Jump to content

Talk:Jeremiah Wright

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CarlosRodriguez (talk | contribs) at 14:57, 6 April 2008 (→‎Retirement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jeremiah's mother

I don't see a reference to Jeremiah's Wright's mother - he is pale - maybe she was white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.58.148 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen any information or pictures of her, but Wright does seem more pale in some videos and photos than others. You can clearly see, though, that he is black from these photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.117 (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet if an African looked at them they would clearly see that he is white.--Nowa (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most African-Americans have some European ancestry. See African American#Who is African American?. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

This is a hit job article. It lacks material from the substantial corpus of available biographical data about Wright in multiple books and publications in favor of undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to the controversies. I have placed {{NPOV}} while this is remedied. C.m.jones (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that, other than for your very worthwhile contributions (which certainly surprised me), the entry is very one-sided in its narrow focus on a few phrases and sentences taken out of context of Wright's thousands of hours of sermons and pages of written work. --Tkhorse (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this warrants an NPOV tag. Change to {{expand}}, please. — Omegatron 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current entry, as compared to its initial versions, is greatly improved in terms of NPOV, and is beginning to present a more balanced, less caricatured picture of Wright. I am certain much more complete information about Wright will be researched and posted in the future, so EXPAND seems to be an appropriate tag. --Tkhorse (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article is non-neutral in the other direction, i.e., it has become quite apparently biased in Wright's favor. For example, every single one of the "responses" to Wright's sermons listed here is positive. This creates the false impression that there were no negative responses to Wright's sermons.-Schlier22 (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "responses," since none of them is negative, and this creates a false impression. I do not believe that a "responses" section has no place in the article. It certainly does. But the section must be shorter and provide an equal number of positive and negative responses.-Schlier22 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except there aren't any equal number of negative responses. Feel free to add reliable sources with criticism, rather than delete perfectly good content. Grsz 11 13:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove BOTH Johnson and Clinton pics for sake of NPOV

I the page oughta focus on just wright, yea it can mention Clinton and Johnson, but having pics with them will mislead people into thinking that Wright was closely linked with them. Neither Clinton nor Johnson called him a moral compass or religious mentor. Barack Obama did. It would be more appropriate to have a pic of him and Obama, considering Obama's deep relationship, but Clinton and Johnson do not need pics with Wright on the site, because it is misleading about both of them, and an attack point for Clinton haters, who are too loud and hateful. Bill Clinton did not go to his church and listen to hate speech for 17 years. Barack Obama did, but thats beside the point..Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. It is easy to see why the pictures are relevant. First, would Jeremiah Wright be notable if Obama had never come along? The answer is yes. The article existed for four months without referencing Obama. Even if Obama didn't exist, he would still be notable enough for an article. Second, how would one go about establishing notability? There are numerous ways, but the fact that he was recognized by both Johnson and Clinton are two obvious arguments for his independent notability! The pictures say nothing about Johnson or Clinton's perspective on Wright's theological activism, but rather that Wright was a notable African American on his own right. The pictures are necessary not because they convey any thing on Clinton/Johnson, but because they help establish Wright's independent notability. Finally, if Obama were never presidential candidate, then there would be zero question that the pictures are necessary.Balloonman (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, notice how almost nobody in America except a few political elites and TUCC knew who the fuck this guy was before BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA came along. So NO he was not notable in peoples minds to put a picture with him and a man he had little to do with. and even if so, there is no reason a picture with Obama should not be here. he is the most notable person affiliated, no DEEPLY affiliated with Jimmy Wright. This is clearly biased to try to he help Barack Hussein Obama. maybe the Clinton and Johnson pics can be there, but they should not be front in center, but being that the intent is to hurt Clinton's reputation, I say they must go.Tallicfan20 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every CNA that took a president's blood pressure is not notable. That Nurse Fanny changed a bed pan for Johnson when he had mumps would not establish any notability on her behalf.--Die4Dixie 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
But if that nurse was part of a select group of people who were invited due to her standing within a community and her notability and her ideas--and was notable enough that she was recognized by not one but two Presidents. If said nurse was the head of a major organization of nurses, then yes that be independent notability.Balloonman (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody knew... and yet... somehow he was notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia and be invited by two presidents... and watch your language.Balloonman (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Clinton picture. Maybe we could put a thumbnail of it in a "trivia" section. What the article really needs is a photo of Obama and Wright together, or write preaching from his pulpit. Unfortunately Obama is trying to keep this story down and hasn't GFDLd one of these. 71.112.130.211 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

balloonman, when I say nobody knew, I mean very few people knew who the man was before Barack Hussein Obama came on the scene. Obama is the guy's clame to national fame, and i mean household name fame. There must be THE picture with Barack Hussein Obama and Jeremiah Wright here, or this article is a scam.Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O and balloonman, your cover is blown, and this is obviously a Clinton hit job. I looked at your profile and it says you support the Republican Party. Now you have absolutely no neutrality, and it is obvious you just hate the Clintons. Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. And for the record, it's not as if your anti-Obama vitriol makes you somehow appear balanced on this issue. Here's a clue: who are the only people who insist on xenophobically invoking Obama's middle name? Is that mainstream? Or is it a product of far-right radio hosts and bloggers? Obietom (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aids

Please stop linking original research to his statements on AIDS. Find a third party source to link the stuff or leave it out!--Die4Dixie 06:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting relevant contextual documentation without merit! This is NOT original research and is quite appropriate to contextually demonstrate that Wright's comments were not spoken in a vacuum. Furthermore, the information is in fact thoroughly sourced and referenced in the article, ie; Rand Corporation Study, Washington Post, New York Times and CBS. --JohnBlaz (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is patently false. You cannot link him like that without a third party source doing it for you. You can't say. Wright is black, blacks think like this because rand, gallop, or XYZ says they do; therefore, he thinks this way because.... presto he's Black???? Reinsert and I will remove until we have a consensus or we are blocked. I see you have problems editing pages that have anything to do with African Americans. Please stop your edit war now or provide a source that links him to those polls.Die4Dixie 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
What exactly is false? Dixie, you are obviously fighting against providing more context to Wright's comments. For what reason, I don't know. All of his controversial comments were run in the media and youtube as spliced sound bites without a pretense of context and some characters would like it to remain that way which---from an intellectual perspective---does a disservice to anyone who desires to gain insight into why he made them. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the context of Wright's remarks to his church, should be looked at in the larger context of the fact that a significant segment of Black America distrusts the U.S. Government to the point of believing the government may be complicit some odious endeavors where they are concerned. One is entititled to find it crazy to believe in such but ask a survivor or surviving family member of the Tuskeegee Experiment if they are crazy. --JohnBlaz (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a Rand Corporation study the Washington Post stated, "A significant proportion of African Americans embrace the theory that government scientists created the disease to control or wipe out their communities,"[1] and a New York Times/WCBS-TV News poll conducted in New York found that a quarter of blacks surveyed said that the government "deliberately makes sure that drugs are easily available in poor black neighborhoods in order to harm black people" and a third said that might possibly be true.[2]

If this is so obvious, then you should have no problem finding a third party source to link Wright to those statistics or to link him to "What Black People Think". For us to make that link is original research , and expressly forbidden per Wikipedia policy.01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Die4Dixie 01:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Dixie is someone who has been adding what appears to be anti-Obama content at every opportunity and at many places in entry, but disguising the effort through use of Wikipedia jargon. He is not an administrator or a long-time contributor. What I challenge him or anyone else to find is the actual video that contains the HIV remark. Nobody has seen it and is taking it on faith that Wright said it. Maybe it was quoted out of context. Without the video, it is also difficult to add context, or to find the likely references to the various HIV theories. --Tkhorse (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested that I was an administrator. I have injected nothing negative. But I have been in contact with an administrator. My time here is immaterial, but it certainly predates your Obama-glee club edits by a considerable margin.If you both do not understand what original research is, then I suggest you find the appropriate page yourself and examine it. It is in plain English so that purposely dense and obtuse editors can even understand it 10:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Is this a sufficient source? TheslB (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this paints a more interesting and significant picture of Dr. Wright re: AIDS: "As a leader, Wright defied convention at every turn. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune last year, he recalled a time during the 1970s when the UCC decided to ordain gay and lesbian clergy. At its annual meeting, sensitive to the historic discomfort some blacks have with homosexuality, gay leaders reached out to black pastors. At that session, Wright heard the testimony of a gay Christian and, he said, he had a conversion experience on gay rights. He started one of the first AIDS ministries on the South Side and a singles group for Trinity gays and lesbians—a subject that still rankles some of the more conservative Trinity members, says Dwight Hopkins, a theology professor at the University of Chicago and a church member." [3] Isn't that more significant, and more worthy of inclusion, than a single quote from a single sermon? --Jere7my (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context for alleged "HIV conspiracy" remark?

Will somebody please give us the context to Wright's remark, or alleged remark, about HIV being a government conspiracy? The three relevant footnotes are all second-hand. Every alleged Wright quotation I've read on this subject is extremely brief, and often joined by ellipses to longer quotations on other subjects. Since this conspiracy theory is by far the craziest thing attributed to him, let's see it in its context. Tom129.93.16.132 (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a third party source linking Wright to those crazy theories, not the 1+1 gives us XYZ original research. If by context you want the words in their surrounding context, I suggest you find those sources and add them if the have any relevance to the article. Please see the above section for more ideas about the first scenario23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

My point is:

Transcripts of Wright's sermons are available, and videos of some of his sermons are available. But when the article quotes his alleged statement about an HIV conspiracy, which Wright is supposed to have uttered in one of his sermons, the quotation is not accompanied by a footnote directing us to a transcript or a video of the sermon in question. Instead, the three footnotes direct us to press reports in which Wright is claimed to have made such a statement. Such second-hand sources are not adequate. I don't think we need a "third party source"; rather, we need a transcript or a video. Tom129.93.17.106 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from the “Confusing God and Government” sermon Wright gave in 2003. See here. Also, here a columnist asks for more context: "Snippets of Wright's sermons caused a furor with a lot of people when they came to light last week. Snippets never sit well without the benefit of context, and in this case that was completely lacking." TheslB (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your "here" and got the footnote section of the article. It's not clear which footnote you're referring us to. Tom129.93.65.41 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the transcript of the "Confusing God and Government" sermon. I see the quote does in fact occur in the transcript, in the form "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." Note 32 to the Wikipedia article does make that clear. Thanks to whoever provided that footnote. Tom129.93.65.41 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states the remarks "widely aired in March 2008" but does not say when they were actually made. The source says April 13, 2003. At least the year they were made should go into the article, shouldn't it? —Pengo 07:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Spliced" footage

