Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy/Archive 2

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Jeremiah Wright controversy. JPG-GR (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Note to participating editors and the closing admin: During the course of this discussion (see below), another possible article name has come up, which is "Jeremiah Wright controversy". When posting in the Survey section, please indicate clearly what option you would prefer. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 08:39, 4 May 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)
  • Would you be equally, less, or more supportive of a move to Jeremiah Wright controversy? · jersyko talk 15:50, 3 May 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)
  • Would you be equally, less, or more supportive of a move to Jeremiah Wright controversy? · jersyko talk 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would be more supportive of Jeremiah Wright controversy75.31.210.156 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, changed from Support. (Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)) Wiki the encyclopedia shouldn't deliberately choose article headings that don't support the text/known reality. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? Does "Jeremiah Wright controversy" somehow "not support reality"? Please explain. · jersyko talk 14:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant the heading (sermon singular) didn't support the reality of the text (sermons plural). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Kaiwhakahaere, When I proposed the title Jeremiah Wright controversy on April 30th, you said "Yes, I second that", do you still prefer that title?75.31.210.156 (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes I did and do. I would be more supportive of Jeremiah Wright controversy. But that seems to have fallen over.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, see my comment below. I would support a move to Jeremiah Wright controversy because it is less clunky than "sermon controversy" or the potentially POV-tinged "political controversy". The less unnecessary adjectives, the better. · jersyko talk 14:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - a no-brainer. See my explanation here. - Ewenss (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you be equally, less, or more supportive of a move to Jeremiah Wright controversy? · jersyko talk 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Neither - I don't like the current title, because it is not just sermons and not only one of them. But this is not only a political controversy, because the real question is whether our religious tolerance includes the right to attend services by a specific person without being indelibly stigmatized. I think it might be as fair to call it the Jeremiah Wright inquisition... I would very much prefer Jeremiah Wright controversy as a shorter, neutral title. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Third option ("Jeremiah Wright controversy"), per Jersyko and my initial suggestion below. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 02:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support to "political controversy" - Jeremiah Wright controversy is much too vague for me; if a random user had no idea who Wright was, he or she may easily think that the controversy is about anything. I think Jeremiah Wright political controversy is the better title of the two, because it at least attempts to generalize that this is indeed a political controversy, and not a controversy about anything else. Happyme22 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose change to Jeremy Wright political controversy but Support change to Jeremy Wright controversy. Can't agree with Happy. This is not specifically about politics, or specifically about religion, or specifically about race. It is about the all-encompassing controversy surrounding a person called Wright. (Sorry I left it so ambiguous above- now struck out). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support to "controversy" without "sermon" or "political" - The media is calling it simply the "Jeremiah Wright controversy" and it has greater cultural dimensions than just Obama's presidential campaign. We definitely wouldn't be talking about Wright if Obama weren't running for president, but the controversy has exposed a rather substantial gap between the white and black religious experience that moves beyond the strictly political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg-realms (talk • contribs)

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)
• "Jeremiah Wright controversy" was my initial title choice. I strongly agree with the above comments by Cyrus XIII and Jersyko. I will keep my support for the current change and note my preference above.75.31.210.156 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• There seems to be a fair amount of support for "Jeremiah Wright controversy" — I was initally resistant to that because I had a vague and unsupported feeling that Wikipedia didn't generally name "controversy" articles that way. But I've just checked and found Jostein Gaarder controversy, Santorum controversy, Pat Robertson controversies and so forth, so I'd be OK with a move to Jeremiah Wright controversy if that's what most other folks prefer. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• This is absolute bollocks. It can only result in if/then yes/no/maybe/perhaps depending on (you name it) someone's guess. Let's have a proper poll. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, there is at least some scope for confusion here, hence I've put up a note above that will hopefully ensure unambiguous Survey posts from now on. So far we seem to have 5 editors in favor of "controversy", 1 explicitly in favor of "political controversy" and 2 who support a move, without specifying what target they would prefer. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Yes this information covers a "talking point" for one side of the issue. That's because this is an article about a controversy and it wouldn't be much of an article if it didn't cover what both sides are saying. You don't see me condensing your "God damn America" block quote into a bland sentence saying that Obama "used strong language to criticize American policy"! These comparisons would be relevant to cover even if they were only mentioned in an argument on Obama's Web site, but I know of at least three top of the line "mainstream" news sources making such comparisons. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 3 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)

For what it's worth, yesterday E. J. Dionne also suggested that there is a double standard here, while also saying "It's entirely true that Wright's foolishness is a bigger deal because of his long-standing relationship with Obama." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok Josiah has provided another example that would fall under the general proposed paragraph above. Happyme22 (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Let the section bulk up and break it into its own article when it become too large. It's a major issue on its own. Cryptographic hash (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But a lot of the material cited there (like the stuff about Hillary and the Fellowship) hasn't actually been connected with the Wright/Obama controversy by reliable sources. For us to make the comparison by ourselves is original research. My proposal below is based on comparisons made by reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I just listened to Randi Rhodes harp on the issue for the 873rd time today. That's just one example. Cryptographic hash (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a transcript that other editors and readers can see to verify that? If the comparison has been widely made, it shouldn't be difficult to cite specific sources which make it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You sure cite AGF very selectively in your favor. Cryptographic hash (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't doubt your claim about hearing Randi Rhodes. I'm just pointing out that the article needs to rely on material which anyone can verify, in accordance with Wikipedia core policy. That material doesn't need to be internet-accessible, but it's handy if it is. I don't know if the Randi Rhodes Show has an archive of past episodes or not. I'm just saying that we can't make an original synthesis of material which we think is related to the Jeremiah Wright controversy but which reliable sources haven't connected to it. Wikipedia has to follow the pack, not lead it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You additionally cite "consensus" very selectively in your favor, and feel free to single-handedly assert your personal sense of "weight" in an article, this. That is not in the slightest undue weight, it's one freakin' article section that mentions half a dozen politicians in a whole freakin' article about just one politician. Please quit your your unabashed POV pushing here, it is very transparent. Cryptographic hash (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't single-handed; it was based on discussion on this page, which two other editors agreed was an improvement. You were invited to join that discussion, but declined. I'm amused to see you describing my edits as POV pushing — I'm not even sure what POV you think I'm advocating, since I've challenged edits and blocked editors on both sides of the dispute. I've neither hidden nor highlighted my own views on the subject, but I'd prefer not to discuss them here. Let's try to stay focused on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Wright_controversy&diff=210701863&oldid=210700330 CyberAnth (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In edit summaries and this section, more people say keep the section. Ewenss (talk) 17:04, 7 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)

