Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

Arbitrary section break 1.0

Sorry for being so slow in responding. Today was a very busy work day. I've had a thorough reread of the thread. If I understand correctly, "media scrutiny" is the only remaining issue in this paragraph.

I've spent some time looking at the discussion of similar issues in articles on other politicians, including but not limited to John McCain (GA-class), John Kerry, Mike Huckabee, and Hillary Clinton (GA-class). Based upon my reading of these articles, in particular sections on controversies of roughly comparable weight, I believe the use of the word "criticism" by itself would be entirely fair, appropriate, and consistent with prevailing practice on Wikipedia. I therefore recommend changing "media scrutiny" to "critisism" as follows:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. A lot adjacent to the house was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who then sold part of it to the Obamas the following year; Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions attracted criticism because they occurred after Rezko was already under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

While discussing further, please keep in mind that taking a nose-count on this or any other issue is dangerous, not least because it invites sock-puppetry (as we have seen) but also because among editors of articles on any politician, there will be a built-in sampling bias in that people tend to focus on subjects they have researched extensively, and people tend to most extensively research people they like. I believe the language above is fair, neutral and balanced. the existence of criticism can easily be documented, so the statement is accurate, It does not make any assertion one way or the other as to wrongdoing, and in fact the final sentence of the paragraph further clarifies that Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, how about just dropping "media" and just saying "The property transactions attracted scrutiny..." The attention to the transaction (and Obama's relationship with Rezko as a whole) is from more than just the media and use of the word "scrutiny" seems to avoid the potential POV concerns about the word "criticism" that have been raised while still reflecting that more than normal attention was paid to the matter. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the paragraph, "scrutiny" may be worse than "criticism". Scrutiny implies "close investigation". Given the mention of Rezko being "under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges" later in the sentence, the construct would suggest that Obama was investigated for wrongdoing, there is no indication that was the case. From the perspective of an Obama supporter, criticism is an unpleasant word, sure, but the attention the transaction drew was, in fact, criticism. I haven't seen a single source out there saying the transactions were a wise move. Certainly Obama himself has not said so. Also, "criticism" is balanced by the assertion that Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent point. I was just throwing it out there as an option, but it has been quite soundly squished as an option. :) Suggestion stricken.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, your claim that "criticism" is more neutral than "scrutiny" isn't universally accepted. The transactions were scrutinized -- closely examined -- after which some may have criticized Obama and others may have not. I will not support using the word "criticism" over "scrutiny" in this article, period, because the latter is more encompassing and accurate. Shem^(talk) 23:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It's pointing the criticism to the deal which attracted the "scrutiny". --Floridianed (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate it. But I can accept it. Noroton (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem. Now that Noroton is willing to accept this version can you find a way to give in that last little bit and go with it? Now we have a real chance to put this behind us so please consider. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No; the Rick Block proposal already contains significant "giving in" when you bear in mind that many editors don't consider Rezko relevant to the biography at all. "Scrutiny" is more encompassing, neutral, and just plain accurate. Introducing the word "criticism" (one of WorkerBee's demands) would diminish this article and is a deal-breaker for me. It's another "squares and rectangles" issue; the transactions were scrutinized (looked at closely), but not all who scrutinized the transactions criticized Obama for them. If Noroton wants to reject the Rick Block version and argue that this has become a "no consensus" discussion, I'm now perfectly fine with that result; I'd rather have the current language than see "criticism" introduced. Shem^(talk) 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest people take two or three steps back so they can see how small the question is over which word we should choose. There was clearly some criticism, and some scrutiny. Both words, though, are not encompassing. Criticism (in this sense - the word has multiple meanings) is a negative comment about something, coupled with some degree of argumentation or analysis. Scrutiny means a higher-than-ordinary degree of examination, in an attempt to see if something is wrong. Most of the media weren't scrutinizing, no more than they normally do on any story. They didn't subject it to an extra degree of review as compared to other stories nor were most of them looking for a skeleton in the closet. They were just reporting - reporting what happened, who said what, what people thought about it, whatever. What's the gravamen of what we're trying to say? Mainly that it became an issue. It came to light. It was discussed. It was reported on. People scratched their heads and thought about it. We've all agreed that the end of the paragraph will say it "created an appearance of impropriety". Well that's negative. If someone had said Mr. Obama, you have created the appearance of impropriety...that sounds like a criticism to me. Given that the fact we report is already as strong as any characterization of people's reaction to it, why not simply say neutrally that the issue came to light and attracted attention (or some other neutral word)? But really, the difference is so slight compared to the overall scope of this article that I personally am happy with any compromise people could come up with. Wikidemo (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I most definitely consider an hour and a half of unlimited questions solely on this issue alone before the Chicago Tribune board "an extra degree of review." Shem^(talk) 03:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Conditions

I am prepared to offer qualified support for the following, slightly-adjusted text:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. A lot adjacent to the house was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who then sold part of it to the Obamas the following year; Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions drew criticism because they occurred after Rezko was already under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transactions a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Note that I've changed "attracted criticism" to "drew criticism", which I feel slightly softens this very judgmental word. I have also added an "s" to "transaction" in the last sentence. I am not happy with this version, but I will accept it with the following qualifiers:

Within reason*, this version would remain unchanged until after the election.
This version will not be used as a new "baseline" from which "inclusionists" and anti-Obama editors can push for more detail, or additional negative bias. This is already a significant compromise from what many editors feel is appropriate.
Editors will agree that, according to WP:RECENT, a future version of the article will scale back coverage accordingly*.
Any proposed changes to the text would require a completely new consensus-building discussion to take place.
Any undiscussed changes to the article should be reverted, with the edit summary pointing to the archive of this discussion.

* If a new development were to occur, such as a previously unknown "revelation" or a significant (national) increase in media coverage, changes could be considered.

-- Scjessey (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can propose changes here, and WorkerBee74 and Kossak4Truth and any other editor have that right, so condition 1 and 2 can't be guaranteed by anybody here. Personally, I will not support that. I expect this to be condensed if he is elected president because pressure will increase to add new information and condense old info. If he isn't elected, that will happen more slowly. Scaling back needs to be looked at in context and no promises can possibly be made about that now, but it would be natural for us to be open to it. The last two numbered items are fully in line with policy and guidelines and what I always expected. I support those two fully. I would not support changing this consensus version once posted. If any unpredictable event makes an enormous change in Obama's life -- dramatic scandal, that other possibility we don't want to even mention, some utterly dramatic turn in the campaign -- then all bets are off and we of course could consider condensation or removal of this in order to make space for information obviously far more important, but I'm talking catastrophe here, not the normal campaign reversals. Just keep in mind that this is not simply a campaign issue and it doesn't automatically go out the window the day after the election.

I have no problem with Scjessey's language. Here are some style tweaks to make it slightly shorter, but editors might not feel it flows as well. I won't argue if there are objections (the change after "Tony Rezko" is really necessary, since the former "who then" must refer to the immediately preceding person):

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. An adjacent lot was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and she sold part of it to the Obamas the following year; Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions drew criticism because they occurred after Rezko was already under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transactions a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

For style reasons alone, I'd remove "charges" after the word "corruption" in the second-to-last sentence, but I think it would be divisive, so never mind. I think we'll need more sourcing, but I haven't looked into it. Noroton (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the "attracted criticism" awkward phrasing. Perhaps the following?

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. A lot adjacent to the house was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who then sold part of it to the Obamas the following year; Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions ~~attracted criticism because they~~ occurred after Rezko was ~~already~~ under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any legal or ethical wrongdoing, he has been criticized for these transactions which he has acknowledged ~~called a "boneheaded move" that~~ created an appearance of impropriety~~, and~~. He donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

The tradeoff here is if we're going to include "criticism" then, to remain NPOV, we need to strengthen the "no accusation of wrongdoing" wording. I think putting these in the same sentence, and explicitly saying "legal or ethical" accomplishes this. If we need references for the baselessness of the criticisms, perhaps [1] would do (the ex-governor of Illinois, a Republican, calls Rezko's dealings with Obama "overblown") or [2] (the seller confirms Obama's version of the original sale) or [3] (Tom Bevan, a self-proclaimed conservative blogger for RealClearPolitics, says the Tribune's treatment of at least one aspect of this controversy is "over the top" and that he wonders whether there "isn't more to Clarke's argument [in the New Republic, that this is a non-scandal] than I originally thought") or [4] (where credit for much of the attention to the Obama/Rezko matter is given to "a long-planned and well-orchestrated communications plan by the Republican National Committee"). I won't insist that we include the words "baseless" or "politically motivated", but I think it's fairly clear both actually apply in this case. Wikipedia needs to be very careful to avoid being used to advance either side's agenda. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why the fact that a politician has been criticized is such a traumatic thing to acknowledge. Kinda happens all the time to the current president, and to every campaigner. Get used to it, folks. Rick, when Obama himself says he created an appearance of impropriety, that makes a statement that "Obama has not been accused of any [...] ethical wrongdoing" problematic. A lot of ethics is about appearances even when you're not guilty of wrongdoing in any deeper ethical or legal way. That's a gray area we need to stay away from -- you're creating unnecessary confusion. Leave it at "wrongdoing" and "legal" is assumed since nobody, really, uses the phrase "ethical wrongdoing" (sounds like an oxymoron, too -- some reader will want to change it to "unethical wrongdoing" and then some other reader will come by and remove the "unethical" with an edit summary saying "all wrongdoing is unethical"). I'm unimpressed with the Chicago Tribune story, which I'd seen and thought was totally unimportant. A total of three of my sources out of the long list still posted at the top of this page were published after the Rezko verdict when the "long-planned" communications campaign apparently went into effect. Whether or not this is a "scandal" hasn't been part of our discussions and doesn't affect the proposed wording. And now you're proposing we remove "boneheaded move" which Obama repeated again and again from 2006 to 2008? No. Stylistically it's a bright spot in a sometimes dull article. There is no POV problem with us reporting the fact that he's been criticized. And Bevan actually criticized the New Republic piece:

I had planned on slamming Clarke for the simple reason that Obama's association with a shady dealer like Rezko is a reflection of Obama's judgment and character and is totally fair game, in the same way that Rudy Giuliani's association with Bernie Kerik will undoubtedly be used against him - as it was the other day by Charlie Rangel. I still believe that, and if more serious details about Obama's direct dealings with Rezko emerge, they should be given fair scrutiny.

The passage is better in Scjessey's or my last versions, which also flow better. I can't agree to Rick Block's suggestions. Noroton (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And I can't agree to Rick Block's new version given his swap for the word "criticism." Rick's previous version had consensus -- something we're now clearly straying from again. Shem^(talk) 03:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the flow. My latest suggestion puts the temporal sequencing of the transactions (the sentence starting with "The property transactions ...") in its own sentence, as a plain verifiable fact. In the Scjessey/Noroton version (and I admit I may have been the original author of this particular sentence) the "drew criticism because" phrase is included in this sentence, which makes it an inference (albeit an inference that any idiot should be able to make). In my latest version the "criticism" phrase is juxtaposed with the "no accusation of wrongdoing" phrasing, which I think makes this a more neutral presentation (of both the no wrongdoing and criticism phrases). The two facts that Obama has been accused of no wrongdoing and that he's been criticized are the two POV sides of the same event. Presenting these in the same sentence is the essence of NPOV. The "although" ordering in this sentence may give a slight editorial edge to the "no accusations of wrongdoing" side, but the reverse order ("Although Obama has been criticized for these transactions which he has acknowledged created an appearance of impropriety, he has not been accused of any wrongdoing.") makes no sense since it reverses the potential causality. Deleting the "boneheaded" quote is in the interest of space and readability ("has acknowledged" vs. "called a boneheaded move that"). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing will come of more distraction

With Shem's recent insertion of modified language as a concession to Noroton, and with Noroton's immediate reversion of that, I am 100% certain that no changed language will escape edit warring. Moreover, looking at the diff, the "old" language that's been there for a week verbatim, and for a month minus some cosmetic wording improvements, really is slightly better than Shem's attempted (consensus) insertion. I'd be happy to live with the slightly expanded version, but it's not an actual improvement (so I won't personally restore it).

This discussion most pointedly is not aimed at reaching consensus on the part of those two or three editors who want to get more anti-Obama language into the article for no purpose other than being explicitly anti-Obama. 5 or 10 neutral-ish editors have OK'd the changed language Shem tried putting in, and that language is predominantly an effort to address the stated desires of Noroton.

Workerbee74—who has happily been blocked for a few days (not long enough, but it's a start)—simply wants the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible, apparently out of a political antipathy to its subject. Those "concerns" can most certainly never be addressed within an encyclopedic article, so our only choice is to simply disregard and ignore any comments by him/her. Noroton seems primarily concerned with an avenue for his/her long political essays (probably 30k words on the topic by now, far in excess of every other editor; probably all others combined). I have suggested with a genuine absence of ill-will that a better forum for these long essays is a personal blog, or other opinion publication. A WP talk page is just not an appropriate place for this type of material. In any case, it appears that his/her goal is to prevent a "rough consensus" from settling, because doing so would remove the justification for the continued essays.

So please everyone, just let the discussion fall silent. Let's use this talk page for productive discussion, and let the article keep it's perfectly neutral and concise version of the Rezko material. Dont' feed the trolls. LotLE×talk 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the proposed ground rules for discussion proposed at the outset, please do not make changes to this section of the article until consensus is reached. In those same ground rules it was proposed that if any author changed the section before consensus was reached, any other editor could revert the change on sight. User:Noroton's reversion is perfectly appropriate and simply signifies that discussion is continuing, which it is. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I never accepted any "proposed ground rules" other than Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Shem^(talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clearer, many of us did. You aren't helping. Arkon (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. Now that the sockpuppet legions've been largely dealt with, it seems to me that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are perfectly capable of handling this article. Shem^(talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The point in this that I'd like to respond to is about Noroton's "essays". The dude has done stellar work, absolutely essential work actually, in regards to sourcing for this article and in attempting to satisfy objections with yet -MORE- sources. We've all done things that we can be criticized for, but this isn't even close to being there. Arkon (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lulu's convinced me to self-revert. While the compromise may better reflect some editors' desires, I don't consider it an improvement. I tried to implement a strongly-backed compromise, but if Noroton's content to filibuster the gesture (including explicitly threatening to game 3RR to prevent it), I'll gladly keep the status quo version instead. Shem^(talk) 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think we should declare / enforce consensus over Noroton's objections (some of the less thoughtful editors are a nother matter). So though I think your attempt was too bold I do tend to agree that if we can't get everyone on board it is indeed a "no consensus day." Part of my reasoning is that I don't want to reach an agreement among those people who favor a relatively light treatment of the Rezko material, only to leave the edit open to later attack by people who want to insert a harsher slant or declare that there wasn't really consensus for that version. Let's get it right, now, and all agree that we've done our best! If we can't do that, move on. But we should try very hard. It is very close. Some of the positions that seem to be hardening are really just the last attempt to register an objection before saying it's time now. That's a common last step in any negotiation. Wikidemo (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should declare / enforce consensus over Noroton's objections: It's when this line here became "conventional wisdom" on this talk page that the discussion quit being about consensus altogether. Shem^(talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Affirming Rick Block's widely-supported version

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. A lot adjacent to the house was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who then sold part of it to the Obamas the following year; Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions attracted media scrutiny because they occurred after Rezko was already under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

This was the version around which this Talk page's greatest manifestation of consensus coalesced. We're now rapidly losing what'd been forged from the discussion, review, and revision that's taken place here. It's time to refocus: Are there any objections to this version other than Noroton and WorkerBee's desire to see the word "criticism" injected? Shem^(talk) 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mine too now, but since there seems to be a fair amount of acceptance from both sides, I could just as easily ask the following:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. A lot adjacent to the house was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who then sold part of it to the Obamas the following year; Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions drew criticism because they occurred after Rezko was already under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transactions a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Are there any objections to this version other than Shem's desire to see "criticism" excluded?