Marked the word "spliced" as needing a cite, and it was cited. However, it was cited with a source that doesn't state the video was "spliced". So I removed unsourced word "spliced", but it is now restored. Rather than edit war, lets discuss this. "Spliced" implies that the video was doctored to make Wright say something other than what he really said. This unsourced statement "spliced" either needs to be cited with a source that claims the video was doctored, i.e, "spliced", or it should be removed. Broadcasting sound bites intact is entirely different than "splicing" pieces of footage together to make a person say something other than what was really said. "Spliced" is not the proper word here. Yaf (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Spliced" does not mean "doctored". See dictionary meanings below: verb (used with object) 1. to join together or unite (two ropes or parts of a rope) by the interweaving of strands. 2. to unite (timbers, spars, or the like) by overlapping and binding their ends. 3. to unite (film, magnetic tape, or the like) by butting and cementing. 4. to join or unite. With film and videotape, splicing means joining non-contiguous segments. What Brian Ross at ABC Blotter did was clearly splicing, as is obvious from the videotapes cited and the actual words quoted. If I said, "I believe that Charlie Manson said 'We should kill all the people in LA'", and you quoted me as saying, "I believe...we should kill all the people in LA", that is splicing and taking words out of context. That is obviously an extreme example, but it is analogous to what occurred in this case. --Tkhorse (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that is not what the reference says occurred. It says that sound bites were excerpted from the full content. This is not splicing. On the other hand, it is Original Research to claim that splicing was done to "doctor" the meaning without a cite. It is not accurate to write that splicing or "doctoring" is what occurred here without a cite. Splicing means precisely doctoring, when words are left out and the meaning is changed, such as in your example. We need to find a source that claims this is what happened; otherwise, we should remove the original research word "spliced". Yaf (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In another sermon from which sound bites were taken out of context and widely aired in March 2008[20],"

THIS is not supported by the cite. It's comming out. Die4Dixie 20:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 20:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically true, but that's taking things to the idiotic level, kind of like requiring a citation for "the Pope is Catholic". Were the whole sermons played? Were the clips played in context of the larger sermon at all? Of course not, so there is no problem with the language you oppose. C.m.jones (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irreverent comment alert... but some do want a citation for "the Pope is Catholic"!Balloonman (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Commendations

I question if these were indeed "commendations". The one shown in the picture is not directly from the president. A commendation is a military decoration. The source for this is to me highly questionable as I have noticed other , to put it kindly, exaggerations of other notable African American achievements.It appears that the source does not exist to educate; but rather, instill pride in the A. American community. Sometimes the two are at cross purposes.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mission to Libya"

  • Kantor, Jodi (March 6, 2007). Disinvitation by Obama is criticized, The New York Times, p. A.19:

    "When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, "with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell." Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan's views or Qaddafi's.

  • Perhaps the Rev. Wright went on Minister Louis Farrakhan's May 1984 visit to Col. Muammar Qaddafi in Tripoli, Libya?
    • Associated Press (June 6, 1984). Libyan press agency asserts that Farrakhan met Qaddafi, The New York Times, p. A.3:

      Louis Farrakhan, head of the Chicago-based Nation of Islam, met with the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, when he led an American delegation of Black Muslims to Libya last month, the Libyan press agency JANA reported.

Watts1886 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this. I don't see any citations saying that Wright went to free anyone. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced it was the same trip. Are there any sources connecting Wright to either of the visits? While Wright's own quote hints at controversy, the lack of sources on this seems to indicate otherwise. TheslB (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate dealings

We need to add a section oon his recently uncovered real estate dealings. I am searching now for cites to add this developing story.20:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/obamas-former-pastor-builds-a-multimillion-dollar-retirement-home/

Any objections to using this source?--Die4Dixie 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/personnel.htm Comments made to fox were made by the above linked person whose credentials are not "honorary"; but rather, they were earned and appear impeccable. I think we should include his statements too. Opinions please so we can get an non NPOV insertion of all of this.--Die4Dixie 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's relevant. I have a problem with the Faux article, as it's horrible POV. Grsz 11 21:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hard facts are what you object to? or to the source and the academician who made the reported statements? Please say if you just don't like the source or don't like what it says or if you dispute its accuracy. As you can see, I'm terribly confused.--Die4Dixie 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

“Some people think deals like this are hypocritical. Jeremiah Wright himself criticizes people from the pulpit for middle classism, for too much materialism,” said Andrew Walsh, Associate Director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life with Trinity College in Hartford, Conn." . This is what I was wanting to add.Seemas as relevant as the other lettered peoples' comments that are included--Die4Dixie 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the section going to say? That he's building an expensive house? I don't see the relevance. Grsz 11 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That this 3 rd party source says that some people find wright to be hypocritical. We do have plenty of equally impressively credentialed people cited that are serving as his glee club. For balance we need more direct quotes from those who are slightly less than enamored with him.--Die4Dixie 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

on another note, Thanks for the honest effort to dialogue here unlike another editor who will remain unamed--Die4Dixie 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Only problem is that it has nothing to do with the "controversy". It's just FOX digging for more to go on and on and on about. Grsz 11 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be generating its own controversy as we speak. Let me see how many google hits we'll get on it. I think that if he is being exposed as a hypocrite by a 3rd party source( Dr. Walsh PhD., Harvard)that that would be noteworthy. I'm not hard set on this, and have removed the subsection.If it picks up any steam, and if it is cited correctly to Walsh, I believe it will pass Wiki muster.--Die4Dixie 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
All this is is hype. C.m.jones (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very constructive. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.--Die4Dixie 22:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
What content would you like to see? TheslB (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imprecations

Please stop inserting the un sourced material . Your original research is not welcome at Wikipedia. Also your restoring of a section on real estate that i created and then deleted makes me wonder if you even read things that you edit.--Die4Dixie 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can make your own interpretations of anglicized Greek with out cites. That is original research.--Die4Dixie 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

I think the way that it is linked now dos justice to your concerns and is fair and balanced--Die4Dixie 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Non NPOV tag

halelujah! Now lets talk about that NPOV in this article before you remove that tag--Die4Dixie 05:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The responses that are include have significant justification. For example, the first response asks the simple question, has any of the hyperbolic critics on cable TV and the Internet watched the full videos of the sermons in question? Anyone who has not done so, or who has just seen the snippets repeated ad nauseaum on cable TV, is not qualified to give an intelligent response. The responses of McCain and Obama are significant, because the controversy is in the context of the Presidential election. The responses of clergy members are meaningful because, again, they are from people who know the body of Wright's work and reputation, who are familiar with the language of sermons, and who are not screaming that he is the devil based on distorted caricatures. I can point you to tens of other ministers and clergy (many from very conservative congregations, most of whom are not black) who have come out publicly against the unfair caricatures of Wright in the mainstream media.--Tkhorse (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps when you trot out that dog and pony show we need to link to white guilt immediately.Then we wil , as you seem fond of pointing out, have the proper context for those comments.--Die4Dixie 18:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

"Sound bites from a sermon that Wright gave in 2003, entitled “Confusing God and Government”, were also shown on ABC's Good Morning America[25] and Fox News, in which Wright made perceived controversial statements about God and the U.S. Government." Perceived is a weasel word. Either the statements were controversial( as can be clearly demonstrated) or they were not.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Meaning it isn't a controversy to everybody. Not everybody finds what he said offensive, as evident in the "Responses" section. Grsz 11 19:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Depends on what your definition of "is " is," as a great man once said.If if I find a source that says it was controversial, may I insert it, and you do the same for perceived? Can't get better faithed than that.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. changing the argument to offensive is a Strawman argument, and a logical fallacy.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "controversial" is in itself a POV term, which is why we try to avoid it (as we try to avoid characterizations in general.) Grsz11 (how do you pronounce that?) is correct here. Now, you could say that the statements caused a controversy. Different. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if some people think it is controversial then it is. Anyway just put some quotes and the reader can decide if they are controversial. Rds865 (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Doctorates of Martin E. Marty

The article states at one point: "Martin E. Marty, an emeritus professor of religious history and holder of seventy-five honorary doctorates," And then at another point: "Martin E. Marty, an emeritus professor of religious history and recipient of twenty-seven honorary doctorates," That's quite the difference. And, I'm not even sure it's relevant how many honorary doctorates he has. I'm not an expert on the subject, but can someone who's more familiar with it clarify those two statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsanders (talk • contribs) 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading it a bit further, and Martin E. Marty is brought up three times in the article, with his credentials brought up each time. This is excessive; the others need to be removed once it's clear how many doctorates he has been bestowed. Wsanders (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of the references to the honorary doctorates belong. The article about Marty can discuss them, but otherwise, they're here just to bolster one side of an argument, and that's not what we want in Wikipedia articles. Interested readers can click on his name to find out who he is. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Can they come out?--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the honorary doctorates, and inserted a reference to Marty's bio to support the phrase "widely acclaimed" (which is both true and verified). There's a difference between providing context and an appeal to authority, and I think that this change puts us back on the right side of that divide. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

I'm having trouble with this section. None of the sources link Wright to the Jackson entourage. Grsz 11 04:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the black Hitler stuff--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are two competing paragraphs:

Relationship with Louis Farrakhan

In 1984 Wright went to Libya with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Wright has been quoted in the media: "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Muammar al-Gaddafi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."[1] Wright later awarded Farrakhan a medal on behalf of his church, and Obama has been criticized for refusing to denounce Farrakhan.


  • and

Trip to Libya

A gaffe of Wright's has been quoted in the media: "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Muammar al-Gaddafi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."[2] The 1984 trip Wright was referring to was when he traveled to Libya and Syria on a peace mission along with an ecumenical body of ministers. Chaired by Rev. M. William Howard and led on the ground by Rev. Jesse Jackson who brought about a dozen other ministers including Minister Louis Farrakhan, the trip resulted in the freeing of United States Navy pilot Lt. Robert Goodman, who was captured after his fighter jet had been shot down over Lebanon.[3] [4] [5] [6] At a January 4, 1984 White House ceremony welcoming Lt. Goodman home, U.S. President Ronald Reagan stated, "Reverend Jackson's mission was a personal mission of mercy, and he has earned our gratitude and our admiration."[7] Wright has stated that his participation in the trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan’s views or Gaddafi’s.[8]

I think the shorter version is superior. First off, calling the statement a "gaffe" is inaccurate, or at best an opinion. It was more of a perhaps ironic comment. In my opinion. Second, the cited source in the short version is the original, not a reprint from a year later (it was an NYT article.) Third, the short version doesn't try to argue one side or another; it just presents the facts. The shorter version is still faulty, though. Saying someone hasn't done something is by definition POV (it implies the person should do something.)

