Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy

Requested move

Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy → Jeremiah Wright political controversy — As pointed out above, the controversy originated with clips from more than one sermon, and has since expanded to include remarks made by Wright in other venues. Although the controversy has implications beyond the political sphere, it is primarily noteworthy because of its political impact on the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. Therefore, I suggest that the article be moved to Jeremiah Wright political controversy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. It's clear the scope of the controversy has expanded in recent days. VeritasAgent (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with the above comments by Josiah Rowe. The controversy is currently beyond the scope of a sermon and will become more political as the election proceeds.75.31.210.156 (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Wouldn't "Jeremiah Wright controversy" suffice? That page name already redirects here and sidesteps any potentially controversial semantics. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 11:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with CyrusXIII. Before reading a word of this article, the title made me roll my eyes. He's not a politician, and the politician he is linked to isn't involved, directly, in anything controversial that is spewing from Wright. Labeling this a "political controversy" is highly misleading, in my view. · jersyko talk 21:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Parallel incidents

Two hours after my edit, User:Happyme22 removed my review of Cenk Uygur's article about the parallel incidents of other candidates, saying that "we cannot try and justify the situation by referring to other candidates" in the edit summary. However, this is an article about a controversy. If it is to be NPOV then we should report how people on one side of the controversy defend themselves just as we report how the other side attacks them. The Cenk Uygur article is making its way through the emails and discussion forums as one of the strong arguments used by one side. If a person wants to understand the relative importance of a candidate's pastor's point of view in American politics, they need to be able to look at people like Rod Parsley, John Hagee, and Jerry Falwell that McCain has used for religious advice for a side by side comparison.

I strongly recommend Wikipedia readers to assume any political article has been the victim of an unreasonable censorship unless and until proven otherwise. Wnt (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with your assertion that Wikipedia articles are subject to "unreasonable censorship" (all our censorship is very reasonable! ;^)), I do agree that there's an argument to be made for including a brief discussion of parallel cases in the current election cycle, because reliable sources have noted the difference in emphasis placed on Obama's religious affiliations and those of his rivals. On the other hand, the argument that this is off-topic from the article subject is also reasonable. Let's discuss this and see what consensus emerges. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Wnt; this is about Barack Obama and his pastor, not John McCain and his pastors, or Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani and their respective religious affiliations. These mentions serve no purpose other than trying to justify the Obama-Wright situation. If people want to read about McCain's religious advisors, they can do so without having an entire section devoted to them on this page, reserved for Barack Obama and his former religious advisor. I wouldn't exactly call it off-topic, but I would definitely call it irrelevant and POV-pushing because it is not acceptable to try to justify this by bringing other candidates into the fray.

I will concede, however, than a one-to-two sentence inclusion is okay by me, excluding details about Romney, Giuliani, McCain, etc. and only mentioning that there is an argument by Obama/Wright supporters that Wright is being treated unfairly. I do not support an entire section, as I explained above, but a mention is alright because it does appear that the issue has been rasied. Happyme22 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If comparative cases have been looked at in connection with works about this Wright matter, then inclusion of such is 100% fair game. Let's use the word comparative rather than parallel, please. Ewenss (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that Happyme22 commented out the section, with the instruction "DO NOT re-add this section until details are hammered out on the talk page." You can't overestimate the chutzpah of the Wikipedia deletionist... he thinks that as long as he alone objects to the wording of something he has the right to tell all the other editors who have worked on it not to do anything until the discussion is resolved, until which it has to be all his way. (BTW They're all like that) How anyone is supposed to end up discussing text they're not seeing in the article is another question. NOTE: if the section has been deleted since this comment see [1] for the version as of this time. Wnt (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you come out attacking me like this. My opinion and view matters just as much as yours, and as of now, your view is the only one adequately presented in the article. Commenting out the text until we can determine what is the next best step in dealing with this is a reasonable way to solve our disagreement. If your going to go on attacking me as a "Wikipedia deletionist" who "alone objects to the wording of something he has the right to tell all the other editors who have worked on it not to do anything until the discussion is resolved", then we definitely aren't going to get anything resolved. Now I'm willing to compromise with you; I said above that a couple sentences are okay by me, as long as details about Romney, Giuliani, etc. are excluded and the phrase(s) only mentions that there is an argument by that Wright is being treated unfairly. Happyme22 (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to note the view that a double standard is being applied to Obama without going into the details about Giuliani, Romney and McCain? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that removing relevant, accurate information is a good way to resolve either NPOV disputes or editing disputes. What really annoys me about it is that it takes a reasonable effort for people to research and write a paragraph of information, but none at all for someone to decide that it is too much information supporting one side of an issue. I feel like for every minute I spend adding relevant information to a political article I spend five arguing why it shouldn't have been deleted immediately afterward. Judging by the history for this article I don't think I'm the only one. The fair contest is to challenge people on both sides of an issue to document the published arguments supporting their positions, thereby developing an entry into a thorough and reliable coverage of the subject. I am not saying this is without limits, because there are clear restrictions in policy. I actually had to find a source comparing Obama and McCain's religious advisors, not just draw the comparison out of thin air.