Or, given the fact that there is still give and take occurring on both sides, perhaps the discussion, although long and at times frustrating, has perhaps not yet run its course.

The word "criticism" is widely used on Wikipedia in a variety of similar situations, for example:

John McCain: In 1997, McCain became chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee; he was criticized for accepting funds from corporations and businesses under the committee's purview,[103] but in response said the restricted contributions he received were not part of the big-money nature of the campaign finance problem.
John McCain: The McCain campaign faced criticism about lobbyists in its midst,[205] and issued new rules in May 2008 calling for campaign staff to either cut lobbying ties or leave, so as to avoid any potential conflict of interest; five top aides left
Hillary Clinton: Bill Clinton had made more statements attracting criticism for their perceived racial implications late in the South Carolina campaign,[267] and by now his role was seen as damaging enough to her[268] that a wave of supporters within and outside of the campaign said the former President "needs to stop."
Mike Huckabee: Huckabee has come under criticism for his handling of the case of Wayne DuMond (also spelled Dumond), a convicted rapist who was released during Huckabee's governorship.
Mike Huckabee: Later in 2001, his refusal to raise taxes in the face of a budget shortfall sparked criticism from lawmakers and the media.
Mike Huckabee: In November 2006, both Huckabee and his wife drew criticism for creating wedding registries in the amount of over $6000 at both the Target and Dillard's web sites, in conjunction with a housewarming party to celebrate a new house they had purchased in Little Rock.
Mike Huckabee: Over the years, Huckabee has made a number of public statements that have drawn criticism,[193][194][195][196][197][198] including comparing his weight loss to the experience of a concentration camp, for which the National Jewish Democratic Council chastised Huckabee;[199] his joking about suicide while speaking of fundraising efforts by himself and his opponents in the Republican primaries, for which he was criticized by various suicide awareness groups;[200] and his asking "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" when discussing Mitt Romney's religion.[201][202]
Mike Huckabee: In December 2007, Huckabee was criticized for his comments subsequent to the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. He said that Pakistan has more illegal immigrants to the United States than any country but Mexico. However, INS data indicates that Pakistan is nowhere near the top of the list.
John Kerry: On April 18, 1985, a few months after taking his Senate seat, Kerry and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa traveled to Nicaragua and met the country's president, Daniel Ortega. Though Ortega was democratically elected, the trip was criticized because Ortega and his leftist Sandinista government had strong ties to Cuba and the USSR.
Al Gore: In 1996 Gore was criticized for attending an event at the Buddhist Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, California (see 1996 United States campaign finance controversy). In an interview on NBC's Today the following year, he stated that, "I did not know that it was a fund-raiser. I knew it was a political event, and I knew there were finance people that were going to be present, and so that alone should have told me, 'This is inappropriate and this is a mistake; don't do this.' And I take responsibility for that. It was a mistake."
Michael Dukakis: The most controversial criticism against Dukakis involved his support for a prison furlough program.
Michael Dukakis: He was criticized during the campaign for a perceived softness on defense issues, particularly the controversial "Star Wars" SDI program, which Dukakis promised to scale down (although not cancel).
George W. Bush (lede): After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism and began losing support from his Republican base largely due to his stance on illegal immigration and government spending.
George W. Bush: Bush has received heavy criticism for his handling of the Iraq War, his response to Hurricane Katrina, and to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, NSA warrantless surveillance of terrorists or individuals suspected of involvement with terrorist groups, Scooter Libby/Plamegate, and Guantanamo Bay detainment camp controversies.
George W. Bush: The initial success of U.S. operations increased his popularity, but the U.S. and allied forces faced a growing insurgency led by sectarian groups; Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech would later be criticized as premature.
Criticism of George W. Bush is its own article.

If I am to throw my support behind "scrutiny" over "criticism", I first need help understanding why a word that is so broadly used across Wikipedia in comparable articles and contests is unacceptable in this one. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 09:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Are any of those Featured Articles? No, they're not, and this article should lead by example. The Barack Obama article has gone years without the word "criticism," which was a badge of honor to its credit. Could you please explain why you're treating Noroton's sole objection with total deference (he's been allowed to single-handedly "veto" Rick Block's version by threatening to game 3RR) while dismissing mine offhand? Shem^(talk) 13:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While I concede that none of those articles are featured articles, that does not change the larger point that the word criticism is in use in similar contexts in nearly every article I checked, suggesting, at least, a broad consensus across Wikipedia that the use of the word criticism is appropriate or acceptable in situations like this one. Also, I am not treating anyone's arguments with "total deference" (remember, I have backed your side over Noroton's on several issues here). In an honest effort to understand what a viewpoint that, honestly, I originally opposed, I've done my own research (see my long post above) and now I believe the argument for the use of the word criticism in this context stands on its merits.

To the featured article point, I offer the following examples, which all come from featured articles in the Politics & Government category:

Ronald Reagan: The Reagan administration was criticized for its slow response to the growing HIV-AIDS epidemic.
Ronald Reagan: On October 27, 1986, Reagan signed a drug enforcement bill that budgeted $1.7 billion dollars to fund the War on Drugs and specified a mandatory minimum penalty for drug offenses.[135] The bill was criticized for promoting significant racial disparities in the prison population, because of the differences in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine.
Ronald Reagan: The commission could not find direct evidence that Reagan had prior knowledge of the program, but criticized him heavily for his disengagement from managing his staff, making the diversion of funds possible.
Ronald Reagan: Reagan's foreign policies were criticized variously as aggressive, imperialistic, and known to some as "warmongering."
Wesley Clark: The John Edwards campaign brought on Hugh Shelton — the general who had said Clark was made to leave the SACEUR post early due to "integrity and character issues" — as an advisor, a move that drew criticism from the Clark campaign. (note the use of the exact phrase "drew criticism" here)
Calvin Coolidge: Coolidge has often been criticized for his actions during the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, the worst natural disaster to hit the Gulf Coast until Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Gerald Ford: Ford came under criticism for a 60 Minutes interview his wife Betty gave in 1975, in which she stated that Roe v. Wade was a "great, great decision."
Bob McEwen: When McEwen was late in 1990 to the House because of a massive traffic jam on the I-495 beltway around Washington, D.C., he said on the House floor on February 21 that the District of Columbia's government should be replaced: ... After McEwen was criticized for his remarks, he delivered a thirty-minute speech in the House on March 1, 1990, on "The Worst City Government in America".
Bob McEwen: In 1991, McEwen had also been criticized for his use of the franking privilege and his frequent trips overseas at taxpayer expense, but McEwen defended the trips as part of his work on the Intelligence Committee and in building relationships with legislatures overseas.
Nancy Reagan (appears twice in lede): She became the First Lady of the United States in January 1981 following her husband's victory, but experienced criticism early in his first term largely due to her decision to replenish the White House china. Nancy restored a Kennedy-esque glamor to the White House following years of lax formality, and her interest in high-end fashion garnered much attention, as well as criticism.
Nancy Reagan: Her elegant fashions and wardrobe were also controversial subjects. In 1982, she revealed that she had accepted thousands of dollars in clothing, jewelry, and other gifts, but defended herself by stating that she had borrowed the clothes and that they would either be returned or donated to museums,[66][63] and that she was promoting the American fashion industry.[67] Facing criticism, she soon said she would no longer accept such loans.
Nancy Reagan: The new china, White House renovations, expensive clothing, and her attendance at the royal wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana[73] gave her an aura of being "out of touch" with the American people during an economic recession.[6] This and her taste for splendor inspired the derogatory nickname "Queen Nancy".[6] In an attempt to deflect the criticism, she self-deprecatingly donned a baglady costume at the 1982 Gridiron Dinner and sang "Second-Hand Clothes", mimicking the song "Second-Hand Rose".
Nancy Reagan: Nancy Reagan reflected on the criticisms in her 1989 autobiography, My Turn.
Nancy Reagan: After consultation with doctors, Nancy decided to have a mastectomy performed rather than a lumpectomy.[97] Incredibly, even that decision was criticized.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Unfazed by these criticisms and confident in the wisdom of his foreign policy initiatives, FDR continued his twin policies of preparedness and aid to the Allied coalition.
Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt is its own article.
Harry S. Truman: Truman shocked many when he attended his disgraced patron Pendergast's funeral a few days after being sworn in. Truman was reportedly the only elected official who attended the funeral. Truman brushed aside the criticism, saying simply, "He was always my friend and I have always been his."
Harry S. Truman: Responding to criticism over readiness, Truman fired his Secretary of Defense, Louis A. Johnson, replacing him with retired General George Marshall.
Harry S. Truman: Fierce criticism from virtually all quarters accused Truman of refusing to shoulder the blame for a war gone sour and blaming his generals instead.

Again, I need help understanding why a word that is so broadly used across Wikipedia in comparable featured articles and contexts is unacceptable in this one. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow -- some of those excerpts are absolutely terrible writing, especially in the Reagan articles. The sentence "incredibly, even that decision was criticized" in Nancy's is a grievous eyesore. Again, and please answer my question: Why is it is that Noroton's sole objection to the word "scrutiny" has been imparted veto power over implementing a consensus version, but my objections to "criticism" aren't respected in kind? I've already explained why I support "scrutiny" over "criticism," and don't appreciate being treated as though I haven't. There's a double-standard operating here. Shem^(talk) 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I did answer your question, but I'll restate my answer here: "I am not treating anyone's arguments with "total deference" (remember, I have backed your side over Noroton's on several issues here). In an honest effort to understand what a viewpoint that, honestly, I originally opposed, I've done my own research (see my long post above) and now I believe the argument for the use of the word criticism in this context stands on its merits." The excerpts I posted above were intended as in support of that statement.

Earlier, I posted excerpts from various articles in which the word criticism was used in a similar context. You responded, "Are any of those Featured Articles? No, they're not, and this article should lead by example." While I felt this argument missed my broader point, I nonetheless accepted that your point was valid, and set out to recheck my own arguments against the higher evidence standard of featured articles. Of the nine articles I chose to check, eight of them used the word "criticism" (or a conjugation thereof) in a similar context (only Grover Cleveland did not). The conclusion I drew from this, therefore, is that "criticism" is, by Wikipedia standards, an acceptable word to use in this context. I'll concede the point that there may be a couple examples of poor writing among the 19 excerpts I've posted above (the Nancy Reagan example you posted above, I agree, is terrible), but the vast majority are well-written, well-sourced, and written in a competent style. I can only conclude, therefore, that either 89% of the featured articles I checked contain unacceptable language, or that the use of the word "critiicism" in this context is, indeed, acceptable from a Wikipedia policy and style perspective.

I am open to the idea that my understanding may be incorrect, but if I am, I would appreciate if you could point me to some evidence that it is. I believe I have held my arguments to an appropriately if not excessively high standard of evidence. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained in detail why I support using "scrutiny" will not support "criticism": Obama was not criticized by everyone who closely examined (scrutinized) the real estate transactions. Contrast my reasons for objection to "criticism" with Noroton's objection to "scrutiny" -- Noroton disliked it because he found the language (in his own words) "so vague and limp that it's a euphemism." What Noroton calls "vague and limp" I call "encompassing and neutral." Shem^(talk) 03:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I ask again: If Noroton's solitary objection to "scrutiny" (including a threat to push 3RR over it) was enough to veto adopting a version, will my objection to "criticism" be treated with the same respect? Shem^(talk) 03:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a veto - it was only my own suggestion and the point is to get a version that will stick. Noroton is the only remaining active participant and the most persuasive among those who were earlier pushing for a more complete treatment of the material here. As such his views ought to be taken into account. As for whether you have a veto or not, we're still talking aren't we? As to the question, Obama wasn't criticized by everyone who scrutinized him, nor was he scrutinized by everyone who criticized him. I don't think the fact of close investigation is any more notable, prevalent, or neutral than the obvious fact that some commented negatively (neither word is terribly offensive, nor is either word really necessary or of great explanatory value). I wouldn't say scrutiny is limp or vague, it's just beside the point. And criticism isn't all that relevant either - I mean, since when has the fact that somebody criticized a politician been much of a surprise? The long list of articles where "criticism" is used is pretty persuasive. It's not a loaded word. I'm in the camp that says reaching an agreement and having a stable article is a far more important goal than the last tweak on the last word here. If we were sitting around a table over a beer I would suggest flipping a coin. Wikidemo (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

His view is that he dislikes "scrutiny" because it's "vague and limp," while I object because I consider "criticized" an unacceptable generalization. Also, how does someone criticize a real estate transaction without first looking into it?

It's Noroton's "vague and limp" complaint versus my overgeneralization and accuracy objections; you tell me which objection ought carry more weight on merit alone. "Scrutiny" has worked just fine for this article, and I see no compelling reason ("vague and limp" just doesn't cut it) to change it. Shem^(talk) 04:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, what's your reaction to Clubjuggle's long list of examples? He seems to have spent time to answer your point about "criticism" and in response you haven't really addressed it. Noroton (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer Shem's possibly rhetorical question, "How does someone criticize a real estate transaction without first looking into it?" - they read or hear a report from someone who has looked into the transaction (or perhaps they even operate from an uninformed or partisan position), then make a public statement describing it as a bad thing. Certainly McCain and Clinton did not scrutinize the transaction for themselves - I doubt they went down to the county courthouse, read the trial transcripts, etc., like the journalists did or perhaps their own research staff. Most op-ed people don't do a whole lot of research, they may not know anymore than you and I can get by watching CNN. In fact, there is probably a divergence between the people who did the research (political operatives, "good government" types, lawyers, and journalists) and the people who voiced opinions on the results. Scrutiny implies original research; criticism does not imply anything about factual basis. I really don't think either word is essential or gets to the heart of the matter (as I've said elsewhere), but nor is either word loaded. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

re: I ask again: If Noroton's solitary objection to "scrutiny" (including a threat to push 3RR over it) was enough to veto adopting a version, will my objection to "criticism" be treated with the same respect? - I can't come up with a reason you might ask this which doesn't involve dropping the good-faith assumption, so I must be missing something. What is your reason for asking this?

