Schumer's decision to publish his letter probably had no influence whatsoever. It just happened to occur immediately before the bank run. No one really knows for certain. We'll never know the answer to that question. Lestrade (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
I think it's a bit naive to imply that the senator's statement just happened to occur just before the bank run. Is it possible? certainly... but in terms of causality it is reasonable to assume the closest related event is the most likely trigger event. Would it have happened eventually, probably, but that doesn't change the fact that his statement was a trigger that expedited the process. 72.73.202.125 (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A "Lawyer" speaks: "Yes, it is a common subjective notion that the closest related event is the triggering event. That does not consider the possibly stronger influences of many other events that contributed to the effect. We should beware of pointing false fingers of blame."Lestrade (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I wasn't trying to say that the senator caused the problem, I was simply noting that he exacerbated a preexisting condition. Whether the bank could have or could not have recovered given extra time is the real question.72.73.202.125 (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll never know the answer to that question. We should beware of pointing false fingers of blame.Lestrade (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Here's Wall Street Journal, July 15th, 2008
The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), whose job it actually was to regulate IndyMac, took a different view. "The immediate cause of the closing," the OTS wrote in a press release, "was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York." The OTS added: "In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts."
Sounds important enough to mention in the article [1]
Pierre.cardoone (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Now we are in the realm of immediate and mediate causes. This leads also to direct and indirect causes, a playground for lawyers. Was "Chuck" the immediate cause? We'll never know the answer to that question and we should beware of pointing false fingers of blame.Lestrade (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

We are not pointing the finger, OTS is. We should report the fact that they are. It's notable as they are directly accusing Schumer (via his letter) of bad behavior. Pierre.cardoone (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Bad" is a subjective, valuational adjective. Was Schumer bad? We'll never know the answer to that question. Chuck gets a free pass.Lestrade (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

California mulls probing Schumer over IndyMac crash

This is not some wacko-consipiracy theory - serious minds have realized that Schumer did a lot of damage here. [2] 216.153.214.89 (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Attack on Chamber of Commerce

I added the following: A month before the 2008 election, Schumer criticized the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, saying the group was no longer nonpartisan and “has turned into a wing” of the GOP. J. Taylor Rushing 10/08/08 The Hill: Schumer rips Chamber of Commerce http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/schumer-rips-chamber-of-commerce-2008-10-08.html (Wallamoose (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Other Congressional Stuff

Schumer has been elected to about 5 posts in congress (in the house) that are not reflected in the infobox. Is this for a specific reason or just because no one's done it? If the latter, I'd be happy to oblige -Iudaeus (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --Iudaeus (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The following is incorrect and should be fixed

He was one of 16 Senators to vote against the Vitter Amendment, which prohibited funding for the confiscation of legally owned firearms during a disaster.

The Vitter Amendment did not prohibit funding for firearm confiscation - it prohibit confiscations. That is NOT a subtle difference. Schumer and his compatriots in this vote (a veritable who's who of the upcoming Democratic Administration and Leadership - ironically NOT including the President Elect and his soon-to-be VP) were supporting actual confiscation of otherwise legally owned firearms by citizens who had committed no unlawful acts.
You can't fund something that the government has no right to do in the first place. Oh, wait, who am I kidding?!
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00202 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.227.86 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Fourth-ranking Democrat"

The article listed Sen. Schumer as being behind the President Pro Tempore, Majority Leader and Majority Whip when in reality, the Senate Pro Tem is mostly a ceremonial office given to the longest-serving senator of the Majority party. While that obviously means that the person who holds the office is a very senior and influential senator(and probably chairman of a committee), he's not technically a member of the leadership. Adrael (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Occupation, Attorney?

How can his occupation by an attorney? The article itself states he never practiced. He's a career politician, according to the article, and he's never had a job in the civil sector, at least since law school.