We can turn this into an NPOV article without including a lot of over-the-top rhetoric. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, except the comment on Obama belongs, IMHO, on his page and not here.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Relationship paragraph is blatant POV. Grsz 11 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change tile to Libya trip and remove mention of Obama? Also , claims of NPOV with out supporting reasons is not useful. I don't like it isn't good enough--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Watts1886 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a busy typer you are :). I think that to say Newsmax is not a reliable source of hard news while Media matters is ( and hence from a nuetral point of view by posit) is disingenious at best.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "disingenious at best" to say that in a Wikipedia biography of a living person, an inaccurate "hard news" story from a questionable source like Newsmax.com should not be used a source (much less the only source) of an article subsection.Watts1886 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

The negative responses which I've added belong. Grsz: You are being very disingenuous. You removed one of the responses which I listed on the grounds that it "is a response to the responses and not to Wright himself," while neglecting to notice that Martin E. Marty, in one of the responses kept, is also giving a response to the responses. You removed another of the responses I listed because it is a "response to Obama, not to Wright." But it is obvious that the quote from McCain can also be construed as a response to Obama, since it is determined by McCain's alleged personal familiarity with Obama. Finally, David Sirota, whose response is kept, writes a regular column for The Nation magazine, which certainly qualifies as an "opinion magazine," if National Review does. In short, all of criticisms you've raised against including the negative responses that I've posted fail, for each of these criticisms can also be applied to the positive responses which you've maintained.-Schlier22 (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP has very strict guidelines when including criticism of living persons.
  • Kurtz's comment has no place here, as it's purely satirical and provides nothing relevant.
  • You're right about Marty, i'll try and remove it, but that doesn't mean Hanson gets to stay.
  • And like I said about Goldberg, it's a response to Obama, and should be addressed in the controversy section of Obama's campagin article if anywhere. Grsz 11 04:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed not only yours, but other responses on the grounds I've already stated. Grsz 11 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtz's comment does have a place. If the comment by the actor stays, which is equally satirical, so does Kurtz's.-Schlier22 (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is Weber's comment at all satire? Grsz 11 05:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need a magnifying glass? "The one that the mainstream media diced and sliced and handed out like amphetamine-laced communion to its maddeningly impressionable flock?"-Schlier22 (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm would be a better description of Kurtz. On the other had, Weber specifically addresses the situation, and what he thinks is happening to people who view the story. Grsz 11 05:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satire: the use of irony, SARCASM, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. Weber-- btw, quite an authority, as an ACTOR (this is sarcasm, but if I'm pointing this out to deride you, it can be interpreted as satire)-- is responding very similiarly to Kurtz. Kurtz also is specifically addressing the situation (his point is that the content of Wright's sermons could only be acceptable by an adherent to the sort of radical philosophical positions which he describes) and what he thinks is happening to people who view the story (viz., these people are finding Wright's sermons acceptable due to thier adherence to these radical philosophical positions).-Schlier22 (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the history tab, Kurtz stated, "OK, I’ve been tweaking actual deconstructionist and post-colonial texts, and adding some "original" analysis of my own, to fit the Wright affair". This piece is not about Wright. Its about Kurtz and is his harangue against those academicians who find postmodernism a useful analytic tool. He just hitches on to the Wright affair hype to draw reader attention to his piece. Cryptographic hash (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we have Wright's sycophantic glee club's responses, then we must give balanced shrift to his detractors and their responses. The article should not read like an apologetic essay.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Die4Dixie: Precisely. This whole article on Wright is an apologetical essay. Cryptographic hash: Your analysis of Kurtz's intention is wrong. Kurtz is using postmodernism to interpret Wright's sermons, but he's doing so satirically, i.e., in imitation of those postmodernists who have interpreted Wright's comments favorably. His point is that only such postmodernists are capable of disguising the real, hateful nature of selections from Wright's sermons. This is why he concludes that, "The serious point is that these radical theorists, so popular in America’s academy, do in fact approve of figures like Wright, which is why respectable universities have tenured Wright’s spiritual mentors."-Schlier22 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say no inclusion of either satirical parts, from either side. But we need some conservative detrators to give balance. If they didn't exist, then all these cheerleader's wouldn't have made any comments. to put their responses to the conservative criticism , with out the conservative criticism that generated the response is academically dishonest.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Die4Dixie.-Schlier22 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC) I've added a more conservative response from Ben Wallace-Wells.-Schlier22 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses listed in this article should be directly relevant to the article. We could have people from Alec Baldwin to Zelda Rubenstein responding to the controversy, but who cares? The responses should be strictly limited to things like the church, the current Presidential candidates, etc. - people who are involved in the controversy in some fashion or who are part of the reason why the controversy has become notable. In other words, merely finding some guy who publishes an opinion column and posting a quote from it here, even if the person is notable in his own regard, simply isn't notable in the context of this article. --DachannienTalkContrib 16:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to quote actors like Weber, then there's nothing wrong with quoting a columnist from Rolling Stone. But even if we aren't going to quote Weber, then we can still quote this particular quote from this particular columnist. Why? Because the quote captures not so much the columnist's perspective, but rather the rage, lack of control, and irresponsibility that is inherent in so many of the Rev. Wright's sermons.-Schlier22 (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. You need to become more familiar with WP:NPOV. We're not supposed to be pushing a viewpoint here; we're supposed to be reporting facts, as neutrally as possible. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Wallace-Wells's opinion any more important than Weber's, Brit Hume's, Margaret Thatcher's, or mine? The answer: it's not. Countless columnists and other opinion-foisters have pontificated on this issue since it hit the media. None of them have any notability in the context of this article; merely being notable and voicing an opinion does not make that opinion notable. By limiting the scope of the "responses" section to people who are either involved in the controversy or linked to the reasons why it's notable (as I've mentioned above), we can avoid cherry-picking and synthesis of opinions. --DachannienTalkContrib 17:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see two people pushing an angle here trying to ram a claim of "consensus" when the edit history and talk history deny them that very clearly. CyberAnth (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down please

Could everyone please slow down on the edits? We seem to be able to discuss the article reasonably; I think it's time for talk first, edit later -- even if I've violated this myself. Right now, the article is in thrash mode, which doesn't help anything. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Revert to your last edit and lets talk. I wanted this for a minute now. Good luck getting certain ham fisted editors to join us--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't revert. We'll all talk. Or I'll ask (and receive) full page protection, but I'd really rather not have to go that far. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to which edit would the protection work from?--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping one with fewer (or no) quotes from people who are irrelevant to the topic at hand. --DachannienTalkContrib 17:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The protection would be of the wrong version, as always. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roflmao :). True. I have requested all recent editors to come to talk page, even the ones I don't agree with.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

honorary doctorates and naivete

OK.

Martin E. Marty, an emeritus professor of religious history and holder of seventy-five honorary doctorates,[9]...

What's the point of including the honorary doctorate stuff? To my eyes, it seems to be for the purpose of inflating Marty's credibility for the purpose of supporting this argument. Since we don't list the religious and academic background of most people here stating their opinions, there's no particular reason to mention Marty's. As I said in my edit comment, people interested in who Marty is will click on the link.

Likewise, why are we assuming our readers are illiterates by pointing one word to wiktionary? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

' Agree': the wikilink to his page is sufficient.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You ALWAYS give a brief overview of who the person is, no matter who they are. An article should be completely self-contained, and written as if it were to be printed out and read. CyberAnth (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case, "professor of religious history" would suffice; you don't need his honors and awards. Also -- I'm not sure we really want to consider blurbs as reliable sources; they're generally marketing tools, not reference documents. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't ALWAYS do anything. I see that some editors seem to treat this article as their personal property with their fiefdomism .--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jpgordon on this - stating his title and where he used to teach would be more than sufficient, especially considering that honorary degrees are of even less credential value than Microsoft certifications. :p --DachannienTalkContrib 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you ALWAYS tell your reader who is talking - didn't you learning that in English 101 in college, or did you go yet?
Replying to "Jpgordan": No way. That is like calling Michale Jordan simply "a basketball player". Martin E. Marty is a world-renowned religious history scholar and people ought be told that right up front so they know who is speaking.
Also, on another issue here, you have to assume your readers are literate on the level of about an 8th grade reading level - the national average - so it makes great sense to wikilink some words to the "Wiktionary".
CyberAnth (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If true, let's add that he used to hold an endowed chair, so we know exactly WHO he IS.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikilink to the controversy section about these dubious degrees.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying only that Michael Jordan played for the Bulls and leaving it at that. Martin E. Marty should be called "a world-renowned authority on religion and ethics in America"[4]. CyberAnth (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - that seems like the sort of phrasing that begs to have "considered by some to be" inserted in front of it. Is there a better way to convey why he's notable in this context besides honorary degrees of dubious import or potentially POV assertions of authority? --DachannienTalkContrib 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is no disputing the fact that Marty is "a world-renowned authority on religion and ethics in America." Now, that doesn't mean that his interpretation is accepted by all, but you would be hard pressed to find a credible source that doesn't say this. To continue the Jordan analogy, there is no disputing that Jordan is a great basketball player. He is "considered by some to be" the best basketball player ever. Marty is an authority, and possibly "considered by some to be" the authority. But the article is making the claim that he is THE authority.Balloonman (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Book review clubs, trying to sell us things, even if it is the Harvard press should be discounted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing that's not a book review club but Harvard Press. CyberAnth (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is trying to hawk us his books that THEY published. don't be dense.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are showing your lack of life experience here. World-renowned academics become so through a long history of very important publications and collecting honorary doctorates in recognition of those and other qualities. The best way to handle the matter is to keep the current text: "a professor emeritus of religious history and holder of 75 honorary doctorates". Then people can make up their own mind how to weigh it. CyberAnth (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? This discussion isn't about me. Besides, you just got done saying that we should assume our readers are at an eighth-grade level, and most eighth graders (not to mention most non-academics in general) will probably give undue weight and inference to the mention of honorary degrees. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clintons minister

The mention of the Clintons and there former pastor is gratuitous. One editor argues that it establishes notability. my argument is that does the Girl who gave them change at Starbucks have notoriety in the same fashion. It needs to come out, IMHO--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than focus on individual quotes and examples from that section, we need to establish a uniform guideline for what qualifies as notable and acceptable in this context. Once that's done, determining what can stay and what can go (including future contributions from other editors) will be much easier. --DachannienTalkContrib 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to get a lot of Clinton supporters protesting that, but that is exactly the reason why the pastor's comments are note worthy. Without the association, you might as well call him Joe Smoe. CyberAnth (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is Joe Smoe, and I'm no Clinton lover. Obama supporters try and White wash Wright in this manner.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Keep in mind this is an article about a person who is interesting primarily because he's the pastor of a (possible) future President; this makes the pastor of a past President and a (possible) future president a lot more interesting and quotable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that if this minister had generated as much controvery for the Clinton's, then it might be noteworthy.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty high bar. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't worry die4dixie, there is a blantant anti-Clinton bias. The fact is he was not the Clintons moral compass and religious mentor. Big deal if he went o the White House. What about all the others who went that day? Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the girl at Starbucks come out and talk about Wright to a reliable source? No? Accusations of "anti-Clinton" bias are laughable. Grsz 11 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I think this article is certainly a good candidate for full protection. Several of us are guilty of edit warring, probably most of us have violated 3RR. Grsz 11 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, once it expires the 4 month semi-protection for the extreme vandalism needs to be placed back on it. Tiptoety talk 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. Let's not let this time go to waste, by the way. We should at least try to achieve a consensus in principle by the time the protection expires. --DachannienTalkContrib 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for quoting opinions

Most of the edit warring today seems to revolve around whether one opinion or another should be included in the article. I'd rather avoid going into the whys surrounding each individual case; rather, I'd like to arrive at a consensus on some criteria that we can use to determine what's appropriate or inappropriate to include.

I personally feel that the criteria should be fairly strict. What we've seen so far is that people are citing opinions by people who, however well-known or well-regarded they may be, have little personal connection with Wright or with the circumstances that have made Wright notable. To a large degree, these opinions are being added to the article to subvert the rule against original research, by cherry-picking and synthesizing these opinions and hiding behind the fact that citations are provided. This should be avoided, and I think the best way to do this is to greatly limit the domain from which these opinions can be drawn.