To be clear (I thought I was earlier, but I'm not always as clear as I mean to be), Noroton didn't veto anything. Discussion wasn't over yet. This also is not the place to accuse others of making threats, much less to keep bringing it up two days after the fact. Please focus on content, not contributors.

Your argument that not all scrutiny is criticism, is best countered by the fact that not all criticism is scrutiny. A few scrutinized the transactions, but a much larger number have criticized them, and some still do. Most of those who criticize didn't scrutinize. I contend that criticism is more accurate and encompassing. I welcome any evidence that supports that it isn't.

It's also worth noting that the proposed language indicates that the transactions drew criticism, not that Obama drew criticism directly. If someone had an agenda to rebuke Obama, that's pretty weak language to do it with. Finally, it should surprise no one that politicians' actions get criticized (well, except for Grover Cleveland, apparently), so having a statement in the article that one of Obama's actions was criticized is not exactly going to make people run screaming (to McCain, whose article documents criticism as well anyway). --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another version! Yay!

After a good night's sleep, I have returned to find new versions for me to salivate over. Noroton fettled the version I proposed last night, and Rick Block churned out something a bit different. Shem reaffirmed the earlier Rick Block version, and ClubJuggle weighed-in with a tome supporting "criticism" (a word I think should be banned from Wikipedia, personally). All of these versions have good ideas, so I would like to cherry-pick their best bits, add in a little spice I thought of during the night, and propose yet another version:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. An adjacent lot was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and she sold part of it to the Obamas the following year; Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions drew criticism because they occurred when Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

I am convinced this will be met with approval (except, perhaps, from Shem and WorkerBee74) because it cuts to the heart of the issue while still remaining relatively fair. I am still not all that happy about "criticism" being used, but it will do. I expect Noroton to work hard to find the appropriate sources to support the text, without going overboard into a situation like this.^{[134][135][136][137][138]} -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You diminish the quality of the article and the project by suggesting the "criticism" bug should enter the Obama article after years without it. This discussion's ceased being about improving the project, and now only seeks to quiet Noroton's objections and threats. Shem^(talk) 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. It is fair to say that I am willing to go beyond what I consider to be reasonable to achieve resolution. The desire to "get it over with" has now exceeded my desire to maintain article quality. I just don't want to fight over this anymore, and I am keen to move on to other areas that have been neglected while the debate has raged. I'm ashamed about it, but there it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead/Tvoz version

Is it necessary to say that Obama was criticized or received media scrutiny for it at all? It also seems to indicate that the only reason the transactions were criticized is because Rezko was under investigation at the time, when that is only why the property transactions came to light. It was the appearance of impropriety that caused the criticism, not Rezko's investigation, indictment, and conviction. Perhaps something like:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. An adjacent lot was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko ~~on the same date~~, and a portion of the property was sold to the Obamas the following year. Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while ~~Tony~~ Rezko~~—a real estate broker and significant fundraiser for Illinois politicians from both major parties, including Obama—~~ was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

That seems to avoid the whole criticism vs scrutiny kerfuffle, while getting across the point that transaction was not a Good Thing^TM. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My response to Bobblehead's point about why "criticism" or "scrutiny" is used is below at this timestamp. Noroton (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot support that version for a number of reasons. For example, it includes needless information we previously agreed to exclude (the "simultaneous" purchase of the properties), and it suggests a hint of additional impropriety be mentioning the Rezko investigation/conviction in the same sentence as the fundraising for Obama. Despite use of the word "criticism", I believe my version is more neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, struck out the objectionable parts, added the original sentence describing Rezko (underlined to show it's new since original proposal). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] I essentially support Bobblehead's version, and I approve of the dashes setting off the identifying phrase, rather than the more awkward "Mr. Rezko" which is not wiki style. I think "unrelated political corruption" makes it clear that it's, well, unrelated - even though it's in the same sentence. I think readers can read and follow the thought. Take out "on the same date" and return to the "she sold" wording if agreement was reached regarding leaving off "simultaneous" - who can keep track? But since I also am not inclined to support "criticism" over "scrutiny", even to make peace - that feels like bullying to me - I think Bobblehead's work-around removing it, with a tweak, is a very good solution. It would then look like this:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. An adjacent lot was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and she sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. The property transactions occurred while Tony Rezko—a real estate broker and significant fundraiser for Illinois politicians from both major parties, including Obama—was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

How's that? Tvoz/talk 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an edit conflict - I didn't see Bobble's revision until I posted, but I guess either way is ok (although I prefer his original as tweaked) so I'll support it. Tvoz/talk 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer your version to my tweaking of the original tweaked version, Tvoz, for much the same reasons you do. The "Mr. Rezko..." sentence seems out of place and is likely to cause consternation for anyone that comes through to copy edit this article and I'm really not seeing how having those political contributions in a different sentence breaks the connection with the investigation any more than the emdashes. If it isn't clear enough, the sentence could be modified to end "...was being investigated for political corruption unrelated to Obama and the property transactions, for which he was later convicted." But whatever version ends the constant edit warring and bickering works for me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need the "unrelated political corruption" to be directly followed by the "for which he was later convicted". And a big vote for ending the inanity. Tvoz/talk 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I was just popping back to edit my comment to remove the suggested ending because upon further reading I thought it read like crap.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is much better writing, and also eliminates the "Mr." problem. I'm fine with this solution. Shem^(talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I need to think about this some more. I am unhappy with the fact that Obama's name occurs in the same sentence as the investigation/conviction, which has nothing to do with him. The previous versions of the text kept these issues separate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have issues with these versions, due to several concerns. First and least importantly, Rezko was not just a fundraiser for Illinois politicians, I believe it was mentioned earlier that he was a fundraiser for [{George W. Bush]], for example. Second, the wholesale removal of ~~scrutiny~~ ~~criticism~~ (insert word here) creates the appearance that Obama disclosed and acknowledged the appearance of the transactions on his own, and not in response to outside ~~scrutiny~~ ~~criticism~~ (insert word here). Whether you support Obama or not, whether you think the transactions were a big deal or not, I think we can all agree that wasn't the case. When coupled with the removal of the "boneheaded move" quote, this version is unlikely to garner consensus. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another try to answer ClubJuggle's concerns:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. An adjacent lot was purchased by Rita Rezko, who subequently sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. Husband Tony Rezko, a friend of Obama and a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions drew criticism because they occurred when Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

It's a little bit clunkier because of the Rita/Tony thing, but it keeps the salient points from before intact. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a change I can believe in. :) --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

W00t! Anyone else care to voice their support/dissent? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference is that Rezko was not a significant fundraiser for national politicians. He only held one fundraiser for Bush, which considering how much money Rezko has raised for Illinois politicans barely even warrants a mention, but if it is really an issue, then Illinois can be removed. Second, the concern about the wording make it appear Obama raising the issue on his own, that is better fixed by modifying the final sentence to reflect why Obama commented on it. I don't see how leaving "boneheaded move" is a problem here. It inserts a level of POV into the article that isn't necessary and is better served by just saying Obama acknowledged it as a mistake. So, with that, the final sentence of Tvoz's version would be something like to begin with "Following revelation of the real estate transactions by <whichever paper revealed it>, Obama, who has not been accused of any wrong doing, acknowledged the transactions were a mistake because they created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can support it (17:28, 2 July Scjessey version) as is. Noroton (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I'll think about it, but I don't like the 17:28 version. It's long and I don't agree with re-introducing "criticism", which is POV, as Bobblehead said, and several editors object to. And I think the Rita Rezko part is confusing - introducing a new name without identifying her until later on, and then somewhat awkwardly. Also, why add "subsequently"? We say "the next year" already, which makes the point.

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood; an adjacent lot was purchased by the wife of their friend Tony Rezko, and she sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. The property transactions occurred while Tony Rezko—a real estate broker and significant fundraiser for Illinois politicians from both major parties, including Obama—was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but when these transactions were revealed he acknowledged that they were a mistake because they created an appearance of impropriety and he donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Does that help? Tvoz/talk 02:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't help me. "Criticism" is what I care about. I like the way you removed Rita's name, though. (and you need a comma after "impropriety"). What is your response to Clubjuggle's long, long lists of "criticism" found in so many other articles? Criticism is a natural topic in an article about someone involved in what is inherently a controversial job. WP:NPOV specifically embraces our reporting on different points of view, showing that we can use a word like "criticism" and remain NPOV since we're reporting on it, not necessarily agreeing with it. The WP:WELLKNOWN section specifically embraces our mentioning critical information on better-known public figures. I haven't yet seen a good response to any of these points, but if you have, please point them out to me or just repeat them here. This is a partisan subject, and if we don't state explicitly our reasons, based on something other than partisan feelings, then our positions are going to be suspect to everyone on at least one side. So please explain. The issue is pretty certain to come up again in the election and probably here. Best to get out your reasons now. Noroton (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get embroiled in the long-winded discussions here, Noroton, sorry. Life is too short and I think this endless debate is a distraction from what I'm here for - too many people like to hear the sound of their own voices, so to speak, and I think this protracted, repetitive, unending "conversation" about this minor point is absurd, and if we did it about every point we'd have no article. We managed just fine for months and months, working together, writing and editing in good faith - not in partisan support or attack - trying wording one way or another about any number of subjects without the partisanship we've seen here recently. We spent a lot of time fighting off sockpuppets, vandals, and POV-pushers hell-bent on adding libelous, incorrect and irrelevant material to this article and ended up maintaining Featured Article status - it wasn't perfect, but was well-written, comprehensive and fair. Pretty much the same thing happened at Hillary Rodham Clinton, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul and others I've worked on, although not all ended up as well. So I'm not going to play someone else's game here - I'll say this once. First, I think we are giving entirely too much attention to this in the main article, and I think the partisanship evident is from people who are operating in a far-from-neutral, anti-Obama way, pushing for more and more detail. Next, I don't object to including critical material, for heaven's sake - I do it all the time and have done so in this article. (I do, however, vigorously object to "criticism" or "controversy" sections because they always deteriorate into POV dumping grounds and are weak writing.) What I object to here is making an implication in this section that the reason Obama did x y or z is that he was criticized. That is a POV statement. We do not know that he made his decision to acknowledge an appearance of impropriety because of criticism, and it is not for us to conjure up motives. I won't sign off on that. It is, however, fair and neutral to say that the transaction was scrutinized by the media - looked at, examined, written about - and that in the wake of that scrutiny he acknowledged that it gave the appearance of impropriety and was therefore a stupid thing to have done. So I would be ok with "scrutiny", as I said more than once. But some people got hot under the collar about "scrutiny" (why?). So Bobblehead came up with a way to sidestep the problem in hopes of reaching consensus so we can move on from this tiny point that still has had little to no tangible impact even on the political campaign, and certainly is a very small matter in the story of his life and career which is what we are writing here, not a campaign piece pro or con. We've tweaked it, massaged it, made minute changes that barely change the meaning, and yet we can't seem to get agreement. So I am willing to compromise from my primary position that this matter is not significant enough to warrant so much coverage in the main biography, and am willing to support the tweaked version of Bobblehead's proposal which avoids using the words "criticism" and "scrutiny" but says the same thing. As for whether it is "pretty certain to come up again in the election", I'm not in the business of prediction, and I'll worry about that when and if the time comes. But unless it has a major impact on him or his campaign, it still won't belong in this main article to the extent that you are pushing it to be. I'm not taking this position based on what you called "partisan feelings", by the way - I have a different view, apparently, about what an encyclopedia article should be - it's not a place to sanitize, but nor is it necessary to provide an overly critical analysis which is more than likely OR anyway. A neutral presentation of a subject is all we should be doing. That's it - I'm not interested in debating this, and I'm not going to be chased away as I've seen done to other good editors of this article. But I think it is time to end this, edit the section if necessary and move the hell on already. Tvoz/talk 05:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Addressing Tvoz): Opinions or POV innt bad, just things not to be in denial about in order to be accounted for and dealt with fairly. Surely, however, pride in having run off POV pushers in the past and even a complaint about current contributors' holding to varied points of view are (this pride and complaint) markers of holding to a point of view, themselves.
Don't follow Rezco but I wanna chime in with a general bromide that WP should tend to err on the side of presenting all points of view by, if possible, mentioning major criticisms briefly, if only to be balanced by others' opinions that they're unfounded. And as for the difference between saying that something has been evaluated on the one hand and giving the Who, What, Where, of a specific, negative evaluation on the other: sometimes vagueness is a plus, eg when over-specificity in summary about a complex situation theoretically simply can't be done without being misleading; sometimes it's a minus, eg when its function is to imply the consensus of WP contributors believes an existing criticism is invalid and unworthy of coverage, when this simply innt so. But I don't wanna opine a plus or a minus here, not following Rezco. — Justmeherenow ( ) 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Out) I couldn't have worded it better, Tvoz. Hopefully, Clubjuggle (and others) will take this opportunity to quit portraying me as only one with objections/concerns here and move back towards the consensus we were so close to reaching earlier. If we can't find unanimity, we need to find what'll accommodate as many editors as is reasonably possible. We had a version earlier which was supported by every editor save one -- Noroton -- because he found one word's usage "vague and limp." That statement's not an argument, and shouldn't be given the weight others've bestowed upon it. Shem^(talk) 14:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. You keep pretending that "only one editor" was objecting, Shem, but you know it wasn't just Noroton. I object. Andyvphil objects. Kossack4Truth objects. Justmeherenow objects. And a bunch of IP address editors object. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Tvoz's 05:49 post, with just the points about the subject at hand, despite his objection to discussion:

What I object to here is making an implication in this section that the reason Obama did x y or z is that he was criticized. That is a POV statement. We do not know that he made his decision to acknowledge an appearance of impropriety because of criticism, and it is not for us to conjure up motives. You have no reason to say that by using the word "criticism" somewhere in this passage, Wikipedia is saying Obama only responded to the many questions about this because he was criticized. Simply including the word in the passage doesn't necessarily imply that, and I've been flexible about how the word can appear. We can write it all sorts of ways to get my point across. (I do think he was responding to criticism, but it's not a point I'm interested in making in the article because it's not that important.)
It is, however, fair and neutral to say that the transaction was scrutinized by the media - looked at, examined, written about - and that in the wake of that scrutiny he acknowledged that it gave the appearance of impropriety and was therefore a stupid thing to have done. So I would be ok with "scrutiny", as I said more than once. But some people got hot under the collar about "scrutiny" (why?). You object to me writing at length, and yet since you don't read my points, you seem to want me to repeat them. I've repeatedly said why: every candidate gets scrutiny; criticism is something different and the criticism here is an important part of this story since it came from so many prominent and varied sources, including Obama supporters and Obama's own words acknowledged the justice of that criticism. I'm also not trying to make the point in the article that his own words were in response to media scrutiny because I don't think it's important (although I think it's obvious that they were).
this tiny point that still has had little to no tangible impact even on the political campaign, and certainly is a very small matter in the story of his life and career Then why did he finally sit down with the Chicago Tribune and also with the Chicago Sun-Times on March 15 and grant a total of 3 hours (about 90 minutes apiece) for them to interview him on this? Why did the editorial page of the Chicago Tribune, one of his supporters, devote an extremely long editorial to this? Why did it come up in the coverage of all, or at least a big majority, of the most influential news organizations of the United States (not just reprints of wire reports, either), and in the coverage of many foreign news organizations? A candidate who made ethics and judgment big themes in his campaign committed what he admits is a lapse in judgment over ethics. He did so with a man who was a significant supporter of his and who was convicted of felonies for corruption in his role as a fundraiser for other politicians. And the matter concerned Obama's own home. This is why even Obama's sympathizers in the media and a good government group that worked with him criticized him. The criticism is a one-word critical element of this. The good government groups did not scrutinize -- they criticized, as did the commentators, political rivals, etc. There's a tiny minority in the sourcing that says it isn't important, and I don't mind having a link to one of those sources in the footnotes, but I can't find anyone who says he didn't do anything wrong. So that I don't have to repeat myself further, you might want to look at my two previous posts, both to Shem, below.Noroton (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, I also oppose that version. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to the Tvoz version above because of "when these transactions were revealed he acknowledged that they were a mistake". This statement suggests that Obama acknowledged the transactions were a mistake because the transactions were revealed, which is misleading and unfair, and might even border on WP:BLP. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Late response to Bobblehead's point about why "criticize" is necessary: Bobblehead writes at the top of this section: Is it necessary to say that Obama was criticized or received media scrutiny for it at all? It also seems to indicate that the only reason the transactions were criticized is because Rezko was under investigation at the time, when that is only why the property transactions came to light. That is the main reason why they were criticized, as the critics explicitly, repeatedly state. You can see it in the long list of links still at the top of this page. Please see my post to Tvoz at 21:16 July 3, where much of what I address to him is on this point and where I say why the fact that this received criticism is important. Noroton (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Version 1 million

I confess that these versions-of-subversions-with-strikeouts are becoming bewildering. Well, they've been so for a couple weeks. All the last few look fine to me. A couple general points on my opinion:

Fewer words are better than more words!
I really don't care about scrutiny vs. criticism.
Removing the direct quote about "bone-headed" is far better, since the forced circumlocution to include the quote was just plain ugly. Encyclopedic voice about "Obama acknowledged ..." is the right thing.
Limiting politicians to only Illinois is probably wrong, so let's not use that adjective.
... most importantly, it seems doubtful any specific language will actually stop the month+ discussion.

LotLE×talk 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree re. bewildering. To your points:

Yep.
I think I've covered this above.
The "boneheaded" quote is seemed unencyclopedic and a little gratuitous. The latest version reads much better.
I don't feel strongly about "Illinois"; I simply brought it up as a point of fact which had been mentioned (and I thought settled) previously.
I truly feel we're close to consensus with the version above. The question marks, of course, are User:Shem on the left and User:Noroton on the right. I believe that this point, they're the only holdouts, though if anyone else cannot support the latest proposal, please correct me.

To summarize how much progress we've made in the past few days I do know that since I've joined the discussion...

Noroton's side has:

Given up the word 'simultaneously'
Dropped "key" in favor of "significant" and otherwise softened their Rezko relationship description.
Dropped the "judgment" language entirely
Dropped the "a mistake" quote

...and Shem's side has:

Added "friend", "significant" and "including Obama" to their Rezko relationship description.
Accepted lengthening of the text to provide additional detail indicating Rezko was under investigation at the time of the transactions.
Added Obama's acknowledgment that although no wrongdoing was alleged, the transactions created an appearance of impropriety.

All of which is to say we've come a long way, and my apologies to either side if I've left anything out. To reach consensus from here, we simply need the following:

Noroton to agree to drop the "boneheaded" quote. Done
Shem to agree to "criticism".

I'm not the only one who's not agreeing to it. There're Tvoz's objections, and other editors admit that they'd rather not use the word but're giving in simply to "get things over with." There's no consensus behind swapping the long-standing "scrutiny" for "criticism." Shem^(talk) 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We've come a long way, and I don't think that's a lot to ask of either side to put this behind us. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, Noroton could simply agree to "scrutiny" to reach the same effect. I object to "criticism" because it's an overgeneralization, while Noroton objects to "scrutiny" because he thinks the language is "vague and limp." I refuse to concede my substantive accuracy concern simply because Noroton finds something "vague and limp." Shem^(talk) 03:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism" is no more or less general than "scrutiny". In fact, I'd call it less general: scrutiny is automatic, it's what journalists and others do no matter how well you're doing, and it takes place simply because you're a candidate. "Criticism" takes place when people disagree with what you're doing and say you're in the wrong for doing it. Criticism is a watered down version of what I want, which is to report that the criticism came from widespread sources and hit at the central themes of Obama's campaign: judgment and ethics. This article should not be squeamish about describing Obama, including the fact that he's been criticized. Why don't you respond to Clubjuggle's massive evidence that "criticism" is normal to be mentioned in articles about political leaders? Noroton (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did. Many of the examples were terrible writing, and in no way beneficial to their articles. Your simple statement of disliking a word's alleged "limpness" isn't an argument, nor should that statement be given veto power over the section's language. Shem^(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

...These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are.
Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic or only describes criticisms of it. (Even this might be made better by naming the section after the entity doing the criticism, however.)
Also, not having the time or knowledge to integrate criticism into the other sections of the article might be a reason to create a separate "Criticism" section. In that case, however, the separate "Criticism" section might be only a temporary solution until someone integrates the criticism (in the meanwhile the "separate" section might be tagged "[POV-section]" "[criticism-section]," or similar).
It is important to note the difference between criticism and aspects of a topic that are or are likely to be criticized. For example, statements such as "Bob does such and such." do not belong in a criticism section. Instead, it should read "Bob has been criticized for doing such and such.", provided that Bob actually has been criticized for doing "such and such."...----WIKIPEDIA:CRITICISM — Justmeherenow ( ) 05:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice essay. Note that it's not a policy or a guideline. Shem^(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, I apologize for addressing my comments here to you directly. I try to avoid that as it then becomes too easy to write something that may be misinterpreted as a personal attack. Therefore I will open by saying that although these questions are directed to you, they are in no way intended as an attack, but rather to better understand your position. Given that your user talk page comments indicate a hard-line stance on this, I can only presume that it is pointless for me to present further evidence. You have shot down every piece of evidence presented in support of the assertion that Wikipedia considers "criticism" is a perfectly acceptable word to use in this circumstance, but have declined to provide similar evidence to the contrary. When I provided examples from articles on contemporary politicians, you stated they were poor examples because they did not come from featured articles. When I provided examples from almost every featured article I checked, you stated that "several of" the excerpts I provided were poorly written (meaning, therefore, that the rest were not, but you never addressed those). When presented with an essay indicating support of at least some Wikipedians for the use of "criticism", you dismissed it out of hand. In no case, however, have you countered with any evidence stronger than to indicate that "criticism" is unacceptable, or at least nothing that amounts to anything more than ~~a restatement of WP:IDONTLIKEIT~~ "I don't like it". Can you show me something that supports your assertion that "criticism" is inappropriate? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can write an essay; they're no more authoritative than Talk page comments. I've addressed this, as has Tvoz, while other editors're claiming they'll support the word criticism "just to get things over with" despite their better judgment. If you're going to flippantly dismiss all these objections as "Idon'tlikeit" while deferring to Noroton's "vague and limp" complaint, I seriously question whether you current approach is suffering from a double-standard.

Noroton vetoed the closest thing we've had to a consensus based entirely on not liking* the word "scutinty" (because he finds it "vague and limp"). Methinks you're projecting someone else's behavior onto the person you currently disagree with, Clubjuggle.

*Though the essay WP:IDONTLIKEIT is about AfD deletions, and isn't remotely germane to the situation at hand. Can we please stop invoking non-policy, non-guideline editorial pieces as if they were actual Wikipedia policy? Shem^(talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can write an essay ... In this particular case, the essay has been edited by some of the most prominent admins at Wikipedia, indicating that the current version has their support, so it isn't just "anyone," Shem. The editors of that essay number in the dozens. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To repeat for the hard of hearing: Can you show me something that supports your assertion that "criticism" is inappropriate? --Clubjuggle T/C 16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC) -- Noroton (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's not from an essay, it's from a behavioral guideline about disruption. The nut graph for that page states: This page in a nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked. The difference between my method and yours, Shem, is that I'm insisting that editors actually hold a discussion in which they state even minimally reasonable arguments in favor of their position against using the word "criticism". That's the only way to have a reasonable discussion, and a reasonable discussion is not disruption. I'm required to be reasonable myself under these circumstances, and I've listened and responded and tried to be flexible in a reasonable way. You, on the other hand, have ignored reasonable points made by others and have not provided adequate reasoning for your stance. Simply having more editors on your side isn't enough to form consensus until discussion is over. And it's never enough if those editors don't give reasonable explanations based on evidence, logic and WP policies and guidelines. So if you're impatient to move on, let's make progress the way Wikipedia tells us to and address the matter at hand in a reasonable discussion: Can you show me something that supports your assertion that "criticism" is inappropriate? Anybody who can't answer that question just doesn't count in forming consensus, and can be ignored. Now, there have been some interesting points made on your side that I need to respond to, and I recognize that discussion can't go on forever and that at some point enough reasonable points may be made by your side that I need to concede. But that's how this discussion will end, when a consensus of editors are agreeing to a reasonable argument -- not by jamming through a vote that doesn't have a reasonable argument behind it. It would take less time if more editors got with the WP:TALK program. And I'm going to hold future decisions to the standards Wikipedia gives us in that policy and that guideline. Noroton (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For you to essentially accuse someone of filibustering or offering poor, non-substantive arguments is a joke. You're the editor who single-handedly derailed an earlier consensus version on grounds that you considered one word too "limp." Again, there's a very clear double-standard operating here now: I'm required to go around in circles with you against replacing "scrutiny" with "criticism" (never mind Tvoz's disapproval of the word, or Scjessey's admission that using it would go against his better judgment), yet your opposition to "scrutiny" simply because you don't like it and consider it "limp" has been accepted as some unimpeachable, principled, well-argued stance (when it's no such thing). Shem^(talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for linking [{WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. It's been a long time since I read it, and forgot that it only applied to AfD discussions. I've struck the text. I was writing with

Nobody "vetoed" anything. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. Discussion wasn't over yet and a non-consensus change was reverted.

I am not blindly "deferring to" Noroton or anyone else's opinion, and in light of the extensive effort I've undertaken to present evidence, I frankly take offense to the implication that I am. I've researched both sides of the argument and I believe the case for criticism stands on its merits - not the "vague and limp" quote you keep coming back to, but the argument that the word criticism is both acceptable and more accurate. I respect that you disagree and I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong, but I'm asking you to present evidence supporting the "scrutiny" rather than simply questioning the validity of the evidence presented for the "criticism" position. I apologize if I'm being WP:DENSE (it happens), so if there's a supporting policy, guideline, common practice or even essay argument for the inappropriateness of "criticism" or the preference of "scrutiny" that I've missed or which has not yet been posted, I'm obviously missing it. Please point me there, and feel free to use small words and speak slowly. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How is the observation inaccurate, Clubjuggle? There was a version with no objections whatsoever save Noroton's desire to replace the "limp" scrutiny with "criticism," and that version's implementation was denied solely due to that one objection. I don't know your background, but that's called a "veto" where I'm from. Shem^(talk) 21:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"One objection"? Aren't you forgetting something, Shem? I object. Kossack4Truth objects. Andyvphil objects. Justmeherenow objects. And there would be a lot of IP address editors objecting too, if someone hadn't used the "n-word" repeatedly (from an IP address) to convince the admins to exclude IP addresses with semi-protection. Isn't this supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit - including IP addresses? WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the sampling bias inherent in having a discussion about neutral presentment of Obama related content in an article about Obama, I believe it is easy to confuse ensuring that all individials should be heard with the idea that all viewpoints should be heard. I for one was concerned that had not yet happened, and my own support for the reverts stemmed in part Remember, we use consensus, not voting. If one person is holding out, it could be that they are being stubborn, or it could be that they have a valid point. At that point, I already had doubts as to some of the assertions being made ~~in support of the "scrutiny" language, or to be more precise,~~ in opposition to the "criticism" language, especially the assertion that the word criticism was inherently POV and non-encyclopedic. Much of the blame belongs not to Noroton, but to me for taking what may have been too much time to research that issue. While I regret that delay, like outside Wikipedia does sometimes get in the way.

Now, with that answered, would you mind addressing my remaining question? thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, Can you show me something that supports your assertion that "criticism" is inappropriate? That's the last time I'll repeat it. I'll consider your refusal to acknowledge that you heard the question an admission that you aren't here to discuss the issue at hand. -- Noroton (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What a shame. For about a month, I've been asking somebody to explain why using the word "criticism" in this issue violates Wikipedia policy. Surely Shem can do it. Do it, Shem. Teach us about Wikipedia policy. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74: while hubris is often the WikiWay^®----well, at least for contributors in an article's majority----it's not something you should be trying on yourself in your present circumstances. Rather than trumpeting dissenting views you should be casting your eyes down to your six fuzzy black shoes, the toes of which you should be digging into the dirt while hemming and hawing necessarily vague apologies in order to, frankly, be going about the beeswax of going along to get along. Otherwise you'll end up in a kangaroo a.n./i.; and while I'm NOT saying that folks around here accustomed to being in the majority, such as my fellow lefties, have learned all the finer points of suffering the presence of dissenting views, I AM saying that such stuff can only be academic to you if you won't be allowed any more to edit here. — Justmeherenow ( ) 07:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Another tweak

I cannot support any version which combines Rezko's fundraising for Obama with Rezko's investigation and conviction in the same sentence. Trying to excise Rita Rezko from the text necessarily means combining these details, so I think this format should remain. Incidentally, this "shorter sentence" approach will make it easier to add citations, although that is a minor detail:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. An adjacent lot was purchased by Rita Rezko, who sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. Husband Tony Rezko, a friend of Obama and a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions drew criticism because they occurred when Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

This version removes the redundant "subsequently" (dunno why I added it in the first place). I considered dropping "criticism" in favor of "critique" after reading the following from Dictionary.com:

Critique has been used as a verb meaning "to review or discuss critically" since the 18th century, but lately this usage has gained much wider currency, in part because the verb criticize, once neutral between praise and censure, is now mainly used in a negative sense. But this use of critique is still regarded by many as pretentious jargon, although resistance appears to be weakening. -- see "Usage note" about halfway down this definition page.