Tallicfan20 writes, in part: "I think it should be there, if it is to be fair. I think it should be there, if it is to be fair." Um ... I believe this discourse pattern is forbidden on talk pages, under the policy WP:NOCHANTINGANDBYTHEWAYWOULDYOUPLEASESITDOWN. Yakushima (talk) 15:41, 3 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)

I've attempted a brief summary of the affair. It is, of course, open to correction and improvement by all and sundry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename

This really needs to be renamed to Jeremiah Wright political controversy. One, the whole context is the political season. We'd have never heard of Wright but for this political season and the fact that a presidential candidate, Barack Obama, was a Trinity UCC congregant and parishioner of Wright. Two, it is not just about the sermon snippets. It is about Wright's beliefs, his church, and most particularly, about the politics of that in relation to politics and Obama. Third, the intro and subsequent material in the article even contradicts the name; the intro mentions the subsequent media coverage Wright received and it is later dealt with in the article. The title is just not logical. It is too specific. Renaming it will properly title what the article already covers. Ewenss (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but this article should not be moved yet, because it is still listed at WP:RM. Apparently someone moved it earlier because they felt a concensus had been established, but the RM process hadn't finished yet. I see there is a discussion going on above. Happyme22 (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful to whoever closes the move request if you would express your opinions on the title above at #Requested move — they might miss the discussion down here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Structure of Article

Thanks to Josiah, the article finally has a nice lead with an intro and summary. Thanks to Happyme22, the structure of the article is much better. I think the the heart of the article - the story of the controversy needs some work. The description of the sermons is fine. The sequence of events afterwords lacks continuity because there is quite a bit of information in the Barack Obama section and the more recent events are also in the Jeremiah Wright section. The events from the sections need to be merged so there is continuity. After the story, I think the various reactions and other sections should follow. 75.31.210.156 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to tell the story more coherently. Would it make sense to have an "overview" section before the details of the sermon extracts, or is that redundant with the lead? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Josiah, I think an "overview" would be redundant. You did a really nice job with the summary - the sections I mentioned above need some work.75.31.210.156 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral language

It seems to me that people on both sides of the issue have been habitually using loaded language in their presentation of remarks. It's not neutral to characterize Obama's statement that he heard Wright make controversial remarks from the pulpit as "backtracking" (I believe the official story from the Obama camp is that he had heard Wright using "street" language and occasional vulgarity during sermons, but had not heard these politically outrageous comments). Similarly, it's not neutral to describe Martin Marty's comments about the Afrocentric church either as a "claim" (suggesting subjectivity) or an "explanation" (suggesting objectivity). We should use language which presents the arguments and their context without telling readers whose arguments are better or worse, more or less justified. To put it another way: as editors, we need to have information literacy and edit in accordance with literate judgments, but we're not in the business of advocating for information literacy. If we, as an editorial collective, decide that the opinions of Ann Coulter and Martin Marty both merit inclusion, we need to present those arguments neutrally rather than implying that the former is outrageously partisan and intellectually vapid and and the latter is a source of considered, neutral wisdom — even if that's our personal opinion.

I haven't had time to perform a close edit of the article to get rid of all the weighted language, but I hope that all contributors would agree with the recommendations of WP:WTA and try to keep the wording of the article as neutral as possible. We all have opinions about the subject at hand, but as Wikipedians our job is to present what reliable and notable sources have said about the matter, not to push our own opinions. And we should all realize that what we regard as "neutral, simple truth" may seem like a biased opinion to other people. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I put in a MedCab request because I am fed up: every time I author something or tweak wording, it is undone. I always have good reason which I outline, but it is almost always removed. So hopefully an outsiders opinion can help us all. As for the "backtrack" - that's not POV; it's the truth. First, Obama said that he had never heard the comments ([3]) then said he had indeed heard them before ([4]) and went on to explain how he began distancing himself from Wright in the beginning of his campaign. It is a fact that Obama backtracked on the first story. If you want to convey this idea using other language you may feel is more neutral, please feel free to. Happyme22 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this edit [5] is clearly "original synthesis" not supported by the sources. The word "backtrack" does not appear in either source, and the second source you cite is pretty clear that Obama first said that he heard "none of these" specific comments singled out by ABC News, and later said that he had heard him make "remarks that could be considered as controversial". These are pretty clearly different things, and your source is careful not to say otherwise. You can only go as far as your source will take you. Wnt (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, you do indeed appear to be correct. Hahaha wow, I feel like an idiot. I guess Obama denied ever hearing them until he launched his run for the presidency in Feb. 2007 (see here). Although, according to Gerald Posner, and Obama supporter of the Huffington Post, "even if Barack is correct -- and I desperately want to believe him -- then it still does not explain why, when he learned in 2007 of Wright's fringe comments about 9/11 and other subjects, the campaign did not then disassociate itself from the Reverend. Wright was not removed from the campaign's Spiritual Advisory Committee until two days ago [March 13], and it appears likely that nothing would have been done had this story not broken nationally." (source)

So it appears Obama "backtracking" was indeed an incorrect assessment. But the real story, which does merit inclusion, is above. I'm sorry for the trouble. I feel that the MedCab still needs to take place, however, because there are other aspects of this story and other details/wording that have yet to be resolved. Happyme22 (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

However, if we can get everything mentioned in the medcab request worked out here amongst ourselves, then I will be happy to call it off. Happyme22 (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent edits

Since I made some edits earlier yesterday that were all reverted, I entered a mediation cabal request. I am also going to bring them up here, however, in the hopes that we won't have to go through the mediation cabal process. Happyme22 (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Describing those in the academic field

• Current: "In their role as public intellectuals, academicians sought to expand public understanding about Wright and the black religious tradition, while separating both from the at-hand political upheaval.