I agree. It should say "previous occupation". Pierre.cardoone (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Role in ending Charles W. Freeman Jr's nomination for Intelligence post

According to the much of the news coming out now (BBC, NYtimes, etc) Schumer personally called the WH, as well as provided them with documents encouraging them to drop Freeman because of his critical stance on Israel. This is front page of the Times. Does this belong in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluepack2 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


"When the Schumer hits the fan" info

Some links to usage of this term:

http://www.survivalblog.com/2008/09/even_chuck_schumer_thinks_that.html

http://www.survivalblog.com/glossary.html

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS341&=&q=%22When+the+Schumer+hits+the+fan%22&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.kifaruforums.net/archive/index.php/t-16387.html

http://www.africansurvivalist.com/

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=11467

etc.... ElizaBarrington (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

None of these appear to be reliable sources. We don't link to forums and random blogs. I'll revert any attempt I see to put this phrase anywhere in the article. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Internet Censorship

Someone ought to add a section on his support for censoring the Internet. More info here: http://amandapeyton.com/blog/2012/01/my-call-to-senator-schumers-office-on-pipa-its-so-much-worse-than-i-thought/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.248.214 (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Legislative Record, Consumer Protection: Drum Major Institute Scorecard?

At the end of this section (Schumer's legislative record on Consumer Protection) there is a sentence that reads:

[Schumer] received a "F" on the most recent (2008) Drum Major Institute's Congressional Scorecard on middle-class issues.[1]

The citation points to his 2005 scorecard where he received a "B" and his most recent 2008 cumulative score for Middle Class issues was an "A" http://www.themiddleclass.org/browse/legislators. Can someone explain this discrepancy? Is this actually a reference to his scorecard on consumer protection specifically, rather than middle class issues in general? If so, this sentence should be changed accordingly and the link fixed. Otherwise, this claim is inaccurate and in an inappropriate place anyways since it refers to middle class issues in general, not consumer protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.42.6.171 (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Three paragraph lead has 31 numbers is excessive

I find the lead buried with details. There are 31 numbers in the 3 paragraphs!

All those numbers are available in the boxes under his picture already. As a result I changed it to this:

Charles Ellis "Chuck" Schumer (pronounced /ˈʃumɚ/, born November 23, 1950) is the senior United States Senator from New York and Vice Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, third-highest ranking Democrat in the Senate. Additionally, he is chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Previously, Schumer was chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Previously, Schumer served in the United States House of Representatives and New York State Assembly.


To me that is much more straight forward lead, summarizing the importance of this person, with getting buried in details.

WTR however, reverted the change. I just wonder if we could remove at least some of those details to make the lead easier to read and 'glance at'.

I also note that other senators do not have the margin of victory for every election they won in the lead. Rodchen (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

See my comments on this topic at User talk:Rodchen#More on "Clean up and delete details from intro". Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh.... The Texas Section?

Can somebody please look into the section regarding the Texas controversy? I mean, it is unsourced, and looks (and sounds) like it was yanked from somewhere. On top of that, I think it's somewhat inaccurate. For example, it mentions that a radio host organized a Texas-wide boycott of New York goods. Is that saying every Texan does not buy NY goods? Good somebody please look into this? Thanks in advance. Gaijin Ninja (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chuck Schumer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is no reason that the full 1998 New York state Dem ticket needs to be included in this article. If anything, it should be another article and should be linked to in this one. Additionally, it should not be abbreviated "NYS".

Substituted at 06:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove unsubstantiated claim

Removed the phrase "because he was threatened with exposure of his FBI files by white house staff." from the trivia section since it is both a significant and unsubstantiated claim.

This also can't possibly be a fact:

"Therefore, he knows nothing about the real military, and attacks the armed forces to cover up his shame. "


The article notes Schumer campaigning in 1968 for Gene McCarthy, but ignores what else was going on in that era -- the draft and Vietnam. How did Schumer avoid the draft and not serve in Vietnam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Congress tenures in infobox

Therequiembellishere, please do not change that part of the infobox again. I know you own this article, and I wouldn't dare to make any editorial changes to the content, but consensus for this new format was achieved at Template talk:Infobox officeholder, and it is not necessary to re-open the whole thing again. I beg you to accept something that evidently makes sense, looks good enough and is correct. I urge you to refrain from edit-warring about it. Kraxler (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chuck Schumer. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 08:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is this Article entitled 'Chuck Schumer' instead of Charles Schumer?