The inclusion of comparisons about other candidates in the same race is hardly irrelevant. It is typical for Wikipedia articles to point the reader toward similar cases in general. For instance, if you look up the Virginia Tech massacre (the first article I tried as a non-political comparison) you'll find mentions of an earlier shooting incident, a student legally carrying a gun in a previous year, a 1996 shooting in Tasmania, even the Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations (all sourced comparisons), plus a prominent link to a list of school-related attacks. That's a recently featured article, so it should represent the best practices for Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole section should be removed. It's blatant, pro-Wright POV pushing in article already slanted in Wright's favor. VeritasAgent (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they're notable/worth mentioning simply because it was this incident that led to more coverage of other religious figures. Grsz^talk 13:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hagee didn't baptize McCain's kids, perform his wedding or serve as a spiritual mentor for 20 years. The claim that the situations are comparative is ridiculous. Maybe we should just save time and link the DNC's talking points. VeritasAgent (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it sounds like we are all reasonable people. The only beef I have with the section is its length and relevance. Wnt, Your comparison with the Virginia Tech Massacre is a good one, but a school shooting and a political controversy are strikingly different. Of course shootings are going to be compared to other shootings, but political controversies aren't necessarily relevant to other political controversies. So, citing my beef with the section, I propose the following:

Following the break of the Wright controversy, the media examined religious mentors/associates of other current or former presidential candidates. Generally generating less publicity, this has led many liberal commentators to allege that the criticism of Wright was fueled by racist sentiments. Others differentiated the incidents, contending that the Wright case is more significant, as Obama noted that Wright was his spiritual mentor who guided him to Christianity. Wright baptized Obama's children, performed Obama's marriage ceremony, and Obama attended Wright's church for twenty years.

This gets rid of all irrelevant facts, while portraying the general idea. Both sides arguments are included as well. Happyme22 (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that so far it looks like you're the only one saying these facts are irrelevant. I also doubt you have broad support for the idea that shootings are "different" from political controversies - do you mean in any particular Wikipedia policy or guideline, or just that you want them to be? Deleting the Cenk Uygur reference is particularly objectionable, since it was what started me writing this section. Converting (mostly) my paragraph to something that repeats text already in the article is not any better than deleting it. Wnt (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for deleting the Cenk Uygur reference; please feel free to add it back in. In my judgment, it is really common sense that a school shooting is different from a political controversy. Adding the proposal above is better than removing the idea altogether, because you at least get a view that is out there across to readers without going into too much unnecessary detail. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edits

{Sigh} It appears User:Ewenss has taken matters into his/her own hands yet again, and removed properly sourced material (to a reliable and verifiable source) in favor of adding more POV. I don't even know where to start. But I will say this: this article already has two tags on it, a strong indication to editors to get on the ball with cleaning it up and removing POV. That also implies do not add more POV.