• Proposed change: "A majority of those in the academic field sought to expand public understanding about Wright and the black religious tradition, while separating both from the at-hand political upheaval."

• Reason: Labelling everyone who is in the academic field as "public intellectuals" is POV; saying that all people in the academic field "sought to expand public understanding, etc." is POV

How about linking "...sought to expand public understanding" to Intellectual#The Social Role of a Public Intellectual, like this:

• • "Many academics sought to expand public understanding about Wright and the black religious tradition, while separating both from the at-hand political upheaval."

That would make the point about what the academics were doing, without actually saying that they were being "public intellectuals". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds gut. Grsz^talk 03:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm down with it. Happyme22 (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done, although time will tell whether it satisfies the individual who introduced this link. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Describing the views of those in the academic field

• Current: the section contains very long quotes attempting to justify or place Wright's comments in context.

• Proposed change: Remove some overly long, bloated quotes that are simply extra pro-Wright fluff. Additionally, remove some extra quotes that appear to be added every time something criticizing Wright or Obama is added.

• Reason: As long as the main idea of the quote is getting across to readers, we should be okay. It also not okay (and I'm speaking to one editor here) to continue adding more justifications or comments from professors that "place the comments in context" or justify them, every time something negative about Wright is added. It violates WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT.

Describing justifications

• Current: weasel words plague the article.

• Proposed change: Replace words and phrases such as " He went on to explain Wright's comments in context of his church" with "He attempted to justify Wright's comments in context of his church". The former being POV; the latter more accurate. Also: "Marty also explained that Trinity's Africentrism..." with "Marty also claimed that Trinity's Africentrism..."

• Reason: We cannot say that he is explaining one thing (in this instance), because that is WP:OR. We can say that he is claiming something, because that can be easily determined. You only need a quote to say someone claimed something, whereas it is your POV that he explained something.

I tried "Marty also argued that Trinity's Africentrism...", as a neutral compromise between "explained" (which assumes Marty's objectivity) and "claimed" (which assumes his subjectivity), but it was reverted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with argued; that's a great compromise. And I can't say that I am the least bit suprised that it was reverted. :-) -Happyme22 (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

People, please read WP:WTA, especially before correcting someone else's text for bias. Changing "explained" to "attempted to justify" and "explained" to "claimed" is NOT a step in the right direction. Please note that claim, reveal, insist, contend, and admit are among the terms specifically listed as sources of trouble, and I think I've seen each of these here at some point. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You will see that Josiah replaced "explained" with "argued", more neutral word without taking a side on the matter. Happyme22 (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that "attempted to justify" is any more neutral than "went on to explain" — the former assumes that Marty's goal is justification, and the latter assumes that his goal is education. We shouldn't be assuming anything about his goal — we should be reporting what he said. To that end, I'd suggest in that specific sentence that we simply say "He went on to place Wright's comments in context of his church." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made the specific changes discussed here, but I still haven't done a thorough copyedit of the article for weasel words and WP:WTA — my feeling is that there are still a lot of them here, on both "sides" of the issue. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevance

• Current: "Liberal commentator Arianna Huffington characterized the media coverage between April 20-30 as "among the most shameful in the history of American journalism," noting how a major March 20 New York Times expose (see story), itself a story strongly critical of the media, received only the scantest mention on one among all major mainstream media television news programs. The story, Huffington says, is "a powerful illustration of the Bush administration's commitment to propaganda and disinformation," and "a damning indictment of the mainstream media's complicity in the wholesale deception of the American public on the single most important decision a country can make — the decision to go to war." Huffington stated that the "near-complete blackout imposed by the culpable news organizations" on the story in favor of many, many hours of coverage about Wright "is a despicable abdication" of the media's "central role in our society"."

• Proposed change: "Liberal commentator Arianna Huffington characterized the media coverage between April 20-30 as "among the most shameful in the history of American journalism," claiming how a major March 20 New York Times expose (see story), a story strongly critical of the media, received only the scantest mention on one among all major mainstream media television news programs. Huffington stated that the "near-complete blackout imposed by the culpable news organizations" on the story in favor of hours of coverage about Wright "is a despicable abdication" of the media's "central role in our society"."

• Reason: Huffington's comment about President Bush somehow controlling the media is completely irrelevant. It is just a left-winger taking a shot at President Bush; that has nothing to do with Wright and Obama, etc. To say that President Bush is behind this story (as evident with the "commitment to propaganda and disinformation" phrase) is absurd.

I've just found the Huffington piece, which does criticize the media's coverage that week but doesn't even mention that they were covering Wright instead of the "military analysts" story. As such, it's misleading to include it in this article. I'm going to remove it. If people can find reliable sources saying "why were they talking about Wright instead of this?", that can be added, but we can't take that step ourselves — it's original research.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That takes care of that. Happyme22 (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Coulter and Colgan

• Current: "Conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter heavily criticized Obama for what she called "waiting too long" to condemn Rev. Wright himself. Coulter wrote, "If it takes Obama 20 years to notice that his pastor is a traitorous, racist nut-job, it will probably take him his full term of office to realize that the U.S. has been invaded and subdued by al-Qaeda. Let's just hope President Obama pays closer attention during national security briefings than he did during 20 years of the Rev. Wright's church services." Democratic strategist Flavia Colgan countered the assertion made by Coulter by explaining that Obama was not always in church and that the several minutes of soundbites continually played by the media obviously do not equate to twenty years, and that the media had been unable to find any other controversial statements beyond the ones they have continually played, otherwise they would have played them."

• Proposed change: "Conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter heavily criticized Obama for what she called "waiting too long" to condemn Rev. Wright himself. Coulter wrote, "If it takes Obama 20 years to notice that his pastor is a traitorous, racist nut-job, it will probably take him his full term of office to realize that the U.S. has been invaded and subdued by al-Qaeda. Let's just hope President Obama pays closer attention during national security briefings than he did during 20 years of the Rev. Wright's church services." Democratic strategist Flavia Colgan argued the opposite by saying that Obama was not always in church and that the several minutes of soundbites continually played by the media do not equate to twenty years."