Why is this article entitled by a personalized campaign name? "Chuck" was always known as Charles for most of his political career until his handlers decided to personalize it. Why is an encyclopedia using a nickname for a significant person? Do we title the article on Albert Einstein, Albie Einstein? What smallbrain contributors have restyled Wikipedia to be a campaign launch pad for politicians reelection campaigns. This is not the only politician in Wikipedia that has been rewritten and designed by the politician's employees. There is no reason for Wikipedia to lower its already low standards to accommodate campaign strategies, is there? Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
As per Article Names, preference is supposed to be given to the most commonly used named. Google trends indicates that Chuck outpaces Charles in at least one metric of common usage. Suproach (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Schumer Died?

The article stated Schumer died on 15 March 2016 in Brooklyn, New York. Is he really? The article still reads as if he is a living person. How come no one corrected this for a while now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.232.78 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chuck Schumer. 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) 10:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Citations are not necessary in the lead if the fact is cited in the body of the article article and is noncontraversial. Also facts mentioned in the lead should be integrated in the article. If Schumer unanimously being chosen minority leader is significant enough for the lead, then that should be added to the Senate Minority Leader section. The footnote in the lead is unnecessary. Please see WP:LEADCITE Knope7 (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

As you were already advised here, please review these policies. Then review the very first sentence in the guideline you've cited. Also, frankly, your edit was filled with grammatical errors and format vios, which would have required cleanup regardless. So I included the info you wanted; fixed your grammatical and format errors; and even added two additional sources not already found in the article. Other editors, correctly, have also sourced content in the lead. Even in your interpretation of policy, that still would not prevent including sources in the lead, as you claim. So kindly refrain from being unnecessarily POINTy. Especially after I had to clean up after you. Cheers. X4n6 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I am fully aware of BLP policies. BLPs do not have to cite every line of the lead, only those statements which are not cited elsewhere in the article or are likely to be challenged. You will find plenty of Good Articles about BLPs which do not cite every statement in the lead, including the article for the other Senator from New York, Kristen Gillibrand. You incorrectly removed information from the lead because it did not have a footnote, so I put the information back. I am absolutely allowed to do so and I do not require your permission.
I have thus far focused only on the article. Your comments towards me are inappropriate and unwarranted. Knope7 (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Section 'Budget'

There is nothing here but one line -- "PolitiFact rated Schumer's 2009 statement about the efficacy of Democrats' earmark reforms "false."[133]" This seems nonencyclopedic. Many of Schumer's statements have been factchecked on Politifact and similar fact-checking websites. There is no need for that statement to be included, and I think it should be deleted or rewritten. Jeanjiwooyi07 (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Knope7 (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Previous revision

Can't see the justification for this revision, especially with no explanation. Why would User:Rensenbregar edit the page to include previous information that was incorrectly sourced and outdated, as well as deleting citations and adding unnecessary contractions? If others agree I'd like to undo that revision. Werónika (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Committee assignments

As minority leader, Schumer does not serve any longer on any committees except exo officio on the Intelligence Committee and the Inaugural Committee. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Update or unlock

3rd para needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.133.160.169 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I changed "He is" to "He was" to reflect the change in status. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What should be the infobox image?

I added Image 1 to replace a very old image, but I've looked through Commons and found a number of other new images that might be better. What do people prefer?

Images
  • Image 1 (Jan 2016)
    Image 1 (Jan 2016)
  • Image 2 (Apr 2016)
    Image 2 (Apr 2016)
  • Image 3 (Apr 2016)
    Image 3 (Apr 2016)
  • Image 4 (Dec 2011)
    Image 4 (Dec 2011)
  • Image 5 (Sep 2015)
    Image 5 (Sep 2015)
  • Image 6 (Jan 2016)
    Image 6 (Jan 2016)

Image 2'. Good composition, recent enough to capture Schumer's usual appearance, flag in the background. ¡Bozzio! 03:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I prefer his official portrait. That's what we have for every senator other than Booker (who doesn't have one). Ueutyi (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that his official portrait is most appropriate. Jtpaladin (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

Please update the photo in the infobox, which is from 2002 and looks nothing like he does now – his hair is now silver and he wears glasses 24/7. It is bizarre for such a prominent politician to have such an outdated photo, and Wikimedia Commons has dozens of photos of Schumer from within the last five years or so. 124.148.238.116 (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: You did not specify which picture to use. I took a look at the commons link you provided and I did not see any suitable picture that would be an improvement. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017

I think senator's office phone number should be one of the categories on the right side. 2620:0:1003:512:BC93:CBDA:164E:59D7 (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Chuck Schumer. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  17:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Schumer on the NYT

So, the New York Times reports that Schumer likes to cook and an editor "decides" that this in unencyclopaedic.