I propose that the following domains be fair game, as long as the commenters in question are responding to Wright's statements directly:

  • Jeremiah Wright, his successor, and members of his church who are already otherwise notable
  • Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and representatives of their campaigns

There may be other appropriate domains here, and there may be restrictions on these domains that would be appropriate, which is one thing we'll need to hash out here. Thanks. --DachannienTalkContrib 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ex:cept this article isn't about Obama, Clinton, or McCain. Grsz 11 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if they're replying directly to what Wright said that's fine. Grsz 11 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was my intention, but I guess I forgot to say it ;) I've edited my proposal above to reflect this. --DachannienTalkContrib 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle; however,I do not believe that the article should read like an apologetic essay. The arcticle should be balanced, and there is room for source material from sources that are less than enamored with him.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we already have viewpoints from both sides within the above-given domains (I'm actually surprised that Clinton's "he wouldn't be my pastor" comment hadn't shown up here), but if you think there is another class of people who have the notability in the context of the article, go ahead and explain what that class is and why its members qualify as more than just part of the talking heads parade. --DachannienTalkContrib 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being dense, but you of course don't think it should read like an apologetic essay, do you?--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of a loaded term. But most of the apologies you're talking about would probably be outside the domains I listed above. That's part of why I'm favoring this approach, because it will prevent the addition of endless point-and-counterpoint opinions which purport to try to apply NPOV, even though there was no POV problem in the first place. --DachannienTalkContrib 20:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board for balanced, and I think I am hearing you say that the article lacked balance. Would the mixed race couple that he married be included?--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, I want to try to hash this out without getting down to specific articles if possible. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, does silence equal assent? If so, I'll begin paring down the list of opinions to the ones that are truly notable in this context. --DachannienTalkContrib 07:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The miscegenist couples opinion doesn't seem to belong. It's kind of like the racist white man who says that he is not racist since he has a black friend. I don't think it belongs.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"miscegenist"? Is that word ever used by non-racists? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. It is descriptive only. I wanted to add some zest and mixed raced couple was becoming trite. My intention was not to offend. It still appears in my dictionary without any caveats. If the term is now offensive please let me know so that I can erase it from my lexicon.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this link would not lead me to think the term was ill used:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miscegenation
Your comment was of a great enough concern that I dusted off my dictionary and searched for definitions and social commentaries. I still have a tremendous respect for you, but a veiled accusation of racism is a little over the top, unworthy of you, and unmerited by me.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. I grew up in The Old Dominion. Loving v. Virginia was well within my lifetime. In my experience, it's not used for humans in any positive sense; it rings of race restrictions, of bigotry, of inhumanity. So: is that term in current use by non-racists when describing any contemporary phenomena? All I really see it used as nowadays is as a historical reference to the bad old days -- or on racist websites and such. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why is this still in contention? I made a good-faith attempt to resolve this issue during protection, went by the consensus achieved by those few who chose to participate in the discussion, and my changes are still being reverted even though my removals so far haven't been as broad-brushed as I indicated above. Worse yet, even more kitchen sinks are being added to that section. How long does this article have to get before the endless parade of spin doctors in that section becomes a problem? --DachannienTalkContrib 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the contention. It is not the inclusion nor non inclusion of the couples statement. It was the the comment about racists. As far as I'm concerned, a good faith editor/ admin will understand my exception to the question and its implications quietly and the issue is resolved--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking to you, actually, which is why I had de-indented that last comment. I was addressing the broader question of the panoply of non-notable opinions in the "responses" section. Sorry for the confusion. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with a source

i have a problem with the corinth. bulletin as a reliable source. Many other sources go back to it, and it is of dubious reliability IMHO. I think that anything that comes from it, and the text below the web page with it( and no author attributed to it) should be removed and reliable sources be used. This would not include ones that work forward from this questionable source.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What contentious material is being supported by the cite that you would like to see a better source for? TheslB (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly the citations about Johnson. The letter from a Johnson aid that is attached to the photo is not a commendation. It is a thank you letter, and not even from the president himself. I think this might be some of the hyperbole that the black church, according to the professor who possess "75 honorary doctorates", employs. If it is hyperbole, then it should not be included.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do either of these sources suffice? Predictions of God's damnation emanate from both black and white churches: "King delivered that speech the year Rev. Wright ended his six years of service in the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy, for which he received three commendations from President Lyndon Johnson, whom King was confronting." or The Lies and Distortions of the 30-Second Sound Bite: "[Wright] served six years in the U.S. Marines, much of that time as a hospital corpsman, and received a letter of commendation from President Lyndon Johnson for assisting in his heart surgery procedure in December 1964." TheslB (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the reporter used Wikipedia for the first instance as his source, and the second is probably the letter, which is not a commendation from the president, but rather a nice thank you letter from a presidential aid. To call it a commendation, especially in connect to his service, will only confuse readers and purposely mislead them. A commendation is a particular award/ decoration for service that entitles the receiver to were a specific ribbon or medal. Do you dispute that the thank you letter that appears in the picture with Johnson is not a presidential commendation?Die4Dixie (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the second source is unreliable, as half of it is not true for sure, and the rest suspect. a Hospitalman/ corpsman is not a Marine, but a sailor, and clearly in the Navy. If this source cannot get what branch he was in right, what the hell will he know about commendations?--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the commendation letter reads, "The President thanks you for your help at the time of his recent hospitalization." Wright's biography at the The HistoryMakers reads: "Wright is the recipient of numerous awards, including three honorary doctorates and three presidential commendations." TheslB (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is it you contention that a thank you letter from an aide is a Presidential Commendation? Also i find the "History Makers" to be suspect. they provide no cite for the info. I think we need the original source, the actual commendations. A thank you letter on behalf of a third person is not a commendation by the third person--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many letters does the President himself actually write? If it says "The President thanks you," then it means just that. Grsz 11 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then let the article say , "Recipient of three Presidential Thank You Letters ." I get signed thank you letters from the president all the time for my contributions to the GOP. Can I start a page for myself and say that I have recieved Hundreds of Presidential Commendations over three administrations for that ? Die4Dixie (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a copy of a presidential commendation and sourcing for the three commendations. What material would you like removed from the article? TheslB (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the sentence "Wright has also received three presidential commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson" redundant anyway? --DachannienTalkContrib 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And some of the sources that used the language were wrong about other things. A commendation, in conjunction with military service(where this is mentioned) implies misleadingly , a Decoration. We do not have a copy of a Presidential Commendation; but rather, we have a copy of a nice thank you letter. now if he releases his military jacket, and it reveals being decorated with a Presidential Commendation, I think it would be appropriate to use this psuedo-officious language for a nice thank you letter, otherwise it is NPOV, IMHO.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In conjuction with his service, this is what this conjures up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Navy+commendation Die4Dixie (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe using the term presidential commendation conjures up the results of your original research, what room does The HistoryMakers source leave you in believing Jeremiah Wright was not commended accordingly. TheslB (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really want me to chase the rabbit here, don't you? Please just answer the question: Is a nice thank you letter from an aid a "Presidential Commendation" or is it still a thank you letter. If the letter said, " the president commends you on changing his catheter," or words to that effect, then I would be happy to concede the point. If when you wrote thank you letters to your grandmother when you were a child(or continued as an adult ) for a Christmas present ( and I'm going out on a limb and giving the benefit of the doubt that you were well bred) would it not seem strange to say that your grandmother received " Grandson Commendation" letters from you instead of the more usual you wrote a thank you letter? I really don't even like the passive construction in the article either.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No chase required. The source tells us Wright received three presidential commendations. No need to talk about hypotheticals. TheslB (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of those sources also lied about his service, while providing some oth the other information that the others used. A thank you letter is a thank you letter, not a Presidential Commendation--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=presidential+commendation&fr=yie7c vs. http://www.google.com/search?q=thank+you+letter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Die4Dixie (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now here's one, and its signed. Still a thank you letter. I think we can call his Presidential Aid Commendation Letters, since as the link shows, a person who is really thankful ,signs his own letters :

http://www.letsrollmusic.com/pres.html Die4Dixie (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The HistoryMakers source tells us Wright received three presidential commendations. The December 19, 1966 letter of commendation is addressed to HM3 Jeremiah A. Wright, USN and begins, "Dear Hospital Corpsman Third Class Wright: The President thanks you..." I do not think we can ignore (not mention) the three presidential commendations Wright received or remove the letter of commendation he received. TheslB (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An official publication of Wright's church is a reliable source. It contains Wright's resume in extreme detail. Only Wright himself or someone close to him could have provided such detailed information. Now, if you are calling Wright a liar on his resume, then you must have shred of some proof. Wright is widely respected, has received many honorary doctorates from respected seminaries and institutions, so if you are calling him a liar on his resume, then you are also saying those seminaries or institutions are fools. In summary, the source should be cited and the information in it presented.--Tkhorse (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much to the contrary, Wikipedia policy states that a self-published source such as this may only be used in a BLP article if it was published by the subject of the article. I don't know where Corinthian Baptist Church is, but it's not Wright's church, and it's not Wright himself. On those grounds, this source, and all statements in the article that it supports by itself, should be removed in their entirety. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to calling a thank you letter a " Presidential Commendation". Are the letters that the Presidents Bush and Reagan sent me for my donations " Presidential Commendations"? What a peculiar--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC) thing to call them. I think, given the possessor of 75 honorary doctorates says the Black church in America is given to Hyperbole, this source is highly questionable.[reply]

IN RESPONSE TO above comments:

1. Corinthian Baptist Church is NOT a self-published source. It is an operating church located at 6113 North 21st Street Philadelphia' PA 19138. This is its website:

http://www.corinthianbaptistchurch.org/

Wright's biography is linked under "Spring Revival". You can see that Wright probably preached at the church from April 21 to April 23, 2003, and this is his biography as included in the program for the church. I have called the church, and it is a working phone number (but closed for the holidays).

All of the above point to the fact that the source is reliable, and that the document is the resume (or C.V.) of Wright, all but certain to have been provided by Wright himself. There is no reason for the church to lie. Would a publication of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York be considered a self-published source? Does it have a reason to lie in its programs?

2. Secondly, relating to "commendations", the word is not capitalized, so it can be a general commendation, as interpreted by Wright. It is not a formal capitalized term that needs to fit some legal definition. The words come straight out of Wright's resume (C.V.). Again, unless you have any evidence that Wright would intentionally lie on his resume (C.V.), and on such a minor point, then the information has to be reliable. If you say that the information on his resume (C.V.) is not reliable information, then is the resume (C.V.) of anybody reliable information? What is your standard for distinguishing one from another? --Tkhorse (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The church's website is a self-published source. They set up their own website, and they put their own information on it. No third-party fact-checking, no presumption of neutrality. Self-published. We have no way of knowing for certain where the information on Wright came from, because they don't provide any information on where they got their data. As a self-published source, it is not valid for inclusion in a WP:BLP article. Furthermore, primary sources such as a person's CV are not trusted as much as a reliable secondary source, such as a newspaper article where there is a presumption that someone has done some fact-checking. CVs, resumes, and other documents intended to be self-aggrandizing are, in particular, of poor reliability, since they are frequently embellished. There is no need for a standard to establish the reliability of one person's CV over another's, because they're all inherently of poor reliability. As policy states, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And that goes extra for biographical articles. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has the "History makers" established a reputation for fact checking, or do they only ask the self-aggrandizing person who has told them that a Presidential Aid Thank You Letter is actually -factually a.... drum roll please....a... " Presidential Commendation ". Such loose and fast playing with the facts is why no one past 5th grade can use it for a source for anything. We should be proud.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep capitalizing presidential commendation? TheslB (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above:

I don't know about you, but the resumes and C.V.'s of most people who are not in their twenties are accurate with respect to basic facts such as degrees, board memberships, etc., simply because there is no reason for padding and because the consequences of being found out are so catastrophic. Below is the Wikipedia definition on primary materials, which are considered the best source:

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as DIARIES, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; AUTOBIOGRAPHIES, original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

Now, if diaries and autobiographies are acceptable primary materials, how can resumes and C.V.'s not be? Again, you are calling Wright a liar on his resume, and you simply have no basis at all for doing so.