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeating some comments from above that went largely ignored - this version explicitly links the criticism to the timing of the Rezko investigation which is an inference,. We can avoid this inference by a rewording that I think is more neutral as well as follows. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. An adjacent lot was purchased by Rita Rezko, who sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. Husband Tony Rezko, a friend of Obama and a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions ~~drew criticism because they~~ occurred when Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama was criticized for these transactions and acknowledged ~~the transactions~~ they created an appearance of impropriety. ~~and~~ Obama donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(I'm a bit confused, but I think I'm posting here between Rick Block's post and Scjessey's. Rick, if you put your signature/timestamp at the end of your post, I think it would be easier.) You indicate that it's an incorrect "inference" to explicitly link the criticism to the timing of the Rezko investigation, which is an inference. It isn't an inference at all. It's very, very explicit in the criticism that Obama was criticized for doing the property transactions when Rezko was being investigated. Just look through any of the items in my long list of links to criticism almost at the top of this page. No need to draw an inference when it's stated by the sources themselves, over and over. Noroton (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a relatively minor point. The inference I'm talking about is that the criticism occurred because of the timing of the transactions relative to the investigation of Rezko. I think we can reasonably assume this to be the case for criticisms that occurred relatively close to these events, but the further away in time we get the more I think there might be other causality factors as well - for example I'd guess the criticism from Clinton was more because of campaign tactics than anything else (the timing of the transactions is what was criticized even in this case, but was almost certainly not the reason for the criticism). We could perhaps say "The property transactions were criticized for occurring when Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted". But this seems rather labored. Presenting the timing as an independent, verifiable fact seems (to me) like a better approach. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Now we are criticizing Obama, rather than the transactions. If we are going to go in this direction with the timing, let me suggest this alternative:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. An adjacent lot was purchased by Rita Rezko, who sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. Husband Tony Rezko, a friend of Obama and a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Receiving critique for these transactions, Obama acknowledged they created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

This version may answer Shem's concerns as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems awkward. "Critique" is rarely if ever used in that context. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps "scrutiny" is better after all. I'm just tying to find a solution that will satisfy Shem now. How about "critical comment"? That means the same thing as "criticism", but without the negative connotation. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't drop "Although not accused of any wrongdoing". I agree the change I'm suggesting shifts the criticism from the transactions to Obama, but I think this is actually more accurate. From what I can tell, the criticisms are not that these transactions were illegal or unethical, but that Obama should not have had any dealings with Rezko. I think the phrasing "Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama was criticized ..." captures this. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps "scrutiny" is better after all. Indeed, and it was only prevented by the "vague and limp" complaint of one editor. If this article is to reflect the true consensus of its editors, you should go with the wording your better judgment favors. Shem^(talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My argument's here. Where's yours, Shem? Noroton (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, where's your argument? WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to state there was criticism explicitly

It occurs to me that any criticism received by Obama was necessarily based on what actually happened. Therefore, there is no need to explicitly state the opinions given by commentators when the reader can make up their own mind based on the same facts available to the commentators:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. An adjacent lot was purchased by the wife of Tony Rezko, who sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a friend of Obama and a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Obama would not be "acknowledging" anything unless he had first received criticism. This version, similar to Rick Block's version, eliminates the argument about scrutiny/criticism by inferring it implicitly. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That'll definitely work. The reader can decide who's simply scrutinizing versus who goes on to criticize on their own. Shem^(talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the fact that it was criticized by so many, even Obama supporters, makes the criticism a big element of this. Therefore there is a need to explicitly state that criticism took place. It was unusual. For more, see my reply to Tvoz above. -- Noroton (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Scrutiny comes before criticism.

2) Squares and rectangles: Not all who scrutinized Obama on the matter followed up with criticism; indeed, the Chicago Tribune's editorial board concluded Obama's "any questions asked" response to their scrutiny was totally plausible:

"When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict."

The Chicago Tribune has pretty much been the authoritative primary source for Rezko-related reporting, and should be weighted accordingly. To generalize the reaction as "criticism" is inappropriate. Shem^(talk) 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is with the "Husband Tony Rezko..." wording? That is just a horrible construct and seriously needs to be rewritten. Why can't we just say "...wife of Tony Rezko..." and then begin the next sentence "Tony Rezko..." Rita's name is not important. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Jessey would object to the tweak; I've made it. Shem^(talk) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"1) Scrutiny comes before criticism" - Not always.

"2) Rectangles and Rhombi might be more appropriate. Sometimes you get a square - the intersection of both -- but you can have either without the other. Not all who scrutinized the transactions criticized Obama, but not all who criticized Obama scrutinized the transactions either. I'd venture that a far greater number criticized than scrutinized. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression we were talking about Barack Obama's life, and the chronology of the events surrounding his property transactions with Tony Rezko. This isn't an article about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is a pretty textbook example of a red herring. You completely ignored the source attached to my second point, and responded with a ventured guess. The question here is this: Why must "scrutiny" be changed to "criticism"? I don't find Noroton's complaints of "limpness" even remotely persuasive in answering that question, nor your current line of argument.

I'm heading out for the rest of the evening, and won't be available again until tomorrow afternoon. Cheers. Shem^(talk) 23:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You too. I know it's not a social network but we've been working at this long enough, a happy 4th of July wish is in order. I may be gone too but you have my standing approval for any way you guys want to word it within the range of discussion of late.... Wikidemo (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The "husband construct" was an attempt to get around the fact we had to say "Tony Rezko" twice, in quick succession. That is also the reason for the earlier "Mr. Rezko" idea proposed by ClubJuggle.
Noroton justifies the use of "criticism" by attempting to quantify how much criticism there actually was. Yet no source can be provided that justifies this "big element" summation, which makes it speculative guesswork at best. This would seem to be in direct contradiction with the rules and spirit of WP:BLP. Specifically, the "amount of criticism" cannot be verified, no reliable source can be provided, and adding this kind of speculation would violate the rules of neutrality by potentially overstating significance. On that basis, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions would do far less harm. With these two points in mind, let me suggest this:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

-- Scjessey (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to supply some sources to alleviate the fears of some editors in regards to the criticism being included. What sort of source would justify (in your eyes) the inclusion that he was criticized by the media (or opponents, or whatever)? Any ideas? Arkon (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Obama received some criticism - we already have the sources. What is unclear is exactly how much criticism there was, and whether or not it could be defined as significant enough to warrant explicitly including it in the text. I would need to see a reliable source that used a term such as "widespread criticism" before I could justify supporting its inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, I'll see what I can do. Arkon (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved striked comment here (from up above somewhere). How about instead of saying person B was criticized by person or group A, it's said that A believes such-'n'-so about B? ~~Several opposition MPs criticized the Prime Minister.~~ Several opposition MPs believed/held/deemed these actions of the Prime Minister "inappropriate." ["Unhelpful," "evil," whatever the case may be.] — Justmeherenow ( ) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Include major points of view (clearly labeled). I like Scjessey's idea. Let the readers think for themselves! Then, after we'd state what happened, instead of having WP declare that there was criticsm, we'd put some carefully chosen evaluations directly into their sources' mouths: some knowledgeable commentator's questioning Obama's judgement followed by another source----say, the Tribune's----opining that Obama was largely blameless. And again let readers decide for themselves. It would be the WikiWay^®: one that could approach a broad consensus? — Justmeherenow ( ) 01:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We're already arguably violating WP:WEIGHT here. Adding what multiple commentators have to say about this would be truly excessive. We're already figuratively making a mountain out of a mole hill. This would turn it into an entire mountain range. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if a majority of readers end up agreeing with you it's a mole hill, all readers might well appreciate full enough coverage allowing them to come to their own conclusions----which I still think is the WikiWay. As for weight, sometimes a relatively minor event is nonetheless complex enough that, along with the reactions to it being covered, they would have to gone into deep enough to give them justice; and if done in the right way, the result would be balanced. — Justmeherenow ( ) 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree we're pushing the limits of WP:WEIGHT. Accuracy trumps weight, but let's not make this longer than it needs to be. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Implicit and Explicit: A tale of two versions

For ease of comparison, I offer these two versions. Please confine comments to the subheading below. These differ only in whether or not "criticism" is implied, and that difference is highlighted in bold text:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.
''Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged criticism that the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

-- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC) |- | style="text-align:center;" | The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability. |}

Implicit and Explicit comments

I prefer #1, but I believe that #2 softens the "criticism" to the point where it is acceptable. It does so by implying that it was the criticism that prompted Obama's comments and donation to charity, which I believe is supported by the sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Between these two I'd "vote" # 1, since to my ears they're identical except for number 1's being two-words tighter and hence better. — Justmeherenow ( ) 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I could go with either one, to be honest. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns with the second. Obama's acknowledgement was not that criticism existed ("Obama acknowledged criticism that..."). He acknowledged the appearance created by the transactions. I'm still thinking about the first. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here, let me try. If it's brevity you want, this one is shorter than either one of those:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.65 million home in Kenwood. The wife of developer Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to Obama in January 2006. The transactions drew criticism from political rivals and others because they occurred while Rezko, Obama's friend and a key fundraiser, was under investigation for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged it was "a boneheaded move" to create an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity.

There you go. I'll trade you a "simultaneously" for a "criticism" and a "boneheaded move." What do you say? Is it a deal? WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry WB74, but we have moved on considerably in your absence. There are numerous problems in your version that have already been discussed. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry SCJ, but several days ago I cautioned you against pretending that you could ignore the opinions of editors who are temporarily absent because they inevitably return. I don't see any problem with that version as a compromise. What's the problem? Don't complain about weight because it isn't a fringe POV. Don't complain about BLP because it's notable and the number of reliable sources Noroton and I produced is overwhelming. What's the problem? WorkerBee74 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WB74's proposal is a non-starter given the state of discussions. I have filed a new AN/I report here on this editor's post-block behavior, which I believe is disruptive and likely to derail attempts to reach consensus here. Accusing editors of "pretending", invoking support of blocked editors (including some socks likely operated by this editor), etc., is going to be a problem unless it is curbed. Wikidemo (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no one else supports it. Sorry you've missed the last 3 days' discussion, but you don't get a do-over. If you break the rules, you don't get to play. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no one else supports it. I support it. If WB74 wasn't constantly being shouted down by a handful of editors here, there would probably be others supporting it as well. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

July 4 Clubjuggle proposal

How about this?

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

In this version fact that "the relationship" was criticized is balanced directly against the fact that he was not accused of wrongdoing on the one side, and Obama's acknowledgment of the appearance on the other. Anyone has my permission to cut and paste this version into the section above if appropriate. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it! This version has my full support. I like it even more than the version without criticism because I believe it is a fair representation of what has transpired. Excellent work! -- Scjessey (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

W00t! It's amazing what a good night's sleep can do. If we can bring Shem and Noroton on board, we may have it. I'll make the pitch to Noroton on his talk page. Would you mind doing the same for Shem? Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little problem: the words "although" and "nonetheless" create a strong impression that in the judgment of Wikipedia, the criticism isn't justified. By saying it was a "boneheaded move," Obama himself admitted that criticism was completely justified. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, K4T. ClubJuggle tried to explain this before. Obama did not admit the criticism was justified, but he admitted the transactions had the appearance of impropriety. Saying otherwise would be conjecture. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to skip 'nonetheless', it probably even reads better without it. 'Although'... well, I suppose 'While' would be OK also. Generally the wording is very nice. It's all moot though, however, since there are 2-1/2 editors who will never be satisfied that wording is long enough or condemnatory enough. LotLE×talk 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeat removal of comments

These comments are extremely unhelpful. They would reasonably be described as "baiting" or "taunting." They poison the well, as several well-established editors have observed. They are violations of WP:CIV and WP:AGF. User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, stop making these remarks immediately, or I will report this misconduct to admins and ask them to block you for it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your interpreteation of Obama's meaning, Wikipedia shouldn't appear to be making judgments about whether such criticism is justified. It's as bad as the word "incredibly" describing criticism in the Nancy Reagan bio cited above. Wikipedia cannot appear to be taking sides. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Obama only admitted that the transactions created an appearance of impropriety. While the construct is intended to specify that the transaction drew criticism despite no accusation of wrongdoing in the transactions, there's a bigger picture. The construct is also intended to more directly show that the criticism was justified by the relationship as well as appearance the transactions created. I'll be out for the day, checking in periodically if at all. I know this is not a social board but have a happy 4th, all. Whatever your views, go out and celebrate our right to debate them openly. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle, I notice that you've overcome your aversion and agreed with me on the propriety of using the word "criticism" in this article, and you did it in exactly the way I recommended: you reviewed Wikipedia biographies about similarly situated persons, and you observed an established practice that represents the consensus of thousands of veteran editors and admins. Well done. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I can agree to this. K4T, I don't think it deprecates the criticism. I'd like to suggest to the other editors who haven't commented on this yet that if you have an objection, think about whether it is a small, medium or large one and ignore any but the biggest. Noroton (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a very large objection. K4T is correct. Wording it this way makes Wikipedia appear to take sides. It's almost the only thing allowed on the page that is clearly critical of Obama. We have sourcing that is as good as it gets, and the people who are criticizing Obama are just about as notable as people get. But the wording appears to be an attempt (deliberate or not) to delegitimize this criticism. It is as though Wikipedia itself has adopted the beliefs of Scjessey: that any criticism of St. Barack, no matter how well-founded in the facts and impeccably sourced, no matter how notable and neutral the sources, is a "campaign smear tactic" [5][6] and not worthy of inclusion in this biography. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording chosen by ClubJuggle does not attempt to quantify the amount of criticism, which earlier versions did. Furthermore, it ensures that we correctly describe that the criticism was not aimed at Obama's specific actions, but rather his relationship with Rezko (which some would consider of deeper concern). This harsh characterization is balanced by putting it in the "no wrongdoing" sentence, which also has the effect of making sure the timeline of events is more accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the concern that K4T has raised, and that I've repeated. It is this: the wording makes Wikipedia appear to take sides by delegitimizing criticism. What is your response to this concern? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My answer is that I don't think it delegitimizes anything. It correctly presents the facts in a neutral manner, which should always be Wikipedia's goal. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I don't want to be the one person left standing in the way of consensus. As long as we understand that this is an interim version (thus explicitly rejecting an unreasonable precondition demanded by WD), and further discussion and likely further tweaking is called for here, I will agree to posting this version in the mainspace. You get Shem on board, I'll try to get Noroton and K4T on board, and we'll be able to say that we moved the ball downfieldn even if it isn't quite in the net yet. Agreed? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This is not a proposed "interim" version. We are not creating a new baseline from which people can argue for more or less details. We are trying to create something that will be relatively stable until beyond election day. That is why this discussion has gone on as long as it has. Once the article is changed to reflect the new text, it would require an entirely new consensus-building process to get any future changes. Also, I think you will find that Noroton is already more or less on board with ClubJuggle's proposed text (see his most recent comment). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It is true that Obama was not accused of wrongdoing. "Nonetheless" does not at all necessarily deprecate the criticism or mean we don't take it seriously because the criticism never was that Obama was involved in the serious things that "wrongdoing" is about -- it helps show just that; "the appearance of an ethical conflict", as the next sentence indicates, is what it was about. This is a very small problem involving possible interpretations (that I seriously doubt readers will make) about an accurate way of considering what the "criticism" was about. There are so many more important improvements to make in this article. Please give in and let's get on to the next issues -- Wright and Ayers. Now I'm a bit reluctant to defend this language because we haven't heard from many of the other editors who have participated in this discussion. I think it's time they weighed in before I spin my wheels any further. Noroton (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