• Reason: It was a run on sentence. I added the {{vn}} tag because the source simply reads: "Anderson Cooper 360, 29 April 2006."

If we've removed the Huffington quotation, can we lose Coulter too? I'm not sure that quoting one narcissistic egomaniac on the subject of another helps our readers. I'm sure that there are less incendiary conservative pundits who made the same point about Obama "waiting too long". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ms. Coulter can be a bit over the top when is comes to criticizing liberals. I have a few Republicans in mind that are "nicer" :) I'll get looking.

Are we agreed that the quote from Democratic strategist Flavia Colgan needs a {{vn}} tag? Happyme22 (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because I can't find her in CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 transcripts for that day [6] [7]. Perhaps she was on another CNN program? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

She was on Larry King Live on that date.[8] Doesn't quite do what this article's text says she does. Andyvphil (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that ref, Andy. The relevant bit from that interview would seem to be Colgan's statement that "we have the record with his schedule, since he is a public figure, that shows very explicitly that he, in fact, was not in the church" on the Sundays these two sermons were preached. Since we can't seem to verify what the article currently claims, I think it would be appropriate to replace the current Colgan bit with this. We should also identify her as an Obama supporter, not just a Democratic strategist.

Colgan also makes another point in that transcript that I haven't heard from other commentators:

...[Y]ou can't back up everything your church always does. Hillary Clinton, for instance, is the only candidate in the race who is part of a religion, the Methodist Church, that, in writing and in their doctrine, says that it's impossible to be a Christian and a gay person. Now, obviously, that's not how Hillary Clinton feels. And she's never felt that she needs to come out and say by the way, I'm a member and I feel strongly...

We may want to consider adding this as well (although I'm somewhat concerned that the article is becoming bloated). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with other candidates

• Current: see section

• Proposed change: "Following the break of the Wright controversy, the media began examining religious mentors/associates of other current or former presidential candidates, including John McCain's relationship with Pastor John Hagee. 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, while McCain met Hagee while campaigning for president. Wright baptized Obama's children, performed Obama's marriage ceremony, and Obama attended Wright's church for twenty years.

• Reason: This is a long puff piece portraying Wright and Obama as being "singled out". All the details about Hagee, etc. cannot be covered in this article because that is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. So it's better to provide a general overview of the argument that Wright is being picked on because he's black, while linking to other places. It also gives readers a short background on Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright. Additionally, Giuliani and Romeny aren't even candidates anymore.

The question to be answered in determining how much weight should be given this section is how much it's been discussed in notable sources. Although alternative media have been growing and gaining respectability in recent years, I think that newspaper columnists are still considered more important than writers for the Huffington Post. Specifically, the opinions of E. J. Dionne and Frank Rich are, I think, more notable than those of Cenk Uygur and Shaun Jacob Halper. We can use Uygur and Halper as collateral sources for making general statements about liberal critics making the double standard argument, I think we should restrict any specifics to those mentioned by Dionne and Rich (and similar sources).

By that standard, we could mention McCain's pursuit of Hagee's endorsement and the way that McCain and other Republican candidates have sought the endorsements of Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, but we wouldn't mention Giuliani's pedophile Monsignor, Romney's Mormonism or Hillary's association with the Fellowship. (Including the last of these is particularly bad original research, because I don't think the sources compare Doug Coe to Jeremiah Wright at all. The Uygur piece at least mentioned the other questionable religious affiliations.)

Incidentally, Halper makes an interesting counter-argument to the point that Hagee wasn't McCain's pastor for 20 years: he notes that "Obama established his relationship with Wright long before any of his inflammatory comments were made (and before Obama was made aware of them), while John McCain embraced Fallwell, Hagee, and Parsley with full knowledge of their bigoted reputations after they had argued their positions publicly. " I'm not sure whether this view is noteworthy enough to include in the article, but it's at least as reliable a source as the National Ledger column being used to support the "Some critics argued that the Wright case is more significant that McCain's..." sentence. (I've never even heard of the National Ledger, but I don't think that a source which has "Britney nipple slip" ads plastered all over every page is particularly high quality.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested compromise text

I've come up with the following possible compromise text for this section, based primarily on the Dionne and Rich columns, with ancillary support from Glenn Greenwald and Cenk Uygur:

Several liberal commentators have contrasted the media's treatment of Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright with the treatment of political candidates who ally themselves with white religious leaders who have made controversial statements. These critics noted that John McCain actively sought the recommendation of John Hagee, who has been criticized for anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim statements and has described Hurricane Katrina as "the judgment of God on the city of New Orleans" for the city's "level of sin" (specifically a planned gay pride march). E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post contended that white religious leaders who make controversial statements often maintain their political influence. He specifically noted the remarks of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who agreed that gays, feminists and liberals shared the blame for the 9/11 attacks, but faced no calls for denunciation by politicians with whom they had relationships. Dionne and other critics acknowledged that the Wright situation was more serious than the other examples, because of Wright's longstanding relationship with Obama, but also suggested that a double standard exists for white religious leaders and black religious leaders. Frank Rich of the New York Times noted that Rudy Giuliani's relationship with Monsignor Alan Placa had gained little media attention. (Placa is a longtime friend of Giuliani and performed his second wedding; Giuliani hired him to work in his consulting firm after Placa was barred from his priestly duties due to sexual abuse allegations.)

It's not perfect — for example, I don't like the way the Placa business (which is mentioned by Rich) dangles at the end of the paragraph. But I think it's better than either the current version (which goes into far too much irrelevant detail, in particular the Clinton bits) or Happyme22's proposal, which IMO doesn't give enough context and has a few errors of fact (for example, Glenn Greenwald was pointing out the double standard back in February, before the Wright matter erupted full force). I'm also concerned that I've given short shrift to conservative counter-arguments (in part because the National Ledger piece doesn't seem reliable enough to me, and I didn't have another conservative opinion piece to hand). But I figure this could be the basis for a new version of the "comparison" section, if other editors agree. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly a good bit of progress, but I'm not sure what fault you find with the National Ledger piece. There are a lot of similarly articulated criticisms, mainly by conservative commentators. Here's one: [9]. I also don't understand why you'd note Guiliani, whose story was largely confined to liberal blogs, and not Romney, whose story got significantly more mainstream attention and led to him making a major speech on the matter. Trilemma (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the National Ledger piece isn't its content, but the notability of the National Ledger as a source. I'm not a prude, but most notable media sources don't need to rely on soft-core porn for advertising dollars. If more mainstream sources have made the same points (and a commentary from John Podhoretz would certainly qualify), the arguments can be included.