As for the Corinthian Baptist Church, the resume in question is not something that is about the church, where it might be biased. If the publication of a well-established church in Philadelphia not concerning itself is self-publishing by your definition, then the publication of many well-established institutions and reporting in many lesser newspapers and magazines would also not meet that criterion, and a significant amount of information currently on Wikipedia would have to be deleted. --Tkhorse (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One, don't put words into my mouth. I didn't call anybody a liar. The point is that there are rules on Wikipedia, those rules are very strict in the case of BLP articles, and the Corinthian reference is woefully inadequate in terms of reliability, whether it's true or not. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
Two, primary sources are not the best source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Even if we were taking material known to be authored by Wright himself, we would not be able to portray it as fact, because doing so makes a conclusion about the material unsupported by a secondary source. We could indicate that Wright states that he has these commendations, and we could display the photo of one of the letters, but we can't conclude on behalf of the reader that he has any more than one of them because that's all the secondary sources support.
Three, the permissibilty of self-published sources such as the Corinthian reference differs between BLP and non-BLP articles. Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself. Plain and simple. We don't know that Wright wrote that material, but even if you assume that he did (a point I'm not conceding, just stating for the sake of argument), then we still wouldn't be able to use this on its own, because there are further restrictions (such as the material not being self-serving). On the other hand, Autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses ... are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published. That's Wikipedia policy, and if other articles go against that policy, then yes, they should be edited for correctness when the problems are discovered.
I'm not making this stuff up as I go along. These are three Wikipedia policies, they're supposed to be followed, and so far, I've seen no compelling argument for why we should go against those policies. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you take issue with the Reverend Wright biography on the HistoryMaker's (an African-American biography publishing house) website, a third-party source? TheslB (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That one seems fine to me, although it's a bit difficult to dig up information about that organization due to the fairly generic name. This does, however, bring us back to the original question of whether the term "presidential commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson" carries unintended meaning. Uncapitalized, I think it's okay, although the presence of the word "presidential" in that sentence is still redundant. --DachannienTalkContrib 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this third-party sourcing about The HistoryMakers, and of course its own description (in particular, this). And another source, the distinguished alumni biography published by Howard University, for Wright's presidential commendations:

[Wright] is the recipient of numerous awards, including several honorary doctorates and presidential commendations.

For the sentence in the article, I propose removing from President Lyndon B. Johnson since neither of the biographical sources mentions that specifically. TheslB (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now three "Presidential Aid Thank You Letters" are now "several" Presidential Commendations? Is Howard Univesity now using the same hyperbole that the possessor of "75 honorary doctorates" has warned us about? I imagine that each of these sources is using Wright as their source without having verified it. If I say I have a pet dog, but really have a pet cat, then do I have a pet dog or a pet cat? Now if I tell you I have a pet dog,still only having a cat, and you tell your neighbor who tells his aunt that I have a dog, do I sill only have a cat , or is it now ... drum roll please... a Presidential Commendation a cat?What we have here is a Presidential Aid Thank You Letter". It even says thank you in the first line, and it is signed by an aid. How have we let this morph into a Presidential Commendation? Let's call a spade a spade, and a "Presidential Aid Thank You Letter" a "Presidential Aid Thank You Letter".--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, "several" is too inaccurate a term for our purposes, and all of the other sources mentioned above indicate exactly three. (I usually consider "several" to mean more than that, but hey, whatever.) Anyway, TheslB is correct in observing that none of those sources attribute the commendations to Johnson, although we do have other sourcing indicating that one of them came from Johnson (saying nothing about the other two). How that should be framed is (hopefully) a question primarily of style, though. --DachannienTalkContrib 04:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO ABOVE:

It completely escapes me why anyone would question this as a reliable source for factual biographical information. Now, does anyone doubt that his wife's name is Ramah, and he has children named Janet, Jeri, Nicol, Jamila and Nathan? Because that's where the information for the Wikipedia entry comes from. If you take out this source, then you will be deleting many paragraphs of useful information. Now, does anyone doubt that he taught the courses listed? Does anyone doubt the books that he wrote that are listed? What motivation would the church have to lie on such a long list of biographical information. It's not like Wright's CV needs padding. There is also various circular logic in some of the above. The bottom line is, this source is not self-publishing. And all this quoting of Wikipedia principles bureaucratic language is just throwing up smoke. The bottom line: deleting this source means deleting a lot of useful biographical information in the Wikipedia entry that nobody has questioned at all as to their veracity in the first place. --Tkhorse (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness is trumped by policy. The source is self-publishing - I don't see how "published by oneself" and "self-published" could possibly be incongruous. And claiming that quoting policy is like blowing smoke is akin to claiming that citing a statute in a legal brief is an attempt to put one over on a court of law. Surely you can find a more reliable source for that information, such as this one. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess legislators don't have to worry about plagiarism. What a travesty. Include it it you must, I would be inclined to want to see Johnson named, as it gives the readers a more complete picture ( and sounds more like an indictment than something complementary for my part)--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after September 11

This section should be amended to the effect that Template:Editprotect "No evidence has been offered to show that Wright quoted accurately, or paraphrased fairly, Peck."

Further detail could include:

According to LexisNexis transcripts, Peck did not appear on Fox News during the time from September 11, 2001 to September 16, 2001, the date it is said that Wright delivered his sermon. Peck made three appearances on Fox News on October 5, 10 and 11, 2001. During these appearances, Peck did not mention Malcolm X, "chickens coming home to roost", or bombing Hiroshima or Nagasaki, etc."

Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean . How would you incorporate that into the article? What does this mean?--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any supporting evidence whatsoever? Grsz 11 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just my incomprehension. It's a gut reaction, I can't source it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK here's the paragraph, as it exists currently:

In March 2008, ABC News broadcast sound bites[23] from a sermon that Wright gave shortly after September 11, 2001,[24][25] in which Wright paraphrased Edward Peck,[26] former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq, former deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under the Reagan Administration and former U.S. Ambassador to a number of countries, who was appearing on Fox News, as allegedly having said: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye...and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." Wright went on to state: "Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people that we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."[23]

The phrase "gave shorlty after September 11, 2001 appears not to be true. On March 21, 2008, Roland Martin posted "The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon" [5] In the post, Martin wrote:

"I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001. One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation."

We have three issues: 1) the date of the sermon; 2) whether there is any evidence that Wright quoted Peck accurately; and 3) whether there is any evidence that Wright, if not quoting Peck, paraphrased Peck fairly.

On the issue of the date, it is quite unlikely to be September 16 for at least 2 reasons. First, on September 16, the death toll was still unknown and thought to be much larger than the 3,000 people that Wright mentioned in his sermon. The 3,000 tally was not known until October. Second, Wright says he saw Peck on Fox News "yesterday", i.e., September 15. However, Peck did not appear on Fox News following September 11 until October 5, 2001.

Now, Peck did appear on Fox News on October 5, 10 and 11. Peck did not mention "Malcolm X", or "chickens coming home to roost". How do I know? I have checked the transcripts during this period provided by LexisNexis. Since LexisNexis is copyrighted material, I have not posted the 4000+ words covering the three appearances.

Further, no one has shown any evidence that Peck said anything like what he is alleged to have said. No youtube clips, no transcripts. No evidence at all other than Wright's assertion that he saw Peck on Fox News.

Later on March 21, 2008, CNN journalist John King interviewed Martin on Anderson Cooper 360°. King noted that CNN staff could not find any evidence of Peck making the statements attributed to him by Wright and Martin.[6]

Here's the clip from the transcipt:

KING: We went back and we looked for any appearances by Ambassador Peck during this time once you pointed this out to the staff, and can't find any.

MARTIN: Right. And I actually called the church to find out, first of all -- first of all, Reverend Wright is out of the country -- to find out, was that the actual date of the sermon? Was that actually right? Or did he make a mistake in terms of where he saw the ambassador, who actually was a Republican ambassador to Iraq under Ronald Reagan [sic -- Peck was in Iraq under President Carter]?

This would seem to indicate, that there is no evidence that Wright is either quoting or paraphrasing Peck.

Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should work it in if others want to claim that he paraphrased him( which seems like libel to me)--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE POINTS:

1. There is absolutely no question that Wright SAID that he was quoting Peck. He says that repeatedly before and after the allegedly quoted language. Whether we now think he was or was not quoting Peck is not really relevant (and constitutes original research). The existing text makes it clear that Wright THINKS that he was quoting Peck.

Wright never said "I am quoting Peck." Wright said "he [Peck] pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Now, on the question whether Wright was quoting Peck accurately. The text says "as allegedly having said". That indicates neutrality as to whether Wright quoted Peck correctly. And our investigation as to whether the quote was accurate or not is not really relevant (and constitutes original research).

I think the Wiki text should say that Wright cited Peck as "pointing out ... chickens roost". Wright did not attribute any other observation to Peck until the 11th paragraph. See Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon" [7] Thus, citing Hiroshima, etc seems inaccurate." Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Let's look at the original research. I called up Lexis/Nexis and discovered that they only carried the transcripts of CERTAIN Fox News programs. They do not have transcripts of all Fox News broadcasts. Therefore, the fact the contributor did not find the relevant transcript does not really indicate that the broadcast did not take place. Also, Lexis/Nexis does not transcribe the programs itself, it simply takes what transcripts that Fox chooses to give it. In addition, there are hundreds of local Fox affiliates, each of which broadcast independently its own programs, and I know that none of those is carried by Lexis/Nexis. As an attorney, I have used Lexis/Nexis very extensively in the past in my work, and know its many and often extremely severe limitations.

Wright said he saw Peck on "Fox News", not a local Fox affiliate. The missing/incomplete transcript argument is not a strong argument to support the notion that Peck make such statements. Rather, the existence of multiple transcripts from the dates in question, where Peck does not make such statements, points out the lack of support for the contention that Wright "quoted" Peck, other than Wright saying that Peck "pointed out .."Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. As anyone who has listened extensively to Wright's sermons (as I have tried to do) can tell you, Wright's is an intelligent, thoughtful and rational speaker. In fact, most of his sermons concern Biblical subjects (and are long and, apologize for this but it is relevant in this context, somewhat boring) that are very much like the sermons you hear at most churches on Sundays.

Now Wright must have heard something from Peck. Peck is not a common name, so Wright could not just have invented Peck out of thin air. And Peck is well-known for being extremely forthright and, as he is retired, not afraid to speak out on what is on his mind. His expressed views are generally consistent with the sentiments expressed. In addition, you have to put his alleged remarks in the context of the first few days after September 11, when everyone was searching for explanations. Recall that Jerry Falwell said shortly after September 11 that it was caused by homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. and let me point out parenthetically that McCain has embraced him and spoken at his Liberty University (and nobody has called McCain on it).

5. It is simply not likely that Wright just invented his quotation of Peck out of thin air. Now, the fact that a very casual looking by Martin or Anderson did not find the relevant quotation does not mean that it does not exist, and really is not the thorough research that should be put into the entry, as it would be very misleading. As noted above, even the extended original research by the contributor above still probably missed a lot of the 24 hours a day of broadcasts that is on Fox News every single day (the entire transcript must run into the tens of thousands of pages) and the hundreds of hours daily of independent broadcasts by local Fox affiliates.