K4T wrote above, By saying it was a "boneheaded move," Obama himself admitted that criticism was completely justified. No, actually, he had his own way of describing it, which was a bit less harsh than his stronger critics, but he seemed to admit most of what they were criticizing him about, and nearly all critics focused on how dumb it was to be so close to Rezko that it created the appearance of impropriety. With the set of public facts that we have, that's really just about all that critics could do, because there isn't evidence to accuse Obama of more than that. This language really does give a good, concise, sharply enough focused description of the Rezko matter that doesn't mislead readers. Readers will get a good idea of what the important points are about and anyone interested can click on the Rezko blue link for a more detailed version there. I've had big problems with earlier versions, they've now been met and I have no problem with editors tweaking so that they're comfortable with it. But when it gets down to which sentence some phrase should go into and what connecting words to use ("although", "nevertheless", "and", "but"), I wonder whether we're moving the ball more than a few inches on the field. Believe me, no one reading this article is going to be misinformed by reading this version, and to the extent that they might be misinformed, it will be in such a small way that they will never form a firm opinion about the Rezko-Obama relationship from that misinformation. Think about it: If you knew nothing about this and read that passage, took "nonetheless" and "although" to mean what WP74 and K4T are concerned you might infer, and then read that Obama himself said it created the appearance of a conflict of interest and gave $150,000 to charity, would you wind up thinking there was nothing to the criticism? Conversely, if Obama himself says that it created the appearance of a conflict of interest, the preceding mention of "criticism" and no-wrongdoing-known would indicate he got some heat for a relatively small issue, did something wrong and made a move to make it right -- and that would be accurate. If it mattered to you, you'd click on that blue link. If it didn't matter to you, your mind would still be open the next time you heard something about Rezko and Obama. That's why this is a small thing and we should get behind this language and put this matter to bed. Noroton (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The text has now been refined to such an extent, with clever use of nuance and balance, that it has reached a stage where it is essentially all things to all people. ClubJuggle should be congratulated for this version, and we probably all deserve a little pat on the back. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no objection to putting this version in the mainspace for today, but we haven't heard from Shem, Wikidemo or several other editors recently. I think it's just a bit premature to claim that this should stay this way until after the election. It is certain that the conservative side is going to make a lot of noise about Obama and Rezko in the coming months, so there will be further developments to be added, and this language will seem remarkably mild and neutered by October. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(comment relocated) I've said several times that all the versions within the range of discussion are agreeable and I'll repeat that here - this version (the July 4 Clubjuggle proposal) is fine. I can support it if the body of established editors on this page get behind it as a complete and final resolution of the matter, to stand until and unless there is a significant new development out in the world that renders it obsolete. I'm not going to say in advance what I would consider a development that is of sufficient weight to shed new light on Obama's biography - we can deal with that if we come to it. Obviously, as an agreed-to consensus it is a package deal and not a mix-and-match collection of phrases to use as a negotiating position in an ongoing debate to further change the language. I think that leaves Shem as the last one we need to hear from.Wikidemo (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the possible range of wordings and slants, this one seems very middle of the road. The Although ..., nonetheless ... wording seems pretty close to halfway between:

(anti-Obama spin) Obama was not charged with any criminal offenses, but this admittedly "boneheaded" lapse of judgment was criticized by good government groups and others.

(pro-Obama spin) Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing and neither was asked for or did any favors for Rezko, the relationship drew criticism from political rivals and others.

I would expect it to last until the election unless there's some significant new revelation. If it becomes a major campaign theme it might warrant mention in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (it's not mentioned there at all yet) which could lead to some summary of it in the section on the campaign in this article—but predicting the future is notoriously difficult. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(The following comment was entered before I labeled the deliberate spin of the above wordings. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)) Obama was not charged with any criminal offenses, but this admittedly "boneheaded" lapse of judgment was criticized by good government groups and others. I like this version the best. It has the "boneheaded" quote and the word "criticized." It doesn't ambiguate the criticism either. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that strays too far from the versions being discussed into territory that's unacceptable to several - Wikipedia calling it a "lapse of judgment" and "boneheaded", and "good government groups and others" are unlikely to meet approval. I'd suggest we stick with the current proposal (at the top of this subheading for now, with "although" and "nevertheless" replaced by a single connecting preposition) as the basis for discussion. It seems to have approval as a final, complete description of the matter from everyone but K4T and possibly WB74, and we have not heard lately from Shem. If Shem is onboard but K4T and/or WB74 simply refuse to accept it or propose something that the other editors can all live with, then we'll have to decide if that's consensus or not. Wikidemo (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant it to be obvious that the two versions above were not suggestions for wording to be included but examples of highly POV variants on both ends of the spectrum. I think the "although ... nonetheless" wording is essentially without any spin. In particular, including "nonetheless" avoids an implied editorial rebuke of the criticism (rebuking the criticism seems to be K4T's and WB74's problem with it). Compare with and without this word:

Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.

Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship drew criticism.

Without "nonetheless" the "although" clause seems to be stronger (at least as I read it). It might be possible to find some rephrasing that makes this even more neutral sounding (perhaps Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.), but as Noroton says above if we're in the realm of quibbling about which connecting words to use we're past the point of diminishing returns. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From a neutrality point of view, there's not a huge difference between these:

Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.
Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.

I'd be perfectly happy with either. I like the way #1 reads and I like that #2 is marginally more neutral. Whichever version is chosen, I feel we have reached the point where it is time to update the article and move on. Consensus does not require unanimous agreement, and this version seems to have the support of most editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Is there any regular contributor we haven't heard from on this? I think as soon as Shem sounds in we will have heard from everyone. At that point we can determine consensus, and move on, no? Should we just give Shem another day or so to respond or does anyone want to prompt him / her? Wikidemo (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem had an aversion to the word "criticism", but I think ClubJuggle has addressed that. Just as a reminder, there are two, very similar versions currently being discussed (difference in bold):

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.
Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

We'll need to pick which one we think is best. After that, we will need to have some discussion about the references for the text. A recent attempt (by WorkerBee74) to slot in a different version of the text included an alarming number of sources, many of which seemed completely unnecessary. It is not unreasonable for me to say that having multiple references (that say the same thing) is a way of reinforcing a point of view. We need enough references to support the text - no more, no less. If a choice is available, we should select references that reflect the widest audience (such as picking a national newspaper over a local one). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What are the two versions? If there are two versions I guess that's okay - we can restate them and ask people to sound in. But I'm reluctant to re-open the floor to open-ended proposals. That's just an invitation to restart the whole discussion for the umpteenth time when it seems like we've reached consensus finally. No point delaying implementation while we figure out sources - surely we haven't sunk to such a stalemate that sourcing becomes an issue. Let's just implement the language we agree to and count on normal editing process to add or refine citations. Wikidemo (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to discuss this more, bringing up new points or points that haven't been addressed, I think we are just about at consensus here. I can go with either version Scjessey just put on the page (14:57 7 July). We need to think about footnotes. As I recall, Scjessey and I were both OK with having two citations in a footnote for the word "criticism". I'd be willing to put the mostly supportive Chicago Tribune editorial from March 2008 and an article which I'll find from National Review Online. Those were the two best opinion pieces I saw, and I think that's fair. Someone should check if the footnotes already in the article at that spot cover the information we're adding. If not, we should add reliable newspaper articles -- I think we've got several already linked to from this talk page. I think the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times are two of the largest-circulation newspapers and among the most respected in the country, and they're likely to be more accurate even than the national papers, but any reliable source is good enough for me. It would be good to move on this and get it off the table today, wouldn't it? I think we can do that. It would be nice if Clubjuggle were to do the actual addition. Noroton (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for "criticism"" One footnote with:

"Obama's Rezko narrative", editorial, Chicago Tribune, March 16, 2008; Spruiell, Stephen, "Rezko: Guilty", National Review Online, June 5, 2008, retrieved July 7, 2008 -- OK? -- Noroton (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, each piece of information needs only a single reference, so sentences should rarely need more than one or two sources. Stuffing the text full of sources will not be acceptable. I would, for the most part, expect to see reliable sources from the websites of national newspapers and television media, and perhaps from the two Chicago newspapers mentioned by Noroton. Sources must be used to verify facts, and not to add opinion or "color commentary". Sources like The National Review should only be used when wishing to offer a conservative/right-leaning point of view (just as "The Nation" would offer a liberal/left-leaning POV), and it is difficult to see why a biased view of any kind would be necessary with such contentious material. I agree that it would be good if ClubJuggle, or another administrator, would actually add the relevant text. I would be happy with either version above. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That National Review source would not be acceptable. The very first words ("Talk about bad timing...") expose the article as a conservative-leaning opinion piece. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. It's criticism. What do you think the Chicago Trib editorial is? WP:NPOV and WP:WELLKNOWN support judicious use of differing opinions. What is the policy basis or reasoning for keeping out opinion pieces from a footnote supporting the fact that there was criticism? Criticism is opinion. Noroton (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To be completely fair, the proposed Tribune op-ed is very pro-Obama. The two probably balance each other quite well, but I would not at all be opposed to dropping both of them in favor of a single, more neutral source. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think 2 references is okay, and that reasonably sane / tame examples are fine to illustrate criticism (they're allowed per WP:V), though not as good as a link to a reliable source that says there is criticism or goes over the criticism. Almost by definition an article that criticizes is not a reliable source. Anyway, let's go ahead and implement the language with the sources we now have, add a "fact" or "cite" or dummy reference where we think it needs referencing, then work through that calmly. I don't want to add any preconditions or telescope that discussion. As long as we understand that we're done on the content side, the citations are a minor work-throughWikidemo (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

'Clubjuggle and Wikidemo: We need as few sources as possible to substantiate each and every fact. If we can get one single source that does the whole thing, fine, but I never found one. I never found one saying "there was criticism from several sources", so we provide a footnote going directly to at least two sources, the minimum necessary to show it didn't come from just one spot. These two sources I'm proposing would only cite the word "criticism" (and the footnote would appear immediately after it in the text). WP:RS finds sources are perfectly acceptable for reporting their own opinion. WP:NPOV has no problem citing different opinions. I don't get your objection. Noroton (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) - There is a significant difference between opinion based on drawing conclusions from the facts (the Tribune piece) and opinion based on biased preconceptions (the Review piece). The latter reads almost like an "I told you so" piece. I have no problem with the criticism being referenced by conclusions drawn from traditional investigative journalism, but "The National Review" piece is just color commentary based on facts discovered by others and a generous helping of bias. You have never had trouble finding literally dozens and dozens of sources in the past, so why not come up with something a little more respectable? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

National Review, including its online version, is as respectiable as it gets in terms of opinion journalism in this country. It is impossible for me or anyone else to come up with something more respectable than the gold standard, recognizable across the ideological spectrum. Markos Moulitsas, who runs the left-wing Daily Kos Web site, told reporters in August 2007 that he doesn't read conservative blogs, with the exception of those on NRO: "I do like the blogs at the National Review — I do think their writers are the best in the [conservative] blogosphere," he said.[Begin Footnote]: [7]Ben Smith blog at the Web site of The Politico, "Markos speaks" post, August 2, 2007, accessed same day[End Footnote] You are the only person I have ever heard call NR or NRO not respectable. That hasn't been done since about the 1960s. You said earlier that you moved to the U.S. in 2000, so are you completely unfamiliar with opinion journalism in the United States? Your distinction between "opinion based on drawing conclusions from the facts" and the NRO piece is contradicted by commentary based on facts, and Scjessey, don't argue based on what you think is "biased". It's an opinion piece. It's supposed to be biased. I think I've gone out and found enough sources. Noroton (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

All I am saying is that The National Review is no more respected than The Nation. They are less respectable than MSM sources, but they are better than blogs, etc. Use of such publications as references should be when specifically seeking conservative or liberal commentary - especially when far less contentious sources are in abundance. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Scjessey, that's incorrect, and the purpose of footnoting "criticism" was precisely to seek commentary. Criticism is a type of commentary. The Nation isn't respected. It has barely stopped pushing the line that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were innocent, even after the Soviet archives were opened. Actually it's probably more respected than it was 10 years ago. If you want a respectable magazine that's definitely on the left, try The American Prospect, possibly Harper's. Any of these magazines, including The Nation are expected to get facts correct, and they are held accountable if they don't. In any event, I've been thinking about it and I think these two sources would actually be better ones to use, and they can be used for much of the rest of the passags as well, possibly all of it:

Washington Post article, March 4, 2008, page 3: Ethics watchdogs in Chicago accept Obama's account, noting that he was instrumental in passing the strongest state ethics law in 25 years as a freshman state senator. But they have called the real estate deal and his failure to distance himself from Rezko a lapse in judgment.
Los Angeles Times article, January 23, 2008: “Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble,” said Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago. “When he got indicted, there wasn’t a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming… . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you’re planning to run for president?”

Yes, these would be much better sources. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

With great reluctance, I would like to gauge opinion of active participants in this discussion. This is not a vote. Editors are reminded to discuss issues on their merits, and not to use "majority/minority" arguments in future discussion. Editors who have actively participated in this discussion to date are asked to indicate their support or opposition (and the strength thereof) to each of the three proposed versions, and to indicate your reasons for support or opposition. Please do not simply indicate a position without an explanation.

The purpose of this straw poll is to identify the degree of convergence of opinion, as well as what issues other than sourcing remain to be resolved. The two versions are below, with differences in bold.