As for Giuliani vs. Romney — I included Giuliani because Frank Rich, one of the most notable sources making the "double standard" argument, did. There was some commentary after Obama's Philadelphia speech comparing it to Romney's speech on religion (it's mentioned in "A More Perfect Union"), but I haven't seen anyone saying that Romney got an easier ride than Obama did, or that he has associations with specific religious leaders who deserve scrutiny. Most of the Romney/religion discussion was about how people viewed Mormonism in general, not about specific teachings. And even though the Latter-Day Saints have a highly questionable history when it comes to race, they're not the only denomination with racist skeletons in their closet. (Theirs are just a bit newer than most.) Unless there's a notable source which makes a comparison between Romney's treatment on the issue of religion and Obama's, it's original research for us to include him here.

At least, that's my view. I'm open to hearing other arguments, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a version with the Podhoretz citation (edited to remove the WTA "note"'):

Several liberal commentators have contrasted the media's treatment of Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright with the treatment of political candidates who ally themselves with white religious leaders who have made controversial statements. These critics said that John McCain actively sought the recommendation of John Hagee, who has been criticized for anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim statements and has described Hurricane Katrina as "the judgment of God on the city of New Orleans" for the city's "level of sin" (specifically a planned gay pride march). E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post contended that white religious leaders who make controversial statements often maintain their political influence. He specifically mentioned the remarks of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who agreed that gays, feminists and liberals shared the blame for the 9/11 attacks, but faced no calls for denunciation by politicians with whom they had relationships. Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote that Rudy Giuliani's relationship with Monsignor Alan Placa had gained little media attention. (Placa is a longtime friend of Giuliani and performed his second wedding; Giuliani hired him to work in his consulting firm after Placa was barred from his priestly duties due to sexual abuse allegations.) Conservative commentator John Podhoretz said that the comparison of Wright with Hagee was "entirely specious", because Obama had a longstanding relationship with Wright and McCain has no personal relationship with Hagee. Dionne and Rich acknowledged this point, but also suggested that a double standard exists for white religious leaders and black religious leaders.

I like the structure of this better than my previous effort, since it doesn't end with the tangentially related Placa. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this version is a significant improvement and frames the most relevant issues nicely. Trilemma (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that version is 100% better, but I still disagree with the inclusion of Giuliani and Monsignor. As far as I know, it was not a campaign issue, and surely didn't hurt his nomination chances (his crappy Florida strategy is what did him in). What's more, he isn't a current presidential contender. Happyme22 (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"it was not a campaign issue, and surely didn't hurt his nomination chances" — that's exactly Rich's point. Giuliani had a longtime association with a priest accused of sexual molestation, and it wasn't treated as a campaign issue. Rich is arguing that Obama and Wright are treated more harshly than Giuliani and Placa were, back when Giuliani was considered a major contender for the nomination. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

On the neutrality, specifically Frank Rich's comments: "note" is a word to avoid, it adds an air of certain truth to an opinion. It draws parallels between the two friends of the candidates, though their similarities are not widely agreed upon — that's what the Rich is saying! Was the opposing view — which the media coverage indicates is the majority view — expressed as a rebuttal to Frank Rich? If not, that may indicate that Rich is on the fringe. Thrilltalk 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point about "note" — I've altered the paragraph to get rid of that (even in the example of McCain courting Hagee's endorsement, which is truth rather than opinion). Podhoretz's blog was not responding to Rich specifically, but it was responding to the comparison of Wright and Hagee. Rich's column just ran on Sunday, May 4, so it's a bit soon to expect specific responses to it from noteworthy sources. I don't think that a New York Times columnist can really be considered a "fringe" figure — although the Times has been accused of liberal bias recently, it's still considered America's newspaper of record. Finally, this proposed paragraph puts a lot less emphasis on the comparison than the version currently in the article — I think it's an appropriate weight for the matter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it's better than what we've got now. I say put it in Josiah. Happyme22 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. If other editors want to add more material on this, it should be cited to reliable and verifiable sources which have explicitly compared the other candidates' religious associations to Obama's. (Incidentally, I asked Cryptographic hash if he was interested in finding a way to incorporate the Frank Schaeffer material into this proposed text, but he was not interested.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a few editors are choosing to ignore the discussion process in favor of continuing to edit to their liking...Trilemma (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey on Parallel Incidents/Comparison with other candidates

Background: On April 30 User:Wnt created a "Parallel incidents” section on the talk page. He had requested that a brief section titled "Comparison with other candidates" be included in the article. Other editors felt it was off-topic and commented that it should not be included at all, or that a limited amount of material would be acceptable. A few editors thought that the (brief) section was relevant and should be included. On May 4 User:Happyme22 created another section titled "Comparison with other candidates" under a section titled ”My recent edits” where the topic was also discussed. Various revisions of a summary paragraph were proposed and an acceptable version gained consensus. A review of comments in both sections reflected the following categories and the opinion's of editor's who participated in the discussions.

1. Include no material

User:VeritasAgent

2. Include all of the material in its current form.

User:Ewenss, User:Cryptographic_hash, User:CyberAnth

3. Include a brief amount of material (brief list/description of candidate controversies.)

User:Wnt, User:Grsz11

4. Acceptable summary paragraph

User:Happyme22, User:Josiah_Rowe,User:Trilemma,User:Thrill_going_up_my_leg

Conclusion: I see no real consensus of editors.

Please Note: I was wrong when I reverted to the summary paragraph. I was relying on only a review of the second section and edit summaries stating that there was a consensus of editors. IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review IP 75. I would agree with the above; my personal opinion is that no material should be included, but for the sake of WP:NPOV, I am willing to put my own views aside (something that is necessary for all Wikipedians to do) and I am in favor of the compromise text.