Great, tell it to Abraham Lincoln, whose Wikipedia entry says he liked oysters, and also says his wife Mary cooked often for him even though her skills were "simple."

Can we get some seriousness around here? Is there justification for arbitrary deletion? Here is the deleted entry:

«The New York Times reported in 2017 that Schummer is "enthusiastic" about cooking "his own recipe" of meatloaf.[2]»

---XavierItzm (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "drummajorinstitute.com". drummajorinstitute.com. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
  2. ^ KIM SEVERSON. "Binding the Nation in Its Love of Meatloaf". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 February 2017. Senator Chuck Schumer was equally enthusiastic about his own recipe, a wide-ranging cooking project that centers on a meatloaf of beef, veal and pork surrounded by pieces of barbecued chicken. "It's so Chuck," said Frank Bruni, the Times Op-Ed columnist and former restaurant critic. He calls the recipe the Omnibus Loaf.
I have also removed it. The information is trivia that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Just because something similar is in another article that does not means it belongs here. - GB fan 12:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Yet another arbitrary decision. Take, for example, the Wikipedia entry for another senator, John Kerry: it's got a whole section on the guy's past-times, i.e., sailing and cycling. Here we have a good WP:RS and people randomly deleting a good, well-supported entry.XavierItzm (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Well make a case (without saying something exists in a different article) why this trivial piece of information belongs in the article. I am completely open to having my mind changed, but saying other articles contain trivial information so this one should also is not a convincing argument. - GB fan 13:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This wikipedia entry is a biography. Here is the Wikipedia entry for what a biography is: "A biography, or simply bio, is a detailed description of a person's life. It involves more than just the basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death; it portrays a person's experience of these life events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality." (emphasis added). This is why most extended U.S. senator's bios on Wikipedia include information on their past-times, whether present (such as senator Schumer's cooking passion) or past, such as former New York State senator Clinton, which reads what her past time was while she was in grade school: "She participated in sports such as swimming and baseball". XavierItzm (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I like when Wikipedia article include details that give a better sense of who someone is beyond their resume. I think saying he's enthusiastic about his own meatloaf recipe might be a little too specific. If we can find another source or two saying cooking is a hobby for Schumer I would support adding that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knope7 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I could see adding that cooking is a hobby but to say he likes making one item, I do not see that as being an encyclopedic entry. - GB fan 15:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Since I originally removed the edit, I'll chime in. I removed it, as I said, because, IMO, it is "non-encyclopedic fluff." That's not to say that it's not sourced. But this is an encyclopedia, not People magazine. Rather than referencing other articles, why not discuss on its own merits why you believe so strongly this needs to be included - and what exactly is "encyclopedic" about it? I'm sure you also realize you need consensus; and so far that consensus is opposed. Calling that an arbitrary decision does nothing to advance your position, because your clear desire to include it is also just your arbitrary decision. Please see WP:NOT. You have two editors who have rightly pointed out that, despite their willingness to discuss it and be convinced otherwise, the burden of persuasion is still on you. X4n6 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If Wikipedia's definition of a bio as "more than just the basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death" won't persuade editors, it is hard to see what will persuade against the arbitrariness of summarily deleting a very well sourced WP:RS. People who go against Wikipedia definitions can be mighty hard to persuade. I won't let it pass that for the other NY State senator, Wikipedia includes that her childhood nickname was "Tina". Sources: Elle and Vogue. I kid you not. Yet we have here a gold-standard cite from the fricking NYT and all of the sudden those who never ever got the vapors about the Lincoln ("oysters"), Gillibrand ("Tina"), Kerry ("bike shopping"), Clinton ("swimming in grade school") bios get all anxious. Heckuva job. XavierItzm (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
You seem to think sarcasm is persuasive. It ain't. You're certainly free to include whatever the consensus on other articles allows. But since you're trying to build consensus here, I've twice asked you a simple question: what is encyclopedic about this information? What's its value to the article? You have yet to offer any answer.
And if I came across a BLP that included the subject's favorite color, animal they're most like, or that they're a Capricorn with Aries rising - even if it's sourced to the NYT, their published diary, their obit, the Congressional Record and a Papal encyclical - unless it had some relevant and encyclopedic value, I'd likely delete that too. X4n6 (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure people are familiar with the definition of "sarcasm." As per one request above, a second WP:RS has been added, namely Bloomberg.[1] Anyone fainting about Schumer's "deep love" of meatloaf should consider Obama's Wikipedia bio, which reads: "his childhood and adolescence was a fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers". Anyone thought of arbitrarily deleting that one? XavierItzm (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-06/paul-ryan-s-venison-meatloaf-recipe