Clubjuggle version 1

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Support. I believe this version adequately balances the fact that no wrongdoing was alleged on the transactions with the fact that it was the relationship that was criticized. The direct and immediate follow-up to that statement with Obama's acknowledgment negates any dismissal of the criticism and provides the necessary balance. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - will not reiterate earlier arguments but they're around in case anyone cares to find them. Wikidemo (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak support - Perfectly fine with me, but use of "although" and "nonetheless" make the sentence sound a little weak. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose because Version 3 is better, but I'd support any of Clubjuggle's versions. I'm changing my vote to make my preference more clear, but I'd still support any of Clubjuggle's versions. ~~Weak support~~ a bit too complex; simple is better. Noroton (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OpposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle version 2

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Very weak support. Besides not reading well, I find the "but the relationship nonetheless..." actually does seem to almost completely de-legitimize the criticism. I do not believe this version provides the necessary balance. Although I am not at all enthused about this version, I will reluctantly support it, if necessary in the interest of consensus. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Virtually identical to #1 but not worded as well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak support - Less weak, but more clunky that #1. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose because Version 3 is better, but I'd support any of Clubjuggle's versions. I'm changing my vote to make my preference more clear, but I'd still support any of Clubjuggle's versions. ~~Weak support~~ Noroton (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OpposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle version 3

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Strong support. I believe this version adequately balances the fact that no wrongdoing was alleged on the transactions with the fact that it was the relationship that was criticized. The direct and immediate follow-up to that statement with Obama's acknowledgment negates any dismissal of the criticism and provides the necessary balance. Although I originally proposed it, I believe the word "nonetheless" is superfluous (not harmful, just superfluous), so this version has my strong support in the interest of brevity. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - virtually identical to #1 but flows better. Wikidemo (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Neither weak, nor clunky. Could be tighter (see below). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
First preference I think this is the most neutral, but I support any of these four versions. Noroton (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Best of a bad lot. Least unacceptable and pathetic. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OpposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The version proposed below in table form reads better than this one. "Drew criticism" is an unnecessary phrase. LotLE×talk 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Probably the best possible. I gotta say though, this talk page is terrible to follow. It's hard to even make myself come back here anymore. Arkon (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle/Scjessey remix edition (version 4)

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Obama was not accused of wrongdoing, but the relationship drew criticism. He acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Support - Strong wording, tighter language. Loses "although", "any" and "nonetheless". Swaps an "Obama" for "he". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Stylistically, I prefer "although" to "but". That's a really minor point though. I'm fine with swapping "he" for Obama in the last sentence in any version above. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one could also say, "Obama was not accused of wrongdoing, although the relationship drew criticism." -- Scjessey (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose because Version 3 is better, but I'd support any of Clubjuggle's versions. I'm changing my vote to make my preference more clear, but I'd still support any of Clubjuggle's versions. ~~Weak support~~ my second preference. Noroton (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This one is fine too - Wikidemo (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OPposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-cap

Sorry, just got back from the 4th weekend. Could someone briefly re-cap what's taken place since Friday? Shem^(talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Read or skim down from Talk:Barack Obama#Implicit and Explicit: A tale of two versions for the really important stuff. Really short version is we've found a fairly balanced version that has a really good shot and consensus, and the above straw poll is to gauge preference on a relatively minor point of wording. With your help we may be able to draw this matter to a close. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a real olive-branch effort there, making every single straw poll option use the word "criticism." Where I'm from, that's called "pissing on someone and telling them it's raining." Shem^(talk) 21:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion in detail (and the note SCJ left on your talk page) to determine how we got there. Except for you, it appears all editors fully support the change. The background discussion may be helpful in determining why the change is so broadly supported. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, at what point did Tvoz's input quit counting here? 'Cause I mentioned her objection above, and you ignored it outright. I'm well aware of Jessey's decision to back the change, and the (frankly) lousy reasoning behind it: His desire to just get this over with. I don't find that a persuasive reasoning at all. Shem^(talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe your understanding of his reasoning is outdated: "I like it! This version has my full support. I like it even more than the version without criticism because I believe it is a fair representation of what has transpired. Excellent work! -- Scjessey (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)"

See also his notes on my userpage. He likes these versions on their merits and fully supports them. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, If we can make this end, I'm perfectly happy with any of the several Clubjuggle versions. LotLE×talk 21:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the sort of comment I'm talking about. People've reached the point where they're consenting to "whatever" just for the sake of getting this over with. Shem^(talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes I want to be done with this discussion. But I did read all the latest Clubjuggle, and unlike many past suggestions, none of them raised red flags in my mind. I have slight preferences among these, but I'm not about "oppose" because one uses a period where I think a semicolon is better. LotLE×talk 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A willingness to compromise and move on in the name of consensus is nothing to be ashamed of, particularly when one sees the point as a minor one. In any event, I normally don't like to do this but I've left a note on User:Tvoz's page asking if he/she will offer an opinion. Wikidemo (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a few editors compromise simply in the name of moving on, but certainly not in the name of consensus. I've made it clear that I'll happily sign on to any compromise so long as it keeps "scrutiny" (which has been the stable version for quite some time); if that's not acceptable, find a new compromise that'll work. Any insinuation that I haven't worked to compromise here is pretty empty; I signed on for allowing material within the paragraph on their home purchase, and later drafted the interim compromise that put down last month's edit warring. Tvoz and Bobblehead had a few drafts which allowed the reader to make up their mind without using "scrutiny" or "criticism," which I found an excellent proposal. Shem^(talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Wikidemo - I haven't looked at this yet, but will get back to it later tonight. Tvoz/talk 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What of the direct quote to the contrary that I've posted above, and the one on my user page? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What of it? I'd point you to Scjessey's more recent comments today where he acknowledges "I have only agreed to using the word itself 'to get it over with' (as Shem correctly pointed out)." Shem^(talk) 20:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] I am not trying to be obstructionist, and I don't think this is the most crucial thing at all that this article has to deal with. But Rezko has been discussed for a very long time here, long before most of the current editors were working on this article at all. We had consensus language with what I think was reasonable weight for this main article, with a long subarticle and long disquisition in the presidential campaign article. This is his overall biography, and Rezko has yet to become as big a deal to the public or even the mainstream media as some people suggest it was or expected it to become to rate so much space in the main bio. And I think entirely too much time has been spent here arguing after we reached consensus, and then again after we reached another consensus, and maybe there was a third or fourth round. Unfortunately others were not content with any of the consensus versions that were long in the article - and have stretched this out ad infinitum, in what has felt to me like a filibuster at times. I have not and am not going to edit war over it, but nor am I going to pretend that I agree with something I don't agree with just for the sake of ending it. I will keep thinking about it, but I am troubled that both the "scrutiny" option and the compromise version(s) that Bobblehead and I proposed (and Scjessey's July 4 00:07 UTC version which I also support) without using either "criticism" or "scrutiny" have disappeared - I think any of those were the best options that have been recently proposed. I too am willing to compromise - as should be clear I am compromising already by accepting this overly long paragraph which I have consistently said is giving too much weight for this matter in the main article. HailFire's use of footnote for this was exactly right, and I would guess we'll eventually be back to it when we're back to writing an encyclopedia article that isn't influenced by an election. Tvoz/talk 05:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz makes some good points here. I would still prefer to go the "implicit" route as far as "criticism" is concerned, and I have only agreed to using the word itself "to get it over with" (as Shem correctly pointed out). It could be argued that assuming Wikipedia readers will not be aware of the criticism, unless it is spelled-out to them explicitly, insults their intelligence. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that specifically use the word "criticism"? I know Arkon was going to look into whether or not something existed that used "widespread criticism" (or something similar). If a reliable source can be found that uses "criticism", I'd like to ask Shem if he would switch to supporting its use in the text. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it follows that if nobody can find a reliable source that uses "criticism" (or "scrutiny", for that matter), it may be necessary to consider alternatives. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is abundant, very reliable sourcing for the word "criticism" and it is a well-established practice of Wikipedia biographies (including, specifically, Featured Articles) to use that word, as Noroton and I have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. Of course, there are also dozens of reliable sources for using the phrase "questions about his judgment." WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please post a few that we can select from for citation? Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There's this one in the Boston Globe: "Critics said Obama's links with Chicago powerbrokers, including Rezko ..." There's also this one by the CBS News affiliate in Chicago, under the headline, "Obama Rejecting Criticism On Work With Tony Rezko." Then there's this one from ABC News with the subheader, "Candidate Faces Criticism Over Ties to Radical Pastor and Indicted Businessman." WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, matters not one bit if the word is in one source or a thousand. If it's criticism, it's recognizable as such. Wikipedians summarize all the time. We're actually supposed to reword what the sources say. Noroton (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - we all know there was criticism. My personal hesitation had been a question of weight and relevance, not verifiability or POV. Considering it's obviously true and a relatively small impact on the article to note there had been criticism I accept the point. If finding good secondary sources that talk about the fact there was criticism is going to convince those yet unconvinced, fine. But having done so I see nothing wrong with choosing a good, solid, fair example of criticism to cite as a case in point. Surely we can trust our readers with a link to the New York Times or some equally august publication here so they can see for themselves.Wikidemo (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have to repost this for the third time:

Washington Post article, March 4, 2008, page 3: Ethics watchdogs in Chicago accept Obama's account, noting that he was instrumental in passing the strongest state ethics law in 25 years as a freshman state senator. But they have called the real estate deal and his failure to distance himself from Rezko a lapse in judgment.
Los Angeles Times article, January 23, 2008: “Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble,” said Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago. “When he got indicted, there wasn’t a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming… . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you’re planning to run for president?”

-- a reposting of a reposting -- Noroton (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WB74 did what I was asking for, actually. I was looking for reliable sources that specifically used the word "criticism" when referring to Obama's ties with Rezko. This link, in particular, does that. This was not for my benefit (I have accepted the use of the word per Noroton's rationale above), but more for the likes of Shem and Tvoz who still have misgivings. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey-preferred version

This version eschews the word "criticism" because, to be frank, there really isn't much of it to be found in all the sources we have been looking at. This is the same version I proposed at 00:07 UTC on July 4th, and it already has the support of several editors (including Shem and Tvoz):

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

It contains all the necessary information about what actually happened in a completely neutral manner, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Although WP:WELLKNOWN indicates that including an element of criticism is permitted, WP:NPOV indicates that such an inclusion should be balanced. Simply stating that Obama was not accused of wrongdoing is not sufficient to provide this balance. The only fair solution would be to leave it out, especially since mainstream media coverage has been so minimal. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Unqualified support. Here's a real compromise. Shem^(talk) 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Support as well I'm totally willing to accept this version, which is a compromise for me regarding the matter's undue weight for this main article. I don't think there can be any other interpretation of "although...acknowledged", other than that the acknowledgment came in response to questions that were raised. I would footnote the word "acknowledged" with this editorial and/or this transcript of his meeting with the Tribune editorial board, or this one with the Sun-Times - or any other neutral, (that is probably not National Review or The Nation) article(s) that report on his acknowledgment of the appearance of impropriety. Some here are focused on including the word "criticism" and have said so - I think we do better by sidestepping the POV implications. The only tiny suggestion I'd make is to insert the word "that" after "acknowledged" which to my ear would read slightly better, but that's cosmetic. Tvoz/talk 17:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Tvoz's comments. My English teachers always told me ~~that~~ most instances of "that" aren't really necessary, although I would concede ~~that~~ it sounds better with that word in. And that's all I have to say about that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong support - er... obviously. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I'm done with Wikipedia, but the use of the word "criticism" permeates the biographies of famous politicians at Wikipedia. It is everywhere else, it belongs here, and WorkerBee74 and Noroton have proved it beyond any reasonable expectation of proof. Keeping that word out of the Rezko section is an edit that pretends this politician has never been criticized for his relationship with Rezko. That edit is stupid. That edit is partisan. That edit is biased. That edit is everything that Wikipedia claims not to be. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. For reasons given below. Noroton (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What is supposed to be going on here? At 14:02 8 July, Scjessey posted the following (it's just above, but given the lack of attention some editors sometimes give this long discussion, it's worth repeating -- emphases added):

I was looking for reliable sources that specifically used the word "criticism" when referring to Obama's ties with Rezko. This link, in particular, does that. This was not for my benefit (I have accepted the use of the word per Noroton's rationale above), but more for the likes of Shem and Tvoz who still have misgivings. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly 30 minutes later we have an about-face and Scjessey is thumping for bumping the word again. I do want to concentrate on, and "comment on the edits rather than the editors", and anyone can change his mind, but I get the impression from this about-face, along with the reluctance of Shem and Tvoz to discuss and their preference for voting and shutting off discussion, that there's a move afoot to circumvent discussion and reasoning -- that is, to circumvent WP:CONSENSUS policy and WP:TALK guidelines when WorkerBee74 has been blocked and Kossack4Truth had announced he was retiring. I readily acknowledge that a group of editors can overrule me and others in forming a consensus on a question, whether or not that consensus enforces a strong POV on even a prominent article. But no group of editors is capable of doing it in simply a vote. You will have to discuss it. In a reasonable way (that is, citing facts and policies & guidelines and using logic in a reasonable way). I don't have all day to do it, but I can find time today and in upcoming days if necessary to go over your arguments and present mine again, but it might save time if you could point out to me where you've countered the following points, which essentially repeat what I've said before, or provide new arguments or facts or citations to policies & guidelines, because I don't see a good case for your bumping "criticism":