The key to resolving disputes, or "no concensus" outcomes, is discussion. Therefore, I suggest to User:Ewenss, User:Cryptographic hash, and User:CyberAnth to please go through the text (which appears in its full form above) and explain to the rest of us why you don't like it. Don't simply revert in the article space. After that, I will give my opinions and other theirs, and hopefully we can come up with something. I would like to encourage editors to read or re-read WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOTABILITY. But discussion is key to reolving disputes. Happyme22 (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary for "mediation cabal"

I posted this to the mediation discussion page linked from the box at top, but Happyme22 reverted it because he says a mediator has to take up the case before discussion. (That seems unlikely to me, because why would someone take up the case without discussion? And most of the cases needing moderators already have discussions. And I don't see any such advice given. And why start a mediation process and have a box at the top of the page that says it can't go away until the case is resolved if you don't intend to take it to them? I swear I think he's making up rules out of thin air.) As I said there:

I was only involved in starting the "comparison with other candidates" section, and I've explained my position on the talk page, but to recap:

1. I think an article about a political controversy should explain, in detail, what people on both sides of the issue are saying, including Wikilinks, references, and well-chosen quotes.

2. I do not think that an "equal time" standard exists or should exist on Wikipedia, and do not agree with the deletion of any sourced material simply in order to achieve "balance". We all have our biases, but the fair way to fight for our POV is by doing the work of explaining it and documenting it with reliable sources, not removing the "other side"'s arguments.

3. Any claims that this article is biased toward Wright and Obama need to be balanced against the reality that Wright preached for 37 years and was widely respected throughout his entire career. My opinion is that the news articles that chose a few choice quotes were biased against him. Wikipedia's BLP policy aspires to a higher standard than sensationalistic mass media - we shouldn't just pick a quote that looks bad without giving a chance for someone to explain what he said sympathetically, or focus on the criticism of Obama without asking whether other candidates were held to the same standard.

4. We do need to remedy any places where details are added in an inconsistent way. There is fair reason to question when a long quote should be used from a certain source, or which academic sources, comedians, etc. are cited. However, rampant deletionism is not the way to do this. We should let people dump everything they can find a source for into the article, then use structural organization to highlight the more important commentary, and help keep the article concise by summarizing less relevant quotations but not removing their citations or summary altogether. Obviously a lot has been published about this controversy - which means that when finished this is likely to be a large article.

5. I think that the scope of the comparisons with other candidates section is reasonable. It reviews reliable sources citing similar issues for other candidates in the same election cycle specifically in relation to this issue. (For Wikipedia it clearly doesn't matter if they're still in the race or not) I started the section because to me, this comparison seemed the most important piece of information for deciding whether Obama's actions were out of line for the typical standards of behavior for presidential candidates.

6. Both sides need some remedial instruction about weasel words and words to avoid, because the loaded language has been contributing to edit warring and NPOV issues.

Wnt (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that I was involved in a MedCab before, and they recommended not beginning discussion until a mediator takes up the case. Again, there is no need to personally attack me or question my mental capability when it comes to "making thing up". Those comments are not helpful, and as I said to you a few discussions above, if you are going to attack or accuse me of something then we are not going to get anything resolved.

I will comment more on this post when I have more time to go through it. Happyme22 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've just finished a close review of the last two days' editing, and found that three different editors violated the three-revert rule. That's completely unacceptable. All three have been blocked, and I hope they will all return with a more cooperative attitude.

For future reference, if your changes to an article are repeatedly reverted, do not make them again until you have attempted to engage the editors who disagree with them on the talk page. If another editor is reverting repeatedly, remind them why edit warring is a bad idea. If they continue, and violate 3RR, report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. (If an administrator had been notified of the edit war sooner, it could have been stopped sooner. I'm at fault as well for not noticing the reversions in progress, and not dealing with the edit war until it was drawn to my attention.) Do not respond to repeated reversion by reverting yourself: remember that it takes at least two to edit war. If an edit is egregious enough, another editor will correct it in time. (Remember, there is no deadline.)

I may or may not have time to monitor this page closely over the next few days, but if the edit war resumes I will not hesitate in protecting the page to force a resolution to the conflict here on the talk page. Happyme22 made a good move in calling for mediation. I strongly encourage all the editors, including those who are currently blocked, to join the mediation process and work together towards a neutrally worded article that's acceptable to all. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by hard-core political partisans at Wikipedia who come to take a shit all over articles are far less acceptable than people breaking 3RR to try send them away, but the shit-takers continue on with impunity a day later while the letter of the law against people doing the right thing is upheld. Make sure you block yourself, too, for not being around to help push back the shit-takers--people who have no interest in building "consensus" because they are at an article for one thing and one thing only: to take a shit on it. Something ain't right. Cryptographic hash (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to reply by saying "Well, that was helpful," but then I remembered that sarcasm isn't helpful either. More to the point, if you encounter POV-pushers, there are two courses of action: fight them, or educate them. I've found the latter to be generally more effective in the long run. Of course, there are exceptions, but usually if you take the time to work cooperatively with people you disagree with, the article is improved. By contrast, if you're more interested in calling people names than working with them, nothing gets done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, your post assumes numerous naive things. 1) that certain people with long edit histories do not understand NPOV and need to be educated about it; 2) that they are actually interested in anything other than POV pushing. Cryptographic hash (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You call it naiveté, I call it assuming good faith. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What you call AGF works no where in the world, including Wikipedia, because it is based upon a view of human nature and behavior that says "most people are well meaning". What is realistic is "Assume nothing, go by evidence". The evidence here shows that pure POV pushers were repeatedly shitting on the article and were not well-meaning, but in blind-adherence to a rule you ignored that and blocked the people using shovels to pick up shit-piles just the same. Shame on you, utter shame. Cryptographic hash (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no such evidence. Two of the editors I blocked were reverting back and forth over the inclusion or exclusion of one or two paragraphs, and neither made any effort to discuss the matter or explain their positions. Each side probably believed that they were "picking up shit-piles", as you so charmingly put it, but they obviously had different views of what constituted the "shit". And since neither was interested in discussing their position, the article became a war zone where it was not possible to make constructive contributions.