Three times now you've demonstrated that you're incapable of answering my question. So there's no need for me to respond further. You can always RfC this and I and other editors can vote then. X4n6 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The personal life section needs some work overall. This sentence "Schumer told a Utica television station that his father was brought up in the Utica area." is unsourced. The paragraph about his wife and daughters is fine, but there is also a one sentence paragraph about him being related to Amy Schumer, which I think is relevant but would need to be integrated into the article. I think the tidbit about the meatloaf would need to be refined to be included in a Good Article. As I said on my talk page, I think a specific detail like that should connect to some other theme or illuminate something about he article subject. I don't think the fact that the recipe includes bacon is illuminating because many American Jews do not keep kosher. That doesn't need to be said at all, let alone demonstrated with a sentence about meatloaf. The cook book writer seems to think Schumer's recipe is reflects something about Schumer but doesn't spell it out. My position is, leave the sentence in the article until someone makes a Good Article ready personal life section. The sentence is sourced and is nothing scandalous about the article subject. If someone can do a better job of integrating it, great, if not it will probably fall by the wayside if someone takes the time to polish the section. Knope7 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
As I've said, I agree with GB fan that this blurb really adds nothing of value, or even interest, to the article. As you suggested, within a broader, more developed context, perhaps. Because articles can always be improved; and not just for GA purposes. But as a stand-alone, tangent and non-sequitur? Hardly. Also, the Amy Schumer connection belongs in the early life and/or personal life sections, because those are where we generally include family and relatives. Otherwise, you give it its own subsection. Not sure where else you'd have it go. X4n6 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The article has many problems, so why only focus on this one piece of information? Under WP:Preserve, I think this is questionable whether this will stay long term, but I don't see the harm in keeping it until the article improves as a compromise. The Utica statement is unsourced and awkwardly worded, yet remains part of the article. The Amy mention should be integrated with other content so that it is not a stand alone one sentence paragraph. Knope7 (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Per your point on Utica, I agree and have removed it for the reasons you articulated. Also, as you'll see, now the meatloaf issue is included in a way that provides context. It's no longer a stand alone. Likewise, as discussed earlier, the Amy references are exactly where they should be: in the early life and personal sections. Even if you made them a subsection, they would, legitimately, still be referenced where they currently are. X4n6 (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I never suggested making the Amy reference a subsection. It is a one sentence paragraph, which although not prohibited, is not ideal. The point is it should be integrated into a narrative. I appreciate your effort on the meatloaf issue, unfortunately now it runs into an undue weight issue. I'm fine leaving it where it is for now because as I appreciate your good faith editing on this issue. I really think what needs to happen with this article long term is more editing with a focus on meeting the Good Article criteria and trying to make the article a more cohesive narrative. One thing that would help is identifying in depth profiles of Schumer that can be used a source and as guidance for tying things together. Knope7 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, there are really only two places where the Amy reference should go. Either in the early life or personal sections. It appears in both. I didn't say you wanted it to have its own subsection. I simply asked where else beyond those 2 sections would you put it. Rather than discussing it in a vacuum, give an example of what you'd like to see and where you'd put it, so we have something tangible to discuss. As for the meatloaf reference, I'm not concerned that a small paragraph, properly sourced and providing context, borders undue. But again, if you have a better idea, I'll certainly take a look at it. As for GA status, that's labor intensive, especially for a BLP that's constantly updated. But if that's your goal, happy editing! X4n6 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Schumer pulled visa strings for Indian athlete now accused of child sex abuse

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/03/athlete-whom-senators-helped-enter-us-to-compete-now-in-sex-abuse-case.html 71.182.242.108 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

As previously stated on the talkpage, I've (again) deleted the subsection "Budget." One sentence about a Politifact article does not a political position make. I don't want these reverts to become repetitive/get into edit war territory, so I'd welcome any discussion on expanding or readding that section. Werónika (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox official photo

(Moved here for discussion. Please keep it here.)

