Jump to content

Talk:Tony Rezko

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.61.52.248 (talk) at 19:22, 26 January 2008 (→‎Picture with Clintons). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

POV fork

Is this article about Tony Rezko or is this just an anti-Obama POV fork? It looks like the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.113.250 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific regarding your concerns? The contents seems well supported by the Sun-Times references. Are you saying that Rezko's link to Obama is given WP:UNDUE weight? AFAICT, that seems to be pretty much the sole reason for his notability. Ronnotel 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Obama article used to link here, but the Obama flak police kept removing any links to the Tony Rezko article. Most of the time that Rezko has done anything noteworthy, it have involved political corruption with Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich.

Should the POV flag be removed? There does not seem to be much reasoning for the flag given?

I think the POV flag should remain. This is my first time visiting the page. It does seem that much of the article is just a summary of charges made by one newspaper substantiated only by that newspaper's articles. I would suggest a more NPV treatment, with at least some comments from Obama's team about this issue. lk 06:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates don't get to make statements directly to WP articles - particularly because this is WP:BLP. Anything that gets added must be reliably sourced. Besides, it seems like Obama's response has already been captured - he acknowledged the mistake and says he regrets it. If you can locate WP:RS material with additional responses then that would be fair game. Your justification for adding the POV tag seems a bit light - you don't get to call a source like the Sun-Times POV just because you happen to disagree with the reporting. Ronnotel 13:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Having an article reflect the views of only one (apparently biased) new newspaper is POV. POV tags should stand until there is general consensus that the article is NPV. lk 06:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you think the Sun-Times articles are biased? Ronnotel 14:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Half the link references in the article are broken. I can't read them. Of those that I can read, it seems to me that the articles themselves point to innocuous mistakes, whereas in the wikipedia article they are written up as something more sinister. --lk 10:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but from what I remember of the articles, they are actually quite fair to Obama. The real estate deal in particular included a number of aspects that cast a negative light on Obama but are not mentioned - such as the likelihood that parts of the transaction occurred at non-market prices. Rezko engages in shady practices and his association with Obama has raised some questions about Obama's judgment. Obama has been evasive in his statements about those dealings. Sinister is your own interpretation - I simply see facts that have been written down. If you think the facts are incorrect, then fix it. Ronnotel 12:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sinister might be too strong a word. What I meant was that, in the newspaper articles (at least in those I could read), Obama comes out in quite a good light. The 'mistakes' seem innocuous. But in this page on Rezko, they are written about in such a way as to imply wrongdoing by Obama. As such, I believe the POV tag should remain. Adding a POV tag does not obligate me to fix it. It just points out that it needs to be fixed, and it should remain until a consensus agreement that the article is NPV. --lk 03:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that, while the Sun-Times articles attempt to strike a balance of fairness, that same balance didn't make it onto this page. Facts and statements critical of Obama were included in this article while mitigating facts (and statements of response) were left out. I've edited a few of these to at least add the response that was in the original article and remove some of the more egregious POV statements, but there is still work to be done on this article to strike a neutral tone. --Loonymonkey 22:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this another PR page for Sen Obama? Aren't statements such as "No laws were broken and Obama is not under investigation" completely fabricated? Obama most certainly is under investigation, at least by the press, for being tied at the hip to one of the more notorious crooks in the state of Illinois. And of course, laws were broken. Tony Rezko has a laundry list of broken laws a mile long. Statements such as these are Obama campaign spin, not Encyclopedia level reference. If you want to remove POV, then remove the POV, don't just write more Obama propaganda.

That is your opinion, but wikipedia is not the place to argue political opinions. The fact is Obama is not under investigation and has not broken any laws. If evidence to the contrary were to surface, you can be sure it would be included both here and on the main Obama article. But until then, it's just speculation and opinion. ---- Loonymonkey (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What again is the opinion? How do you know he has not broken any laws? How do you know he is not under investigation? The statement either needs to be taken out, or the Obama flak POV removed. The only thing I am sure of with wikipedia entries on Sen Obama is that an army of PR types are out there trying to rewrite history so that the Senator's voting record and political history is buried.

They don't do "secret investigations" of major politicians. If Obama were alleged to have broken the law or was under investigation, it would be in the news. Your argument seems to be "maybe he did something illegal but nobody knows about it." That's great for a political discussion forum, but it's not really good enough for a wikipedia article.
On a related note, I invite you to review the Principals of Wikipedia Etiquette, particularly the first principal which is "assume good faith." Also don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant statement LM, "They don't do "secret investigations" of major politicians"...apparently Sen Obama is under investigation by the Feds and is mentioned in the charges against Rezko. Your conjecture that all allegations vs. the Sentaor must have already been published (thus it is impossible for the Sen. to have committed any crime, as the media would have already reported it) is the more of the BS PR that Obama's team consistently deliver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.85.147 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Obama is not under investigation by the federal government. You might want to go back and re-read that Sun Times article (or perhaps you don't understand what the term "under investigation" actually means). In any case, this article is not going to be turned into a POV fork about Obama. There are plenty of political forums and blogs out there where you can express your hatred of a particular candidate. Wikipedia isn't one of them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should explain that to Federal Prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald then, because he is mentioning him in his charges against Tony Rezko, which is certainly part of a Federal Investigation. I personally kind of like Senator Obama, it is just bewildering how many people want to shield him from any scrutiny from the press. This article should not be turned into one more Press Release disguised by the Obama flaks as an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.85.147 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're changing your story now. You said that he is "under investigation by the Feds." He's not, of course. Perhaps you should read past the first sentence of the link you keep inserting. Your attempts to push POV about Obama in an article not about him won't work. Go find a nice blog if that's what you want to do. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why Sen. Obama is included in the Feds case against Rezko, since, as you say, he is not under investigation "of course"? Stating the facts of recent newspaper reports is by no means POV. Censorship by LM is certainly POV. Rezko is a notable person because of Obama and Blagojevich...your continued attempts to remove reference to the Illinois Politicians supported by Rezko smacks of the very reason why Wiki is failing to provide balanced information to readers, and becoming just another marketing mechanism for politicians. Why not leave in a factual reference, and let the readers decide if it is relevant or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.85.147 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is they? The SunTimes and Tribune have been reporting on this for more than a year. Rezko is under Federal Indictment and was a fugitive during the Governor election in Illinois. This article is about Rezko. Why is it necessary to put statements such as "Obama is not under investigation" in an article about a person who is definitely indicted? I have followed the Barak Obama entry since its inception. I have assumed good faith in the past, but I do not need to assume anything anymore , as his PR corps definitely spins any entry about him, and removes any possible hint that Sen Obama may not have a perfect record. Now the PR flak are invading other entries to post such mindless PR as "No laws were broken and Obama is not under investigation", even though there is no claim otherwise. There really should be some policing of the Obama campaign using Wikipedia for PR.