Characterizing the other editors as "POV pushers" is not productive. (See this essay for some reasons why.) Instead, focus on the specific edits that you find problematic, and discuss them with other editors. If a consensus emerges that the edits favored by one contributor are not neutral, or not in keeping with a Wikipedia guideline or policy, they will be reverted; if the editor persists in adding material against consensus, he or she will be blocked. However, it is possible that the editor will recognize his or her error, or convince those who initially oppose his or her edits that they are in fact warranted. The key is discussion.

However, if you're not willing to engage in that discussion-based consensus-building process, then perhaps you don't belong on Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Emerging Viruses vs Medical Apartheid

I'm the source of the citation of Leonard Horowitz's Emerging Viruses, which Wright mentioned in support of his HIV=genocide statement. Now I find myself wondering if it really belongs here. Do we catalogue all of Wright's statements -- and statements about his statements -- and talk about how true, false, or indeterminate they are? And how they relate, and what he might really have meant?

I've added a note about Harriet A. Washington's Medical Apartheid, which Wright also mentioned in the same National Press Club Q&A context, practically in the same breath as Emerging Viruses. IMHO, these two works are not comparable. Horowitz and Washington both have their opinions, obviously, but Horowitz is a pretty overt conspiracy theorist and Washington is not. Horowitz believes HIV was engineered; Washington says nothing in support of this in Medical Apartheid (AFAIK). However, is this sort of distinction really within scope of this article, at least before anybody in the media comments on this implicit comparison? And has anyone commented publicly on any such distinction (or lack of one)?

So far, all I can find in this vein is the transcript of an interview on FOX with a friend of Wright's, Rev. Ruth Hawley-Lowery. After being asked

when [Wright] talks about the government causing AIDS and when he talks about 9/11 and things like that, does that at all trouble you, some of those positions?

Rev. Hawley-Lowery says of Wright

He mentioned the book Medical Apartheid. I have not read the book. For the heck of it, I looked on Amazon.com and it's in the top 2500 today. And so that — books like that address that.

This is unfortunate. But is it within scope? If so, in what way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If we include something in the article we should explain what it means. If Wright mentioned a gila monster we'd link to gila monster... if we're going to cover the controversy we need to explain what he said and what other people said about him, including what it means and what the sources are. Wnt (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

More polls

Rasmussen Reports has a poll and poll analysis which should probably be added to the "Polls" section. I'll let someone else do the work though, because it's 3:45 where I am and I really should get some sleep at some point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Obama's second statement

Currently there's nothing about the response to Obama's second, stronger statement. One that I put in was subsequently removed. It's from National Review's Victor David Hanson. Excerpting the part: "I think we have sort of reached an impasse on Rev. Wright. Most Americans, I think, accept the following realties. Obama, by what he wrote in his memoirs, by what he said when he spoke in his early campaign speeches, by his frequent praise of Wright, and by his 20-year presence in front of, and subsidies to, Wright knew exactly the racist and anti-American nature of his odious pastor." [10]. Surely a few other media commentaries on his second statement can likewise be presented to represent the range of responses. Trilemma (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we could use more on this, and I agree that Victor Davis Hansen is a noteworthy critic. Of course, we can't have his be the only media response to the second statement, but I'm sure that finding noteworthy commentary with different views won't be too difficult. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt of one from Noam Scheiber of the New Republic: "I thought Obama put the distance he needed to between himself and Wright just now...The other lingering question is whether people will wonder all over again how Obama could have been friends with this guy for 20 years. It's a legitimate concern, but if it didn't weigh him down too much after the Phildelphia speech in March, I wouldn't expect it to do him in this time. Wright's "performance" yesterday struck me as new and brazen enough to warrant a different reaction than Obama would have had in the past."[11]

And, one from John McWhorter: "now that the Reverend Wright has gone on tour and given us full doses of these professionally alienated postures from another time, it is good to see that Mr. Obama has had the courage to decisively break with him. Sad, too — the man was his pastor, after all. But here is one more way that Mr. Obama is learning what hardball really is." [12] I'd say these are a decent range of opinions and sources to include a paragraph under a subheading, something to the extent of:

• Obama's second statement on the controversy elicited a range of responses. Many were positive, including Noam Scheiber of the New Republic, who wrote, "I thought Obama put the distance he needed to between himself and Wright just now...The other lingering question is whether people will wonder all over again how Obama could have been friends with this guy for 20 years. It's a legitimate concern, but if it didn't weigh him down too much after the Phildelphia speech in March, I wouldn't expect it to do him in this time. Wright's "performance" yesterday struck me as new and brazen enough to warrant a different reaction than Obama would have had in the past." American linguist and social commentator John McWhorter wrote, "now that the Reverend Wright has gone on tour and given us full doses of these professionally alienated postures from another time, it is good to see that Mr. Obama has had the courage to decisively break with him. Sad, too — the man was his pastor, after all. But here is one more way that Mr. Obama is learning what hardball really is." Others, however criticized Obama. Victor Davis Hansen wrote, "I think we have sort of reached an impasse on Rev. Wright. Most Americans, I think, accept the following realties. Obama, by what he wrote in his memoirs, by what he said when he spoke in his early campaign speeches, by his frequent praise of Wright, and by his 20-year presence in front of, and subsidies to, Wright knew exactly the racist and anti-American nature of his odious pastor." Trilemma (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources?

Several sources being used in this article seem questionable to me. VeritasAgent recently added a reference from the "New Media Journal"; we've also got citations to the "American Digest" and the "National Ledger". I wasn't familiar with any of these sources, and none of them seem to have a Wikipedia article. Of course, neither of those is a criterion for reliability, but I'm still concerned that these sources aren't sufficiently reliable or notable to use here. (If my concern is merely based on ignorance of right-wing new media sources, I'm open to evidence showing that these are noteworthy.)