• First, it appears Ewenss is in favor of a criticsm section, which is in direct violation of WP:CRITICISM. Furthermore, the contents of that section are not at all appropriate: the bulk is a humoruos piece by comedian Stephen Colbert. Reliable? Nope. Factual? Nope. Merits inlcusion on Wikipedia? Nope.

• Secondly, I added in a paragraph referencing a Fox News source from today ([2]). The full edit that I made is here. My paragraph displays the current effect that the Wright controversy has had on Obama. It is completely cited, no questions asked. I'm not sure why it was removed, although I have a pretty good idea.

• Third, the user appears to think that it is alright to revert the NPOV work of others while also reverting structural/formatting changes that benefitted the article. I moved Obama's response from the "Jeremiah Wright reaction" section into the "Campaign reaction" section, and it was reverted.

It is rare that I get this upset when on Wikipedia, but Ewenss: you cannot, repeat: cannot, continue to add in pro-Wright material and remove material that may not be in Obama/Wright's favor when the article is already tagged for POV and unbalance. I urge other editors to voice their opinions on this especially contentious matter. Thanks. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting spin you put on things, since you were adding material from FoxNews.

I dislike Criticism sections, too, and would rather weave such material into the article narrative.

Also, the material I added criticizes the media coverage, obviously - and such material is abounding right now.

Ewenss (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay great. I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not when it comes to the Fox News cite, but on that topic: I could easily argue that CNN and MSNBC have taken pro-Obama stances in this race and therefore are not always credible. But I won't, because I don't have a problem using them as sources. As for the criticism section and Colbert quote: are we in agreement to get rid of the criticism section and the Colbert quote, because, as I stated above, it is meant to be a humoruos piece and isn't factual, reliable, etc.? Ariana Huffington can stay, just as long as we add in balance from Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney, among others (something that Josiah suggested above). Happyme22 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to cite poll of polls for polling data, not Fox's. The Colbert piece is legitimate criticism and so is Huff. If you can find pieces that praise the mainstream media's behavior over the past 10 days, feel free to add it to the section. Ewenss (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How is Colbert legitimate criticism of the media? He's a commedian, and the piece that was added was comedy, not facts. Wikipedia needs facts, not humorous jokes. Happyme22 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It was factual quotes and its meaning was discussed in a serious piece which is cited.

If I need to explain to you how legitimate political criticisms are made all the time in the full range of the arts, there's probably nothing that can be said to convince you. You might recall this from a debate:

CLINTON: Can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time? And I don't mind. You know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious.

And if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow.

In that piece, the actors were criticizing former debate moderators for being "too soft" on Obama, and the point was not lost on anyone.