Well, you're getting to the real point which is why is why is it necessary to spend so much time talking about Obama at all? This article isn't about him. The complaint with this article all along was that it was written simply as a POV fork to make allegations about Obama and was only ostensibly about Rezko. You make a much better argument for eliminating most of the "connections to Obama" section and reducing it to a couple of sentences.
As for good faith, as much as you claim the rule no longer applies to you, you really do need to assume good faith in your dealings with others on wikipedia. Believe it or not, there isn't a vast conspiracy by Obama's "PR corps" to revert your edits. Most of your conflicts are with long-established editors who adhere to the principals of wikipedia. I doubt that much of it is by fervent Obama supporters, but rather people who are trying to maintain good quality articles (personally, Obama is not my favorite candidate, but my personal politics are irrelevent to this). Oh, and please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LM...horsemanure..What evidence of good faith is there? A large number of PR people making happy statements about Obama? How is that good faith? The attempt at a good quality article is at least secondary to making their candidate look good. Hiding behind a bunch of wikilawyering by no means justifies using wikipedia to boost a chosen candidate. Why bother following any rules on this system if PR Flaks are allowed to pump up their candidate without recourse? Ruins the whole system. Just read the above misleading entry ""No laws were broken and Obama is not under investigation", even though there is no claim otherwise. There really should be some policing of the Obama campaign using Wikipedia for PR." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.85.147 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to remove the POV tag?

It's still has a bit of an anti-Obama slant, but it's mostly factual now. Any objections to removing the POV tag? --lk 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to remove POV tag. Decoratrix (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Article still has serious problems and is getting worse, not better.--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has clearly turned into a POV fork now.

The section on Obama is actually longer than the section on Rezko. Isn't this article supposed to be about Rezko? The Obama section needs to be severely pruned to indicate his connection to Rezko, and that's it. There is no need to rush in and add a new reference every time Obama is mentioned in reference to the same material. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main reasons there is some of the Obama material here is that the "pro-Obama" wiki-censors clamored for the material to be here. In fact all the material should be here AND in the Obama article. Decoratrix (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your comment pretty much proves my point. Whatever conflicts you had while editing another article have nothing to do with this one. Trying to put here what you weren't able to put somewhere else is the very definition of a POV fork. This article is supposed to be about Tony Rezko, not Barack Obama. Attempts to turn it into a coatrack of Obama mentions are not acceptable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the record of the relevant talk page before attacking another editor. The consensus of Obama talk page was to place it here. That was not my unilateral decision. Decoratrix (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking? I haven't attacked anyone. I am very familiar with the talk page of Obama (and the other candidates). There was no consensus to make the edit that you made here, that's simply not true. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

The move note pretty much says it, but Tony Rezko is by far the most common name for this person (26,000+ hits versus 4,000+ hits), so I moved the page across the redirect. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very sparce with details about Rezko and his connection to Obama compared to the info out there

The web is buzzing with information apparently being circulated by supporters of the Clinton camp. Take a look at this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-faustian-bargain-_b_82863.html. Should some of this information be worked into the article? Moe (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ynilp has said it well. There is a huge amount of information out there regarding a series of Obama-Rezko scandals that wiki-censors have systematically deleted from obama and rezko articles. Wikipedia should not be a place to sanitize one's favourite candidates, but should be a source of notable facts. Decoratrix (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture with Clintons

I added this picture because it is relevant as long as the Ties to Politicians section exists. It has already been removed by a named user and 208.116.141.1, and restored by myself and another user. Please avoid a revert war and recognize the relevance of this image to this section of the article. Corey Salzano (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt in my mind that the image is relevant, considering the news coverage, however, we need to know what the copyright status of it is. If it was taken by an official White House photographer, then it is a US Gov PD image and should be marked as such. However, if it was taken by a Dem. Party or campaign staff photographer, then it is probably copyrighted and can't be used on wikipedia. Can you find out the original source? I know you got it from Drudge Report, but where did it originally come from? --rogerd (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. According to this article[1] the picture may have been taken at a fund raising event for Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, which would indicate that it is not an official White House Photographer. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find, Bobblehead. I agree that the origin of the photo is certainly important. That article also says "There was no immediate way to know for sure if that is when the picture was taken." 71.61.52.248 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tony_Rezko&oldid=187080326"