6. In summary, the existing text accurately states that Wright stated that he was quoting Peck, and it accurately states that it is only what Peck allegedly has said. --Tkhorse (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existing text is not accurate. To make it accurate, it would have to read that Wright said Peck "pointed out".Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current text is not supported by the source (Martin, at CNN.com)[8], or by the transcript therein. Our secondary source (Martin) says Wright "quoted" Peck, not "paraphrased" him. And there is nothing in the embedded primary source to indicate that the quotation went beyond the line Wright took as his text, "America's chickens are coming home to roost". I am appreciative of the work Youngwarrenbuffett has done to examine the question of whether and what Peck actually said and to clarify the dates. The question of how to consult and use primary sources referred to (in this case indirectly) by secondary sources is not properly dismissed as WP:OR. Consult WP:NORN and its archives for more (much more) on this. All this business about driving out the Indian tribes and bombing Nagasaki and terrorizing Palestinians is almost certainly Wright's exegesis on his chosen text from Peck, not quotation or paraphrase. It's the kind of things ministers do all the time with lines from the Bible, so it isn't that hard to recognize the form. Andyvphil (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


RESPONSE TO Andyvphil:

On the contrary, the current text is supported by the video cited at Footnote 26. Please watch it. That is not original research. That is what citation to a video means, and would be same as a citation to a transcript of the video. The video is undoubtedly genuine, but if you think the cite is not NPOV enough, the same video is found on Trinity's official website:

http://youtube.com/user/TRINITYCHGO

which is linked to:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

In the video, Wright also said, just before the quoted text: "I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out--did you see him, John?--a white man, he pointed out, an ambassador..." This is quoted at footnote 26, since it is important evidence that he is quoting Peck.

If this is not clear enough that Wright SAYS THAT he is quoting Peck, I don't know what is. That's the crucial point in this context, that Wright says that he is quoting Peck, and that he thinks he is quoting Peck. It's not really relevant whether we think he is or is not.

So, in fact, I agree that "paraphrased" should be changed to "quoted".

Now, if the statements quoted were inconsistent with what Peck has said in the past (say, Peck was a writer for the National Review), then I might agree that maybe Wright misquoted Peck. But if you Google Peck, you will see that he is an outspoken critic of US Middle East policies and says a lot of things that are extremely (perhaps even more) controversial. One article has a colleague of his saying that Peck just says what is on his mind, and is not afraid of what others may think. So, the quoted statements are generally consistent what Peck has said in the past. I do not agree with your assumption, not backed by a source, that they are flourishes added by Wright. And Peck is not a flake, because he actually held the high government posts that he held in areas related to foreign policy and the Middle East, so he is an expert, albeit and opinionated one, and his statements carry some weight. That frankly, was what Wright was trying to say in his sermon.--Tkhorse (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your expert legal opinion that that constitutes a quote? If it is, then it leads me to doubt that you are who you say you are. I try to imagine you trotting that out in arbitration or in a brief and wonder how quickly your practice on 44 Wall Street would dry up.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments after September 11 - revised

I attempted to revise this section as proposed. It was immediately reveresed. I show below my proposed revisisons, and explain why I think the revision improves on the current version.

In March 2008, ABC News broadcast sound bites[10] from a sermon that Wright gave shortly after September 11, 2001,[11] in which Wright attributed his remarks in part to the remarks of Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq under President Carter, former deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under the Reagan Administration and former U.S. Ambassador to a number of countries. [12]

Wright said: "I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out - did you see him, John? - a white man, he pointed out, ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true, America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Wright also said: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye...and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Wright went on to state: "Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people that we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."[10]

While Wright attributed some of his remarks to Peck, no independent evidence has been offered to document Peck making such remarks.



The edit was not intended to be biased. It is, in my estimation, cleaner and easier to follow exactly what was said by whom.

The edit I offered improves on the existing text in a few ways:
1. The Media Matters reference was eliminated as it is irrelevant in that does not provide the source comments. Instead it draws comparisons between the news coverage of Wright and Hagee.
2. It is clear, and verifiable, that Wright attributes his remarks to Peck. To assert that Wright "expands on" Peck, you would have to show the "base" of Peck's actual remarks from which Wright expanded. Wright does not say he "expanded on" Peck comments. My edit shows exactly what Wright said in relation to Peck.
3. Peck is identified for his service in Iraq under President Carter. Elsewhere, Peck's service under Reagan is noted, and thus the entry is incomplete to cite only Reagan and not Carter. 4. I show the direct Wright quotes, in the order that they are given by Wright in his sermon. The existing entry scrambles the order.
4. I note at the end that no evidence has been offered to show that Peck made the remarks. That is verifiable, not original research. If anyone has independent evidence that Peck said the remarks, let them add the evidence.


Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please See: "Chickens come home to roost - Update" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.25.106 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper source quotes Wikipedia article

{{editprotected}}

Wright concludes by stating:" The government gives them drugs [referring to the Iran-Contra Affair],[28] built bigger prisons, passes a three strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America. No, no, no, not God bless America! God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God damn America, for treating her citizens as less than human. God damn America, as long as she pretends to act like she is God, and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent."[27][29]

The bolded comment is improperly sourced and should be removed. The source given, an editorial [9] , quotes an earlier version of this Wikipedia article, [10]. Note in the editorial the comments "referring to AIDS origins theories" and "[referring to the Iran-Contra Affair]", which were not part of Wright's speech and originated in this Wikipedia article. This should be removed immediately as it is original research. Also, according to our source [11] Wright said "the drugs". The "the" has gone missing from recent revisions. Dforest (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Iran-Contra and drug importation, this source states:

Murdoch's right-wing rag, noted The New York Times, also criticized Wright for "accusing the United States of importing drugs, exporting guns and training murderers." These things are all true (please reference "Iran-Contra," "U.S. as top arms exporter," and "School of the Americas").

For AIDS/HIV origin theories, this source states:

The belief cited by Wright—that the government invented HIV—seems to have originated during the early years of the epidemic. "

TheslB (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dforest that the bolded statement is improper. The Rall article makes the supposition that that's what Wright was talking about, but that's pretty brazenly an opinion piece with no evidence that Wright was specifically referring to Iran-Contra. We should simply have the Wright quotes without intervening commentary, and let readers infer for themselves what he is referring to. --DachannienTalkContrib 13:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ON THE HIV/AIDS CROSS-REFERENCE:

The implicit cross-reference to the Wikipedia entry, AIDS origins theories, is appropriate and informative, and it is useful to the Wikipedia user trying to find information on Wright. Wikipedia provides a neutral and useful source of information, and a counterpoint to the sensationalist distortions in the mainstream media. Most people are not familiar with the many theories that are debated among scientists as to the origins of HIV/AIDS. First, the fact is NO SCIENTIST knows for sure what is the origins of HIV/AIDS, and why it suddenly appeared out of nowhere in the 1980's (that is quite unusual, unlike cancer or other diseases). There is NO scientific consensus. Second, there are many theories debated among scientists as to the possible origins of HIV/AIDS. A significant number of these theories involve the U.S. government, and its undisputed heavy funding of polio vaccine research and biological weapons research. It is also undisputed that millions of doses of an experimental ORAL (as opposed to the final successful injected) polio vaccine were administered without informed consent to MILLIONS of unsuspecting citizens of the Belgian Congo (it was a colony of Belgium, and that's what colonial powers did in the past) in the, astonishingly, 1950's! This is the same location in Africa where the FIRST instances of AIDS were reported. The hypothesis concerns the relationship between simian immune deficiency (SIV), found in chimpanzees, whose innards were used (but then covered up by both the scientists involved, who were funded in part by the National Institute of Health, and possibly by the US government, as polio was a true national crisis, witness FDR, who was crippled throughout his presidency) in making the experimental vaccine. I have seen the extremely persuasive recent documentary film on this subject, and recommend it highly.

Of course, none of the above needs to be in Wright entry. But the point of this explanation is that Wright is not a lunatic when he mentions HIV, as is the first impression of everyone when he hears his statement in isolation. Many respected scientists believe in different theories about the origins of AIDS/HIV. They are debated extensively in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals, such as Nature. There is no scientific consensus at all.

The Wright entry is a summary biography of Wright, that tries to present his 35 years life's work as one of the most prominent ministers in the US in a fair and neutral manner. As anyone who has listened extensively to his sermons (as I have tried to do) can tell you, Wright is NOT a lunatic. He is intelligent, thoughtful and rational. To make him sound like a lunatic, as the mainstream media has done, is neither fair nor accurate.

In summary, I believe that the implicit (not explicit) cross-reference to the Wikipedia entry on AIDS origins theories (probably keyed off the words, HIV virus) is appropriate, useful to the Wikipedia user, accurate, and reaffirms Wikipedia as a calm, neutral source of information in the midst of the distortions and inaccuracies flying about in the mainstream media and on the Internet. --Tkhorse (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Dforest's proposed edit is done, per WP:BLP. Not sure what all the stuff about AIDS above has got to do with that. Sandstein (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of above Tkhorse comments: Link the words "HIV virus" to the Wikipedia entry "AIDS origins theories". Dforest had taken out the link. --Tkhorse (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that's because he copied and pasted the text from the article itself, rather than viewing the source and copying it. The wikilinks don't get picked up in a copy and paste unless you are copying the source rather than just the article text. (That's why the [28] reference was plain text rather than a link to an actual reference.) --DachannienTalkContrib 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Or maybe not. To be honest, I'm completely confused as to how Dforest would be responsible for "HIV virus" not being wikilinked in the article. However, as long as it's being discussed, I think there's probably a way to link to AIDS origin theories that would be clearer to the reader in terms of what clicking on the link would take you to. See MOS:LINK#Form for more info. --DachannienTalkContrib 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had nothing to do with removing the link of "HIV virus" to AIDS origins theories. I was merely pointing out that the editorial linked as a source for the Iran-Contra comment, http://www.webcitation.org/5WeLkgUtU, was apparently plagiarizing an earlier version of this article by including the comments copied verbatim without acknowledgment, and is thus an improper source. Dforest (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moves into gated commmunity on a golf course

Quoting this article here: [12] or any other number of articles on the Internet right now, Wright's church has bought him a $1.6 million dollar home, on a golf course, with a black population of about 1.9%, certainly not representative of his 'flock.' I believe that this is a legitimate addition to the man's bio under controversy - it is certainly becoming one, especially considering that this is the guy talking about greedy white people, and this money comes from members of curch community from a less-than-wealthy section of Chicago.

Sorry, but a blog doesn't constitute a mainstream "controversy". If we see this on CNN, etc., then we'll talk. Until then, it's just propaganda. Grsz 11 18:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this has been reported by the AP, although the conclusions given above are inappropriate synthesis of that report and a few other statistics about that community. --DachannienTalkContrib 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Type 'Jeremiah Wright Gaited Community' in Yahoo search and you get eleven pages of hits. I don't think that this is a flash in the pan. Especially considering that he SPECIFICALLY tells his flock (as we're calling it) to congregate with other African Americans and to avoid this sort of lifestyle (lot's of reference to 'middle classism' and avoiding rich white people, now his neighbors) I'd say that this makes fair commentaryUser talk:Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 00:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but Wikipedia is not the place for "fair commentary"; it's the place for encyclopedic, verifiable information gleaned from reliable sources. It's also small-minded chickenshit, but that's another issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I search for "Hillary Clinton death list" I get 20 million results. Should I start an article on this? Grsz 11 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break - the guy actually IS moving into a house, which actually IS on a golf course, which actually DOES cost $1.6 million dollars. He actually WAS a pastor for lower income black people who actually WERE told BY HIM that they should shun this lifestyle. It is donations from THOSE PEOPLE who make this home a possibility for him. How is this NOT a relevant comment for his entry? Tell me this - if were Pat Robertson, and the house were a gift from Bob Guccioni, would you put that on Robertson's Wikipedia entry?--Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oprah and Obama are low-income? Grsz 11 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, Oprah actually left his curch when he started up on the 'I hate whitey' speech. Honestly, Grsz - are you SO deep in a hole for Obama that you see nothing noteworthy about this guy saying to his followers/parishoners/whatever, "White people created AIDS to kill people of color", and then when he retires moving into a million dollar home where all of his neighbors are white, and making those followers pay for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.218.135 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between preaching against oppression based on race, and oppression based on class. Grsz 11 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)'[reply]

From the churches site: "We are called out to be "a chosen people" that pays no attention to socio-economic or educational backgrounds. We are made up of the highly educated and the uneducated. Our congregation is a combination of the haves and the have-nots; the economically disadvantaged, the under-class, the unemployed and the employable." Grsz 11 01:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chickens coming home to roost

Wright said in his sermon “I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”

In fact, there is no independent evidence offered that Ambassador Peck actually said said "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

See commentary in "Comments after September 11". I have found, however, a reference to "chickens coming home to roost" made by a guest on Fox News on September 18.