I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you find objectionable there. According to the file description at Wikimedia Commons, the image was taken on 22 August 2002. If you believe this date is incorrect, then you should change the description and/or contact the original uploader. If you object to including dates in captions in general, then you need to raise that at a more visible forum – it's not only standard practice (e.g. at Diana, Princess of Wales, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc.), but is also basically the reason why the caption field exists. ¡Bozzio! 15:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bozzio: I wish you had opened this dialogue sooner. But my concerns are that your edits suggest to the reader, either: 1) the best we could do was a 15 year old photo in the lead; or 2) this was Schumer's official photo, but only back in 2002. Obviously, neither is true. As you know, this is his current official photo. It seems to me that if readers want a photograph's provenance, they can easily check the submission. Otherwise, the date a current official photo was taken is irrelevant. Also, we don't even know what "22 August, 2002" represents. The date the photo was taken? The date it was released? The date it became the official photo? When?? And how do we verify any of that? Especially when the original uploader didn't upload it until 2005 - 12 years ago? Also, what exactly are we supposed to do with an uploader named "Tom" with no userlink? So I'm not inclined to accept 2002 as a date for anything, since it just cannot be verified. All we do know, is that it was submitted in 2015; and it is the current official photo, per the subject's official website. As to your response regarding other caption fields, sure, we complete those fields - but only when we can reliably source them. Per WP:BLP, unverifiable information is subject to immediate removal. So we should only publish what we can verify. In this case, that this is the current official photo. I'm pretty sure readers can figure out it's not current. But it's not our place to say more, when we don't know more. Maybe the subject will finally update his official photo soon. X4n6 (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Do we need a caption at all? Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Bill Frist, Trent Lott, Bob Dole, and George J. Mitchell all don't have captions letting us know the photo is official (which I believe all but Mitchell's are) or when they were taken. I think people can figure out it is Chuck by it being in the infobox, and if they want more information they can click on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm good with that too. Especially, since this photo is clearly a posed portrait. It does seem redundant to have to list it as the official photo when none of the other infobox photos do. X4n6 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems odd to be using an obviously dated picture in the infobox when, in my view, a much more suitable current picture is available. Is it indicated anywhere, as a matter of policy, that "official photos" should be priviledged in this way in BLPs? --Epipelagic (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

They have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you

Schumer of New York told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that President Trump was “being really dumb” to take on the intelligence community, since “They have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” --87.156.224.140 (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

apartment

Where Schumer lives between Congressional sessions is irrelevant, similarly to previous arguments. It's trivial and should be removed. This is an encyclopedia not a detailed campaign biography. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Chuck Schumer. 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) 10:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chuck Schumer. 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) 05:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Chuck Schumer. 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) 22:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

update needed

I doubt that his daughter is still on the Council of Economic Advisers under the new administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:4401:77CD:78E1:5FD8:D95:6FBA (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The Health Care bill?

The Health Care "Deal" is neither healthy or caring! Murray Weinstock (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The Health Care "Deal" is neither healthy or caring! Murray Weinstock (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The Health Care "Deal" is neither healthy or caring! Murray Weinstock (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Down with sloganeering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.177.55 (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Typo Correction

The page is semi-protected and I haven't made enough edits to be able to change it, but in the United States Senate section, second paragraph, it says "ensure a trial that would bnot only protect national." Should be "not," not "bnot." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebwhat (talk • contribs) 23:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Petebwhat,  Fixed – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


Anti-Life

Abortion Schumer is anti-life, The world would have been better off if only his mother had held the same opinion of abortion and received one. This pathetic loser has been given a 100% rating by NARAL Pro-Choice America,[117] though he received some criticism for attending a gala in 2007 hosted by Efrat— an organization that seeks to reduce abortion among Israeli Jews.[118]

This is probably factually inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.151.162 (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