I hasten to note that it's not the conservatism I object to — the citations to well-known conservative sources such as the National Review and Fox News are perfectly acceptable. But it seems to me that some of these less well-known conservative sources have been added in a misguided attempt to balance noteworthy liberal sources like the Huffington Post and Salon.com (both of which, although "new media", have won awards from mainstream journalism organizations). If people are looking for conservative commentary from reliable sources, the National Review, American Spectator and Weekly Standard are all well-regarded, and all have extensive online branches. But we should be focusing on what mainstream sources (both conservative and liberal) have to say, not cherry-picking partisan websites to justify arguments we want to make. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Huffington paragraph

As discussed above, the Arianna Huffington piece criticizing the media for failure to cover the Pentagon's "military advisors" propaganda program doesn't mention Obama or Wright. It's original research to interpret her comment about the "last ten days" as being about the Wright affair. (Wright re-emerged on Bill Moyers on April 25, which is when the media circus got into full swing.) I won't remove the paragraph again now, because I don't want to edit war, but I hope that other editors (including Cryptographic hash (talk · contribs)) will make an effort to keep the article on-topic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, well I did the dirty deed and reverted it again :0 But Josiah Rowe is completely correct in his assertions. Happyme22 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

From the dates she mentions and the date she wrote, you make a simple 3rd grade level inference. You can practice this basic reading skill here. That's not original research by any means. Cryptographic hash (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Insults are not helpful or civil. As for the dates, the "ten days" are April 20–30. The New York Times article about the military advisors ran on April 20. Wright re-emerged on April 25. The "last ten days" clearly refers to the non-coverage of the military advisor story, not the coverage of Wright. It is true that for part of those ten days, the media were closely covering Wright, but that's not what Huffington says, and it's original research for us to make the connection. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just have to say that hearing that sort of thing is just grievous to me. As someone who teaches college literacy it's a great concern that Wikipedia acculturates people to the sort of enforced illiteracy Josiah has displayed above, if it indeed does and he is representative. In point of fact, the Wright issue never went away and was non-stop on the last 5 or so days. Let me ask, so which coverage, and she specifically mentioned "coverage", was she referring to when she called the coverage "among the most shameful in the history of American journalism". What was being played instead of the NY Times piece? Obviously, it was the Wright story, and non-stop in the last half or so, and not the NY Times story, which should have been a major story with major coverage, according to Huffington. Yes, it is a matter of simple inference. Ewenss (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But we can't be in the business of making those inferences. That's a synthesis of Huffington's words and independent knowledge about the media coverage during that period. As citizens, it's important that we display the information literacy you advocate, and draw conclusions from the context in which a written article appears; but as Wikipedians, we can't do that. We have to stick to what's explicitly there, because other people might emphasize different contextual elements and arrive at a different conclusion. See the "synthesis" section of the no original research policy for more details, and an example which is parallel to this one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the dates, what would those "different contextual elements" be? If an American political journalist wrote in December 1941 that events of the month on the island of Pearl Harbor "had been horrible", would you infer that the journalist was referring to something other than the attack at Pearl Harbor? Of course not, unless you were willing to willfully suspend your basic common sense and demand the the attack be explicitly mentioned because the journalist "could be referring to different contextual elements". Same deal here, or was Huffington maybe referring to the poor coverage in the media's Food Sections? But all this is so very obvious I can actually no longer assume good faith with you, and believe you are merely game-playing to bowdlerize the article for your political agenda. Ewenss (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only assure you that I'm not game-playing at all — my interest is in keeping the article neutral, and avoiding the edit warring we had a few days ago. I disagree with your Pearl Harbor analogy, because you're interpreting the negative space in Huffington's article. She doesn't mention what the media was discussing, she talks about what they weren't discussing. It's not like your Pearl Harbor example — it's more like the Holocaust, insofar as that was a story that wasn't covered enough at the time. Imagine a 1942 newspaper column saying that American news media wasn't giving enough coverage to the situation in the Warsaw Ghetto (as they weren't). Such a column would be an appropriate reference for an article about the Holocaust, but not for an article about the Battle of Guadalcanal or the Battle of Stalingrad, which were both going on at the same time and got much more media coverage.

I'm also curious what political agenda you think I have — I suspect you might be surprised by my actual political views, and my opinions on this controversy (which I've tried to keep from affecting my editing, in accordance with the neutral point of view policy). I encourage you to do the same. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional thought on Huffington: although she does not mention the media obsession with Wright in the column you wish to cite, she does discuss it in a subsequent blog entry. That would be much more appropriate for this article, because it's directly about the media's treatment of Jeremiah Wright. In that blog post, she notes, "Getting far less airtime was the fact that April was the deadliest month in Iraq for US troops since September 2007." Including that here would not be original research. Including the other article is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You've completely not understood the basic idea of what has been said. Cryptographic hash (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pastor

Rev. Wright is one of many retired "senior" pastors. I added the qualifier "senior" to indicate this. Trinity has many, many pastors on staff. Also, he is a "pastor 'of' Obama", not "pastor 'to'," which makes it sound like Rev. Wright is Obama's personal pastor, almost like he is retained as spiritual counsel, as in "advisor 'to' the President". In a 10,000 member church, (and as a retired pastor myself) I can assure everyone that Rev. Wright's main duties were preaching and strategic leadership. If someone feels strongly that there is some special, intimate relationship between Wright and Obama, that warrants the more intimiate "pastor to," evidence needs to be provided. The fact that Wright married Obama and baptized his kids just means he provided services that all professional clergy provide to their members. It does not imply an intimate relationship. This is something people unfamiliar with churches may not realize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.250.188 (talk • contribs) 08:16, May 6, 2008

Than You for your input and I agree with everything you have said. When I initially revised the lead, it stated "a retired pasor". It was later changed by other editors to "the retired pasor".75.31.210.156 (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this go beyond "services that all professional clergy provide to their members"?:

Obama says that rather than advising him on strategy, Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.
"What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama said. "He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."[13]

Andyvphil (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NO 75.31.210.156 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive box

I've added an archive box above. If the article moves again, could someone please ensure the archives move with it, or that the links are left on the page. Thanks. The redlink is for the next archive, which could be sometime soon, as the page is getting quite long. Depends whether the discussions are finished or not. Carcharoth (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Moyers weighs in again

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/watch.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.86.37 (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly a useful and important contribution to the dialogue, and a source we should use for the article. We can also use this piece by CNN's Roland S. Martin, which mentions Moyers' opinion piece and stakes out some new territory in the discussion of association with people who've made controversial or impolitic remarks, in the wake of the Wright affair. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)