The guest was Hussein Ibish, the communications director at the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, who was interviewd by John Gibson.

Here is the exchange:

GIBSON: Is a war waged on Islamic terrorists offensive to all those Muslims who are not terrorists?

IBISH: Not necessarily. I don't think so. I think that the United States clearly has a right to hunt down and punish the guilty parties and those who would assist them and make their work possible.

And I think that the entire Islamic world, with very few exceptions, has said so publicly. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, 57 states have said so. Every Arab state except Iraq has said so. And they simply have made the point that they feel -- they've made basically a Malcolm X-style statement about chickens coming home to roost. But even they have not praised the terrorists who did this.

And so I think there is very little support out there except in pockets of Pakistan and in very, very isolated places around the Islamic world. There's really no constituency for this kind of action and this kind of politics either.

I think if we play it right it could be OK. But it's a very dangerous game. And it needs to be calibrated carefully.

Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Unfortunately, when the media spliced together sound bites from Reverend Wright's sermons they removed the context necessary to understand what he was saying. The part you keep mentioning is incomplete. To more clearly understand what Reverend Wright was saying, read this:

“I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost."

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

Given the context (referring to the above statements) the source tells us that "He [Wright] was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril." TheslB (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show any evidence that Peck said these statements which are attributed to him? I am not attempting to include original research. I am challenging the verifiability of the quotes attributed to Peck. Simply put, no one, at this stage, has any verifiable link indicating that Peck made such statements.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wright said he attributes things he is saying in his sermon to Peck. This can be verified by the source above or going to the original sermon. We do not know whether the attribution is true or false. We know that it was made and, thus, is verifiable. So long as it is clear Wright is attributing these things to Peck, discerning the truth value of whether Peck in actuality said these things is not necessary. TheslB (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should say that Wright claims to be quoting Peck, not that Wright is quoting Peck. The funny thing is, simply by us quoting Wright directly, we get it right, because Wright makes that claim in our quote of him. By expanding on who Peck is in this article (unnecessary anyway, given that we can just have a wikilink, Peck isn't directly involved in the controversy, and he might not even be the person Wright was quoting) we actually create a problem where it becomes unclear whether or not Wright really was quoting Peck or just claimed to be. That's why I removed that text. --DachannienTalkContrib 21:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • @what point do you think he stopped quoting/ Is this more hyperbole? Are you arguing that Peck did indeed talk about Indian tribes? I'm beginning to feel that with this example and the lycanthropic thank you letter that hyperbole is a very kind word for a most distasteful habit with the truth or lack thereof.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Update:

The link and quote below is from an article/blog written by Paul Kassener Sept 15, 2001 who witnessed Ed Peck on FOX News between Sept 11 and Sept 15, 2001. Kassener is a writer/satirist now posting blogs on The Huffington Post. Rev. Wright’s sermon of Sept 16th, 2001 quoted Ed Peck appearing on that show at that time. Below doesn’t provide the actual quote “Chickens coming home to roost" but it does carry some of the message and the type of things that Wright quoted him as saying.

http://www.flyingsnail.com/paul-one.html Nothing Will Ever Be the Same by Paul Krassner, September 15, 2001

For the past few days, I’ve been reading the newspapers, then checking the Internet to see what was left out of the papers, and then channel-surfing, from CNN (with their Americas New War logo, reassuring viewers that its not a rerun) to MTV (where one of the Beastie Boys advised: The last thing the terrorists want is for us to work together).

On the Fox News Network, Edward Peck, former ambassador to Iraq, was an unusually outspoken guest. He said the terrorists acted as they did not because America is a freedom loving country, but because they feel the U.S. has been treating them the same way throughout the years–bombing Iraq for the last ten years whenever they felt like it–and adding to the list (Take Panama, take Haiti, take Cambodia) before he was cut off and dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.25.106 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Time frame

All we know for sure is that Wright gave this sermon, "shortly after" September 11. This doesn't imply the following Sunday, or the next Sunday. It's been 6+ years, a short time could be 3 months. Here is an article that links Peck to the Wright comments, and people from Peck's former organization confirm that they are things he would say. Also, here, are quotes from when Peck appeard on Fox News on October 10, a "short while" after 9/11. You can tell from the interview that the Foxers are getting frustrated, like Wright said they did. For example, the anchor says the Iraqis are miserable, to which Peck replies: "Does it have anything to do with the 11 years of economic embargo we imposed on them?" Grsz 11 23:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have linked to someone who was willing to post the copyrighted transcript of Peck's appearance on Fox News. Please show where in the transcript Peck says "chickens are coming home to roost", or mentions Native American tribes, Nagasaki, or Hiroshima. And if Peck does not say the items Wright attributes to Peck, the Wiki entry should be revised to reflect this verifiabe fact.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE:

The link below is from an article/blog written by Paul Kassener Sept 15, 2001 who witnessed Ed Peck on FOX News between Sept 11 and Sept 15, 2001. Kassener is a writer/satirist now posting blogs on The Huffington Post. Rev. Wright’s sermon of Sept 16th, 2001 quoted Ed Peck appearing on that show at that time.

http://www.flyingsnail.com/paul-one.html Nothing Will Ever Be the Same by Paul Krassner, September 15, 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.25.106 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what we're supposed to take from this. We already have more reliable sources than this, and the article already couches the quote in the proper manner (by not directly attempting to attribute anything to Peck, but rather attributing the quote to Wright verbatim). If there's some change you think should be made to the article in light of what you've posted here, please say so. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To: Administrator

{{editprotected}} While this discussion is going on, can you remove the vandal paragraph with obscenities that is located at the end of the section entitled "Comments about the government"? It is most embarrassing that it is hanging out there for all to see, especially for those of us who have spent so many hours trying to improve this entry. --Tkhorse (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Begins with "In one of his sermons..." Grsz 11 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is substantiated by the cite, or did you both not read it? I'm surprised Mr. Chang.Disagree. Clearly not vandalism.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is, if you consider Rolling Stone a reliable source. Not to mention that these alleged sermons aren't in the mainstream and haven't be publicized, and aren't' part of the "controversy". Grsz 11 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is more complicated than that, though. One, how do we reach a determination of which sermons are and aren't a part of the controversy? This one has apparently received attention in one quarter (namely this article) - the article author was using it as an example of the fiery speeches Wright gives, so does that mean that it's synthesis to include it as part of the controversy, or would we be ignoring a valid source by omitting it?
Two, the cited article includes the emphasis, but of course, the speech itself was given verbally. That means that the emphasis was done subjectively on the part of the article's author (to reinforce it as a "fiery" example), so is it OR to omit the emphasis, or is it POV/inaccurate/unencyclopedic to include it?
Three, in terms of Rolling Stone's viability as a reliable source, I don't see an issue with including this reference as a purveyor of fact, but I would oppose citing Rolling Stone for analysis in this matter (mainly because doing so would be arbitrary - were this an article about music, things would be different).
Finally, if we do decide to keep the quote, neither Wikipedia nor the cited article is censored, so the word "shit" should appear without the asterisk. And on a side note, this was not vandalism. Remember to assume good faith. --DachannienTalkContrib 04:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until a consensus is determined on whether to keep or remove the quote, it stays. Understand that the full-protection is almost up anyways. Tiptoety talk 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that neither of the two editors who were warned for their edit warring should be allowed to remove this until sufficient time has passed to build a consensus.It is difficult for me to assume good faith when people engage in that type of behavior. I would support a reversion to the present article and another full protection if they return to their formerly errant ways.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you have the right to suggest who can and cannot edit Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Grsz11 05:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you are from, but where I live anyone has the right to suggest anything they want. Stalinism is so pas'e.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have invoked one of the left's sacred cows injudiciously. I meant to say that I understood I could feel free to make any non-binding suggestion that I wanted to.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO ABOVE:

It is true that I had assumed that the paragraph was vandalism because of its use of blasphemous misspelling and shocking use of words like "GAWD", "KILLERS", "To be SICK! OF THIS SH*T!", with editorializing wild use of exclamation points and capitalization.

With the rest of this biographical entry, what many of us have done over the past few weeks was to find the actual sermons in which inflammatory quotes were taken from, and then present the isolated phrases in the context of the sermon, as a way of presenting fairly the summary biography of someone who is one of the most prominent ministers in the country and a member of a predominantly white and moderate church.

Here, we are back again to the where we started from, but this time, much worse, because these are not actual sound bites that at least we can see and hear, but we are relying on the accuracy of quotation by an author who has strong opinions, which he tries to convey through misspelling, punctuation and capitalization. By the use of the word "GAWD!", which of course he has the right to do since it is a rock and roll magazine, he really steps beyond the bounds of accurate reporting, and into editorializing (which is what Rolling Stone is known for and what it is good at).

This is all assuming he quoted correctly, which has not been established.

Below are the first few definitions of "GAWD" from the Urban Dictionary (the word is not in real dictionaries):

1.way of writing "Oh my God." while denoting that you're rolling your eyes at the same time.

Boy: "Hi, I'm a boy making some lame comment to you!"
Girl: "Oh my gawd, what a nerd."

2. slang term for "God" or "god" 2) Also used to avoid using the lords name in vain (ex "oh my gawd") 3) Used by non-secular people to attain the meaning of the words "God", "god", or any form of it.

"oh my gawd"
"gawd, don't make me come over there!"
"Gawd damn it!"

3. The noise evangelical rednecks make when they are trying to say "God."

You kiyds git outta thar or Gawd is gunna send ya'll to heyall.

4. A secularized version of the term "God". Sometimes used by secular people who still wish to use a phrase such as "Oh my God!" but don't actually want to acknowledge a deity since that would be hypocritical.

Oh my Gawd are you hurt!?
Gawddamnit, that was my last doughnut!