But isn't Schumer against abortion in Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.186.102 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
You will find many double standards when it comes the me vs. thee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 06:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced claims of academic excellence

The paragraph on Schumer's education contains unsourced claims about his SAT scores (see previous section of this page) and that he "earn[ed] his Juris Doctor with honors" from Harvard Law School. Is there any evidence of this? The HLS definition of honors requires grades in the upper 40 percent of the graduating class. There are many articles on Schumer that talk about his time at Harvard but none I could find state that he graduated cum laude from the law school or ranked highly in his class. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Confusing pseudo-information on SAT score

What on earth is a "super-scored 1600" SAT score that Schumer supposedly got? He worked for one of the early SAT test prep companies and, as one might expect from that information, did well on the test. But what is this business about a "super-score"? 73.149.246.232 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, it looks like Schumer got a very high score but not the perfect 1600. https://web.archive.org/web/20120407225557/https://kaplan.com/shk/autobio/pages/default.aspx

According to his high school employer, test prep king Stanley Kaplan:

"Charles Schumer, now the senior U.S. senator from New York, worked in my printing office while he was in high school. I should have known then that he would aspire to high office because he would read the materials as they came off the copy machine to check to see whether I had made any mistakes. He studied while he worked. His SAT score was close to a perfect 1600."
The Kaplan site sources this to "Stanley H. Kaplan quotes as published in his 2001 autobiography with Anne Farris, Test Pilot - How I Broke Testing Barriers for Millions of Students and Caused a Sonic Boom in the Business of Education (Simon & Schuster)"

This seems definitive. There is absolutely no way Kaplan would not remember a 1600, an extremely rare feat (maybe one in 100000 test takers) in those days, being achieved by a student who worked for him and used his test preparation materials, who later became very famous to New Yorkers. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That section needs to be fixed. If he actually earned a score very close to 1600 but not 1600, the article should simply say that. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
If the nearly 1600 score is included, the fact that Schumer worked at Kaplan should also be mentioned since that sheds at least partial light on how he got such a high score. EditGirl99 (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

"Change Minority leader to Majority leader" JoShmoB6 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Even if Warnock and Ossoff do hold on to win, Schumer won't become majority leader until January 20, when Kamala Harris becomes VP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021 (2)

Please change "U.S. Democratic Senator from the State of New York, Senate Minority Leader" to "U.S. Democratic Senator from the State of New York, Senate Majority Leader"

The amendment request is just for the one word of Minority to be changed to Majority. JoShmoB6 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As per the reply to your previous request, he doesn't become majority leader until 20 January assuming the Democrats do take both Ga seats. Nthep (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

outdated

hes senate majority leader now Nuttolum (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Not until January 20. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021 (3)

Change "Senate Majority Leader - Incumbent - Assumed Office Jan. 20 2021" to "Senate Majority Leader - Incoming - Assuming office Jan. 20 2021" 2601:247:8280:4AE0:8919:E171:4693:D991 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Current position seems more important than an upcoming position, gather a consensus for this change to be made. Terasail[✉] 23:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Huh? The IP was saying you should correct the tense in the infobox. Not that you should change the substance. Cpotisch (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

i request to edit to make the page have senate Majority leader-dessinee 2607:FEA8:139F:C1D0:6086:DE4D:4BC8:4B4A (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no such thing as a "Majority Leader-designate". The Senate has to elect its leaders, and Schumer has not been elected Majority Leader yet. It is merely presumed that he will be when the Democrats take the majority. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Change the designation of Majority Leader to Minority Leader, he will not become Majority Leader until the 3 Democratic Senators-elect or designate are sworn in, which they have not been yet. 2A02:C7F:7A9B:7200:1986:783:10C1:9C8A (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

Update the picture to a more recent one. 216.195.237.27 (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you have an image in mind that meets Wikipedia:Image use policy feel free to link to it here and reopen the request Cannolis (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Gun Laws

It is my understanding that 50 US Senators are holding up legislation on gun laws that could help protect all of us. In light of the horrific events recently please move forward to help save our country. 68.133.72.193 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Threatening Supreme Court justice

Why wasn’t he arrested 2600:1006:B114:2F53:E147:7B41:74D4:B954 (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chuck_Schumer/Archive_1&oldid=1136613543"