Ewenss (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I do recall that being said, but that is not relevant here. As the multiple tags on the article demonstrate, we should be removing quotes like that (especially those coming from comedians) and actually add some balance to this article, something that I have repeatedly attempted to do. Happyme22 (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view means providing comprehensive coverage of all aspects of a story. It does not mean providing equal time for two viewpoints by removing "extra" material from one side to "restore balance"! The article on evolution does not have equal time for creationists! If you think that this article has a pro-Wright bias then what you are supposed to do is go out and document more anti-Wright material and critical arguments. People writing Wikipedia are supposed to be providing information, not deleting information to allegedly "restore balance". Speaking of which, how is an article that starts off by calling the man anti-American and chooses a handful of the most intemperately phrased sentences of his entire 30-year preaching career supposed to be biased in favor of Wright anyway? Wnt (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say that I don't think that it's appropriate or necessary for us to give a blow-by-blow of the Colbert piece. I do think that the commentary of comedians is sometimes noteworthy in a political context (e.g. Strategery), but although this sketch is funny and trenchant, I don't see any evidence that it's gained particular traction in the national understanding of the Jeremiah Wright controversy. We could simply say that Colbert mocked the media's inability to let go of the Wright story and support it with the Huffington Post reference, but the full details of the sketch seem excessive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Josiah probably has the best solution. As much as I dislike Arianna Huffington, she is probably more notable on this subject than a comedian is. As I said above, views from the right are also important, such as those of Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney (which have yet to have been added). I would add them myself, but I don't have time right now. Happyme22 (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nor do I, alas. (Where's Andyvphil when you need him?) By the way, I restored the poll data Happyme22 had added earlier, but there were also a number of other polls released on the same day (April 30), and the overall picture is rather unclear. If anyone wants to try to make sense of the jumbled data, please do so. (The only significant points of agreement that I could find among the various polls were that the Wright affair had hurt Obama's image, and that Democrats still preferred him to Hillary Clinton.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the mainstream media is not going to be issuing serious criticisms of the their own coverage. Alternative media will need to be relied on for this. Ewenss (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Arianna Huffington is not a reliable source of anything except propaganda. If we're going to include material from her and other extremists, then the views of an appropriate counter-weight such as Ann Coulter also need to be included. VeritasAgent (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you find a piece where Coulter is praising the media's behavior over the past eleven days, feel free to add it. Ewenss (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

picture with Wright, where is it?

Where is the picture with him and Obama? While I've debated pics with Johnson and Clinton, being that his relationship with Wright may have the most far and wide impact and is currently having it, I see no reason to lack a picture. This may decide who the next President may be, in the form of Hillary Clinton getting the nomination, or McCain getting the White House, or it even being a huge part of a President Obama's journey? Why is there no picture with Obama and Wright? It is the one picture and relationship Wright is most famous for, because its not like it was just some prayer breakfast, where he was one out of hundreds or doing surgery, he mentored spiritually and morally, a future Senator, and most famous black man in the country currently, leading Presidential candidate, and possible future nominee and President? His sermon "The Audacity of Hope" produced Obama's book title, which was a best seller. He was also a big part of Obama's first book. Wright has sold millions of books through Obama, which is a bigger part of culture than a prayer breakfast or surgeon assistant. So why is the pic with Obama and Wright missing? I think it should be there, if it is to be fair. I think it should be there, if it is to be fair. After all, Obama has said in speeches before, like his victory speech to the Senate that Wright made it possible. So in more of a sense, Wright has helped to bring Obama to the forefront of America politics. He made the guy. Tallicfan20 (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is all about free content. I presume the photo you are reffering to is this one; well, if you look at the article it is used in, the photo credit is to Trinity United Church of Christ. Unless the Church specifies that the photo is released under the GFDL free documentation license (or one of similar nature), or releases it into the public domain, we cannot use the image. See Wikipedia:Images#Obtaining images for more. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While I was referring to that picture, but in other articles, more recent ones, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7304113.stm and it is credited to the Associated Press, or AP, if you look in the lower corner, and here is another one also credited to the AP. AP photos is fair game here. And this picture is very relevant, not only to this article, but the general Jeremiah Wright one too. Tallicfan20 (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I have learned from experience that AP photos are certainly not allowed on Wikipedia. The Associated Press (AP) is a commercial news photo agency, thus uploading photos of theirs would be in violation of Non-free content policy, number 2. Non-free content example number 6 specifically mentions that photos from the AP cannot be used in our free encyclopedia. I'm not exactly an expert on the issue, but if you have more questions please feel free ton contact me. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vanishing lead paragraph

I added a sourced sentence overviewing Wright's role in the church, and.... some IP deletes it in no time. Now my sentence certainly was no substitute for the lead this article should have, but it demonstrates why this article has no lead. But see WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

Obviously the one or two sentences that the deletionists have left are not enough to meet this. However, I'm a little less motivated to go banging my head night and day for sane Wikipedia style guidelines than to add truly new information, so if someone wants a lead for this article they may have to fight for it. Wnt (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)