Granted, these are just opinions about the possible definitions of the word. But what it does emphasize is that the author was not interested in reporting accurately Wright's sermons, but in exaggerating an editorial point that he is pushing in the article. This is consistent with the typical article in Rolling Stone, which I actually enjoy reading. But I know I would never cite Rolling Stone in a college paper or bibliography, because it is simply not a reliable and neutral source of information. --Tkhorse (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your final conclusion that Rolling Stone in general should never be cited as a purveyor of fact. However, your argument (the one above the Urban Dictionary quotation), that the manner in which the quotation was presented in this specific article casts doubt upon its reliability as a source, seems reasonable. I'll support removing the quotation for that reason. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't clean up what Al Sharpton is quoted as saying on his page, nor should we edit his reported statements. It seems dishonest to accept the most questionable sources for every positive thing attributed to Wright, while protesting so vehemently every source that says something that you don't want to appear. I have no problem with including positive material, but it is duplicitous to call something that is a thank you letter something as grandiose as a presidential commendation.This can be included and credited to the appropriate source. In fact, this was an abuse of the template, as it was a good faith contribution that neither of you even took the time to verify. Before having misused the template, it was incumbent on you both to have investigated and at lease read the source. If presidential commendation can stand on much flimsier evidence, then this should be included as it is properly attributed.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do, however, agree that "SHIT" should be spelled out, as this is what the cite quotes him as saying. I'm sure that all would have to agree , since others have rabidly fought that something musch less obvious ( and of which I remain unconvinced) was indeed a quote. Of this one, there can be no doubt.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this section is perfect as it stands. Much as I strongly suspect that Grsz and Tkhorse would continue to worship under their shrine of Jeremiah Wright if he actually released his own video tape of 'Death to America' being tattooed on his ass, this is a particularly dispicable, racist excuse for a human being whose hatred of anyone not like him is only amplified by his actions. If Wright didn't want to be characterized as he has, perhaps he shouldn't have sold the CD's that did so? --Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 00:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireinserted until a consensus has been reached for its removal.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think consensus should be made regarding if it should be there, as there was none in the first place, rather than the other way around. Grsz11 04:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is cited and sourced properly. No consensus needed to add sourced material. I will concede changing the word to "SHIT" to keep it in line with the quote.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is if you think a rock and roll magazine commenting on politics and religions counts. Grsz11 04:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who removed the protection template also removed the quote as being inappropriate. I agree with removing. Thus, it appears a general consensus has developed and the result is remove. TheslB (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course consensus is needed. In the absence of guidance from other policies determining whether something should or should not be in the article (where policy represents a broader, pre-established consensus among Wikipedians concerning its content), consensus becomes the determining factor. --DachannienTalkContrib 07:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, Wright gives no indication that this comment is even about the government. Grsz11 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus. Some people do not use their computers at work for personal gratification. I think if you are truly interested in a consensus and not your own agenda, then you should be able to wait. Give this some time for other editors to weigh in.I think we need to accurately quote the article and not clean up the quote. this source reports that Wright pronounced God in this fashion Die4Dixie (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not equal unanimity. So far, you're the only person to hold that opinion out of several who have weighed in on the issue. --DachannienTalkContrib 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To: Administrator, pls add transcripts

{{editprotected}} Please add links to transcripts of the controversial sermons

Ttranscripts of September 16, 2001 sermon:
The Day of Jerusalem's Fall- partial transcript

Transcripts of April 13, 2003 sermon:
Confusing God and Government - full transcript
Confusing God and Government - partial transcript
--Kitov (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest not linking to the sluggy.net forum post, since forum posts are usually not considered acceptable references (and especially not in BLP articles), although in that post is a link to an audio file described as being a recording of the sermon in question (I haven't listened to it). --DachannienTalkContrib 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these templates bing abused?--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

protection

I've semi-protected the page again... should cover the page through the Democratic convention. This should limit possible vandalism, but please try to discuss changes here before we get into another round of edit warring that might result in full protection.Balloonman (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtz

The text,

Stanley Kurtz, adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute and fellow of the Hoover Institution, has made the following satirical comments about Wright's sermons: "In short, from the standpoint of deconstruction and postcolonial theory (and only from that standpoint), Wright’s remarks are undisturbing, and in fact most welcome. Since the most eminent universities in the United States have consistently these discourses it follows that (unless you’ve got a problem with deconstruction or postcolonial theory — and how could you possibly?) Wright is to be commended."[13]

is a very poor addition. Kurtz admits he has created a straw man ("OK, I’ve been tweaking actual deconstructionist and post-colonial texts, and adding some "original" analysis of my own, to fit the Wright affair."). The piece is principally his rant against his (mis-)understandings about major deconstructionist and post-colonial thinkers.

CyberAnth (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

Was this section discussed? Grsz11 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had mentioned in an earlier discussion that the AP reported on the house, although they certainly didn't apply the spin that the laughably unacceptable source applied. I'm torn on whether this is notable or not, though. I'd say it depends on whether it received more mainstream media attention (and the AP link took a bit of Google digging to turn up). --DachannienTalkContrib 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That source is unacceptable--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC). There are, however, others that are ( Newsmax for instance)[reply]
Newsmax is marginal at best. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

google will do nicely to find sources[14] CarlosRodriguez (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, of course, I remove the objectionable section and, of course, Grsz deletes it again, anyway. Why? Because Grsz is an Obama apologist who is going to make DARN sure that this page represents Wright as someone who won't embarass Obama. -- Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 01:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we present the facts, and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions about this. I'm not dead set on this, but I think there is a way to incorporate the information while skirting NPOV issues.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with dixie. The section should stay. Readers are intelligent enough to separate POV from NPOV if they have material to read. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commendations

I'd like to put aside the Jesuitical parsing of the difference between a "letter of commendation" and a "presidential commendation", and ask whether the letters from President Johnson need to be mentioned twice. At the moment, they're in the article both under "Education and military service" (cited to Lawrence Korb) and "Career as minister and honors" (cited to the Corinthian Baptist Church bio). Now, it seems clear that the letters were given in relation to his military service, not his ministry (which began later). As such, I think it's slightly misleading to refer to them under "Career as minister and honors". I think that the mention of the letters in the military service section is sufficient, and we should remove the second mention.

I'd normally go ahead and make an edit like this (removing redundancy, repetition and saying the same thing twice), but since there's been debate on the subject of the letters I thought I'd give other people an opportunity to comment first. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should work. The two biographical sources provided in the discussion above on presidential commendations should be added since there has been some contention as to factual accuracy. To quote a previous editor's statement: "The source for this is to me highly questionable as I have noticed other , to put it kindly, exaggerations of other notable African American achievements.It appears that the source does not exist to educate; but rather, instill pride in the A. American community." — a sentiment I wholeheartedly disagree with. TheslB (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources have been added. TheslB (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great (the more sources the better, especially on a controversial topic), but it doesn't address my question, which is why we need to mention the presidential commendations twice. I think that the mention under "Education and military service" should be sufficient, and we don't need to mention them again under "Career as minister and honors". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Good observation. --DachannienTalkContrib 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this should work was meant as my assent. We are in agreement that the mention under "Career as minister and honors" should be removed. TheslB (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me to respond. I based the above linked statement on those of W.E.B. du Bois and his principles of Afrocentrism. I also have seen other examples of this type of compensation in the HistoryMakers.I'm certain if the above editor has read de Bois and his statements, he will understand my healthy skepticism.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your skepticism as a personal matter, but we now have four sources saying that Wright received "letters of commendation" from the White House or "presidential commendations". I think that attempting to draw a distinction between the two phrases is splitting hairs. Even if you doubt the Corinthian Baptist Church and the HistoryMakers site, the Howard University alumni page is unarguably a reliable source, as is the Lawrence Korb column. Are you still trying to question this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had already bowed before consensus above; however, I do believe the sources are circuitous.As you can see, the linked statement was from before a consensus was made. Please insert the information as you seem fit.I'm certain that "Jesuitical parsing" might be offensive to those who have taken their vows in that worthy order as well as to devote catholics. Imagine someone referring to "Jewish avarice" or of some other equally offensive stupidity and you can see how the phrase reads--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this is going to sound like "lots of my friends are Jesuits", but I have known and been taught by several members of the Society of Jesus. That said, I probably picked up the use of the term "Jesuitical" from my tutor, the late Brother Robert Smith FSC, who liked to tease his coreligionists of the Society of Jesus. I'm not Roman Catholic myself, but as an Anglo-Catholic I have deep respect for Catholic intellectual traditions, and as a graduate of St. John's College it would be historically short-sighted of me to slight the creators of the Ratio Studiorum, one of the founding documents in establishing the Western tradition of liberal education.
What did this have to do with Jeremiah Wright, again? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pax vobiscum--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses Section Is NPOV and doesn't belong here

If these individuals made these statements on Wright, then put them on these individuals entries, if they have them

What this is, is an ill-concealed attempt by Obama appologists to try to show why Wright is a great guy. These statements are irrelevant heresay - if the facts need to be excused then they aren't facts, are they?--Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 19:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it belongs, just as much as any other section. You're welcome to post other responses from reliable sources as long as they meet policy. The POV is your gang, who think it's necessary to point out he's moving to a white community. I don't know how you hope to argue that is more relevant than these responses. Grsz11 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've contended repeatedly that he, and others, are not welcome simply to post other opinions from reliable sources, because the vast majority of the ones already posted (and the vast majority of opinions on the subject that are out there) are non-notable in the context of the topic at hand. I'm still waiting to hear why, for example, Steven Weber's opinion is important enough to merit a mention in this article, and the same goes for most of the opinions mentioned in that section. On a side note, one might make the observation that, disagreeable as Fovean Author has been, he is correct that the assortment of opinions posted in that section all make attempts to mollify those who may have taken offense to the content of Wright's sermons. That's part of why I want to reduce the number of opinions listed in that section, because right now, they appear to make a synthesized political point rather than give a proper outlook on the impact of the controversy in the one arena where it is actually important: the presidential election. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in this context, this section needs to go, replaced perhaps with one line, and the references for anyone who's interested. It is ridiculous for this appology to be the largest part of his bio --Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 01:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree with removing the section entirely. If there's a controversy, there's going to be some fallout, with some people on one side of it and some people on the other. This article should reflect that. What we're seeing, though, is that the opinions being cited in this article don't really come from the people who are making or breaking the controversy. --DachannienTalkContrib 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The responses are ridiculously long. Most people in America were offended by this man's tirades and conspiracy theories and shocked that Obama would associate with him. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Lawrence Korb remarks in article

Should be added as a reference for the Lawrence Korb quotation regarding Wright when article is unlocked:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0404wrightapr03,0,92000.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.57.31 (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized, New York Times, March 6, 2007
  2. ^ Dirt begins to fly at Obama London Sunday Times, January 13, 2008
  3. ^ "JACKSON COUP AND '84 RACE". New York Times (Subscription required to access full article). January 4, 1984. Retrieved 2008-03-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ Stone, Eddie (1988). Jesse Jackson. California: Holloway House Publishing. pp. 197–202. ISBN 0-87067-840-X.
  5. ^ Stanley, Alessandra (January 16, 1984). "An Officer and a Gentleman Comes Home". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-23. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. ^ Stone, Eddie (1988). Jesse Jackson. California: Holloway House Publishing. pp. 197–202. ISBN 0-87067-840-X.
  7. ^ Reagan, Ronald (January 4, 1984). "Remarks to Reporters Following a Meeting With Navy Lieutenant Robert O. Goodman, Jr". The American Presidency Project. Retrieved 2008-03-23. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference kantor2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Marty, Martin E. (2008), The Christian World: A Global History. Random House, back sleeve.
  10. ^ a b Martin, Roland (March 21, 2008). "The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright's 9/11 sermon". Anderson Cooper 360. CNN. Retrieved 2008-03-23. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  11. ^ Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 Brian Ross and Rehab el-Buri, ABC News, March 13, 2008
  12. ^ Extended video of Wright's sermon from which quotes had been excerpted.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremiah_Wright&oldid=203759808"