WP:WEIGHT needs an awfully strong reason to bump a single word from a long article.
WP:NPOV at the section WP:WELLKNOWN strongly favors including critical information, and adding the word "criticism" is the briefest of negative mentions in a very long article that is very, very, very positive toward its subject, who is, after all, in the midst of a contentious political race. If ever there was a controversial subject, it is the biography of someone whose life story is just now becoming better known to the public of the nation where half of all native English speakers come from. For Wikipedia, it is vitally important to at least come close to having a neutral article. Whether or not my position is in a minority here, it is certainly not insignificant in terms of readers -- Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters, voters who have made up their minds or have not and foreign people who want to find out about the person who may be the most powerful individual on the face of the earth come January 2009 -- coming to this article looking for a balanced treatment. Even the most fervent supporters of Obama are going to want to know what is being said against him. The most prominent criticisms of him pertaining to his life belong in this article.
Evidence I have produced a ton of quotes and links still at the top of this page showing that criticism of Obama was widespread, given attention by the most influential news organizations in the United States, and the criticism extended so far as to make critics out of commentators who supported him, along with liberal commentators who could be expected to be sympathetic to him. It also includes good government organizations in Illinois, at least one of which worked closely with Obama. I haven't bothered to list all the Republican and conservative criticisms only because it doesn't seem necessary -- we can assume them, and nobody has said they doubt that those criticisms are there. The fact is, and it is a proven fact, that Obama received widespread, sustained, even harsh criticism which was widely reported, and there is evidence of it and it is on this page. What is the reasonable justification for ignoring this in an NPOV article?
Scjessey's reasons are inadequate Scjessey has asserted, not reasoned. Where he cites NPOV policy, I've already rebutted his argument in my second bullet just above. Although he says mainstream media coverage has been so minimal, it's not true, as shown by the evidence (long list of quotes and links I provided at the top of the page). He has said before that either his own memory of coverage or the number of google hits he can round up mean that this has not received much coverage. But the quotes/links evidence I provided for this one word shows that it is the best-covered, most prominently sourced single word in the entire article. Where is the evidence backing up removal? Weeks ago, I asked Tvoz and Shem (and Scjessey and other editors) to give me reasons why the phrase "questioned his judgment" (an earlier, more elaborate alternative to the compromise word "criticism") should not go in the article. Scjessey has given his faulty argument, Shem and Tvoz have been reluctant to give more than minimal reasons. We need better reasons. Editors without a reasonable argument are without a consensus under WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK. I think we've reached the point where WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT kicks in. Noroton (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not withdrawn my support for versions that include the word "criticism". I have merely reiterated my strong support for this version that does not include it. I still believe, in the strongest possible terms, that any language that uses "criticism" is an example of Wikipedia expressing a point of view. I totally reject your ill-conceived rebuttal for many reasons, but I see no point in arguing about it for the eleventy-billionth time. We must simply agree to disagree. One thing I will say is that in all your "ton of quotes and links... showing that criticism of Obama was widespread" there are none that actually say there has been "widespread criticism", or a phrase like it. That is your characterization. I have just been bludgeoned into reluctantly accepting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, you seem to believe that argument length by virtue of repetition makes your statements more "adequate." This is not the case. You may disagree on certain semantics, but that doesn't make those in disagreement "inadequate." Shem^(talk) 20:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, Noroton. You've twice (at least) characterized me as not being willing to discuss and preferring voting - I ignored it the first time, but now I'm answering it. If you look back in the archives you'll discover that I frequently have chosen to not participate in these faux votes, in fact. I have made my points here, and I don't see the need to repeat them over and over. If someone else has said what I essentially think, I don't have to say more than that I agree with it unless I have something to add - that's not a vote, that's just not wasting mine and everyone's time with endless repetition of arguments - which seems not to be a problem for you, and which has driven away several long time contributors who couldn't take the huge volume of repetition here. The onus is on the people who want to change consensus to convince those who support it. There were several versions in the article that were a result of consensus - there has been something about Rezko for a very, very long time in this article, and having this overly long paragraph is giving it a great deal of weight vis-a-vis his entire life and career. But a new consensus was reached to include what is currently in the article, and I've gone along with it, even though I believe it belongs as a footnote to this article. Not content with that thorough and cited description, several editors have been pushing for more and more. Two or three of them have been blocked and/or "left", because they do not edit in a neutral or collegial way and say it's their way or no way - they have only themselves to thank for that, so don't turn that around and say that others are capitalizing on it. As far as I'm concerned the blocked/departed editors and some others have been disruptive, rude, and disrespectful of others' opinions, so I am happy to see them go. If the only way you can have what you think is consensus is by having those editors supporting you, then maybe you don't have the consensus you claim to have. And finally - I have worked for a year and a half, since December 2006, making almost 400 edits to this article and over 540 comments on this Talk page to keep this as a neutral and balanced article which doesn't over-emphasize some things that are pushed for political reasons - including encouraging semiprotection so that thousands of readers don't read lies and racist smears when they are posted for a few minutes at a time. You've been working on this article since the end of May and have made 2 edits to it and 360 comments on Talk - so please don't lecture me on discussion and POV and the need for balanced treatment. I know that and have worked for that on all of the hundreds and hundreds of articles I edit - most especially the many political ones. I have never even come close to being blocked for anything, so please keep me out of your accusatory comments. Where I grew up this drowning talk page pressure on editors who have expressed their views would be called bullying, and I'm not going to play your game. Tvoz/talk 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Scjessey, who has argued every single step of the way since April (at least) that any negative information at all in the article must either not go in or must be minimized, down to arguing that the single nine-letter word "criticism" is "undue weight", and has fought tooth and nail every step of the way, is now asserting that he's being "bludgeoned". Now Scjessey is demanding that we provide sources that spoon-feed him what normal content decision-making should be able to chew on pretty easily: There was a good amount of widespread, serious criticism on this topic, so it's worth adding the word "criticism" to the article. It ain't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to recognize the reality staring you in the face. And if "any language that uses "criticism" is an example of Wikipedia expressing a point of view" then Wikipedia would never be able to mention "criticism" at all, and yet, as Clubjuggle previously demonstrated, we do it all the time. Is Scjessey right and all the rest of Wikipedia wrong? 2. Shem, where's your argument? I've been asking you for it since June 21. Same with you, Tvoz. 3. Tvoz, that's a lot of verbiage to complain about verbiage. I think you should have been able to answer my arguments in all these weeks, and you could do it in less space than you just used. It isn't bullying -- and it is hardly my "game" as you impolitely put it -- to ask you or anyone else to actually show us that you've got more than a personal preference to contribute here. That's not what "rationale" means in WP:TALK or WP:CONSENSUS. You can count up my edits, but you can't present reasons? Does that sound like consensus-building and encyclopedia-building? If you can't defend your reasons when I've shown they're unreasonable, how do you distinguish your position from POV pushing? Asking people to state their reasons, not just assert their opinions, is Wikipedia's "game". I think these are fair questions, not bullying. If you can't (or refuse to) defend your position, why shouldn't it be discounted? Noroton (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, I hope you don't think I actually counted edits. This tool does it for you. And my verbiage is too long? I don't think I've come anywhere close in the per K character count here. I did give my arguments - I just chose not to repeat them every time someone opened yet another section to discuss it again. I believe doing so is is a tactic to wear down opposition and get them to give up, as I said. I call it bullying - you can call it what you like. Last time, as I have said already: Rezko is being given too much weight for the main bio, and is properly handled in depth in the subarticles and as a footnote here, per HailFire and how we had it for a long time before you began editing here. Not the 9 letter word, Noroton - the whole story. But I agreed to a too-long version that is in the article in the interests of moving along. I do, however, prefer the latest July 7 Scjessey version which built on Bobblehead's and my version which clearly says that he acknowledged that there was an implication of impropriety and therefore took action. Footnoted with his long interview that spells it all out in detail and possibly a third party source or two who say it too. That version conveys exactly the information taht needs to be conveyed, but does not introduce the POV-laden word "criticism" which has us making a judgment about the scrutiny he received. Leave it to the sources and the readers. I'm sorry if you found my comment impolite - I find your characterization of my work here as avoiding discussion and wanting to vote - something I specifically don't like to do - impolite. So there you have it. I notice you didn't apologize for that, and in fact repeated your characterization. But that's par for the course around here, so I take no offense, just choose not to get embroiled in the constant demand for repeating of arguments. Clear now? Tvoz/talk 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, my point was that you want to close down debate before you -- or anyone else on your side -- has answered reasonable questions about your questionable assertions, and I have no reason to apologize for that, because it was part of pointing out the weakness of your position. If I made a mistake about talking about your position on "voting", I hope it didn't hurt you much, and please accept my apologies. Now try to keep your comments focused on the subject rather than using most of your verbiage to criticize an editor who has been trying to ... focus on the subject: Wikipedia using the word "criticism" implies only that it was prominent enough to be worth mentioning, it doesn't call for us to calibrate exactly how much. Editors "making a judgment about the scrutiny he received" -- the judgment that it was criticism and that it's worth mentioning that word to our readers -- is just exactly the kind of editorial decision that Wikipedia editors are called on to make. (WP:SYN: Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing) I don't need to repeat what I just said one or two comments up about the criticism being so widespread that even those sympathetic to Obama engaged in it. You give no reason whatever for saying that our reporting that there was criticism (as WP:NPOV tells us is perfectly acceptable) is somehow, in and of itself, "POV-laden". You can repeat that as much as you want, but you haven't given anyone a reason to believe your assertion is correct. (WP:SUBSTANTIATE: Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it. -- that's what using the word "criticism" does, together with a footnote substantiating it.) Clubjuggle gave Shem a slew of examples of biographical articles that have the word in it -- all "POV-laden"? All contrary to Wikipedia policy? Please point me to the edit on this huge page that answers these objection to your point. If this is all repetition, that should be no trouble for you. If it's never been responded to, we have some discussion to complete. Noroton (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Support, per Tvoz. This issue can be allowed to play too large a part of the article. Iit causes particular concerns with our policies regarding articles about living people if it's overplayed. S. Dean Jameson 19:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It has become apparent...

That we cannot reach a consensus that will include the full range of opinions on this discussion. That the recent departure of User:Kossack4Truth and the (well-deserved) block of User:WorkerBee74 have magnified the sampling bias already inherent in any discussion of this type. While a commitment to neutrality and true consensus would require that editors make extra effort to treat opponents with respect and to hear and accomodate minority opinions, and for those in the minority to take great care to state their opinions clearly and carefully, making extra effort to avoid engaging in attacks that would overshadow any legitimacy in their arguments. Neither has happened to anywhere near the full extent it needs to, and I do not see this changing in the foreseeable future. As long as both sides draw lines in the sand, no progress is possible. I believe the only chance for resolution of this matter, if there is a chance at all, is to seek outside opinions via a request for comments. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We're at that point. But in order for it not to be a mess of multiple options, as we had last time, let's vote up or down on one or two. I suggest taking one of the options from the four you proposed earlier, since editors who voted nearly all seemed ready to accept any one of them; and the Scjessey-Schem-Tvoz language and asking outside editors to choose one or the other. The question is so narrow that editors can pretty easily figure out the issue. If we structure it in a way that gives all sorts of options, we'll get no consensus whatever. We might even simply ask, since I think this is the real difference, Do you want the word "criticism" to appear in this passage or not? We should present the question and start a discussion section under the tally, if we're going to present it in that form. I'll accept the result. Will other editors? Noroton (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'm open to bringing in outside opinions via the usual channels, but Wikipedia works through consensus-building, not "up-or-down voting." Shem^(talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that voting is not the answer. As for "lines in the sand" - it is about the consensus word "scrutiny" vs the word "criticism". In order to break the logjam, versions were proposed which eliminated both words, yet retained the meaning and neutrality. Without going through the whole page above, my recollection is that the "scrutiny" people have accepted the no-word version (apologies if I have mis-remembered) - but the "criticism" people have said that they can't accept anything less than their word. I say this not in attack, but in frustration. Again, the version that is now in the article got there because the people editing compromised and reached consensus, and that wasn't easy. To overturn it should put the onus on those who wish to make changes to convince those who accepted the consensus. So, to be clear, I will accept the existing text, I will accept the original text in footnote that was here for a long time, and I will accept Scjessey's July 4 no-"scrutiny"-no-"criticism" approach. Three versions, two of which were consensus versions, are ok with me. I don't think that's me drawing a line in the sand - I think that's compromise. Tvoz/talk 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring in other editors. Let's see how well the idea that using the single word "criticism" in the article makes it POV. Let's point other editors to the overwhelming evidence that there was enough criticism to make it worth mentioning, the clarity of WP:WELLKNOWN and the relevant parts of WP:NPOV, the clear common practice throughout the rest of Wikipedia and the pretty obvious summarizing that the word "criticism" does and compare it to whatever Tvoz, Shem and Scjessey can come up with to defend their position and let Wikipedia editors compare the two. Let good sense prevail. Let's see who's extending this discussion unnecessarily. Let's see how other Wikipedia editors define "reasonable". You don't need a consensus to request comments, Clubjuggle. Just do it. Noroton (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there was a much debate over the fine wording of the United States Bill of Rights as whether Obama's land dealings with the Rezkos was criticized, scrutinized, neither, or both. Anyway, I'm fine with any of these versions. As to process, I don't think anyone's doing this on purpose but this is going awfully slow - at this pace we won't have the article ready in time for the election, perhaps not the next ice age. Sure you don't want to flip for it? Wikidemo (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept any version that takes away the pain. I have presented good arguments to explain why "criticism" is inappropriate. I've proposed a version which sidesteps this problem, but I've got to the point where I no longer care. The scary thing about all this is that this argument is nothing compared to the one we are going to have about Bill Ayers! I urge everyone concerned to view this video to gain an understanding of what I think of all this pointless bickering. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it is apparent that we have a consensus for Clubjuggle Version 3. It is the first preference of Clubjuggle, Noroton, WorkerBee74 and has the support of Scjessey, Wikidemo and LotLE -- six editors -- and is opposed by Tvoz and Shem. If Tvoz and Shem want to continue discussion, I'm fine with addressing any new points (new arguments, new information, new citations of Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines). If there are no new objections that have not been answered, let's implement Version 3 and be done with it. If no new points come up, we have a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation that that policy calls disruptive and should not impede us from adding that to the article. I invite Clubjuggle to add it. We'll need to source it, but we can fix the citations later. There is no WP:BLP violation involved if we have the sourcing, and we do. I suggest adding the LA Times or Washington Post source that I provided above to make absolutely sure no BLP objections come up, and we can change the footnotes later if someone objects. Sound good?Noroton (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "apparent consensus" for the ClubJuggle "3" version, Noroton. There is considerable discontent. None of the facts in my version are contentious, correct? Not a single editor has objected to the details, or how they have been written (although Tvoz would prefer less, due to weight concerns). Am I right? So it follows that it would make more sense to implement my preferred version, which accurately presents the details and timeline of the Obama/Rezko relationship, and then continue the discussion about whether or not to include the "criticism" characterization. It is the only logical approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the question is whether or not we have consensus, then we have consensus with Clubjuggle's Version 3. I would declare consensus when it seems reasonable that the discussion has died down. If you would like to continue discussion of your version, feel free. I'm willing. Noroton (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Noroton. We do not have a consensus for that version. Simply stating it again does not make it so. I am contending we do have consensus for my preferred version, and we should implement it. There is no need to discuss my preferred version any further because everyone agrees to every detail of it. The only contentious item remaining is the inclusion of the "criticism" phrasing. It is the "criticism" phrasing that requires further debate. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's stopping you from debating it in the subsection just above, where Tvoz and I have already been discussing it? Feel free to chime in. Noroton (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that this version should be implemented immediately, with discussion on the "criticism" phrase continuing? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I always seem to have to repeat myself, even when I've been quite clear: We have consensus already for Clubjuggle's Version 3, although it would be prudent to wait a bit to see if other editors will support it or something else within the next 12 or maybe 18 hours. But if you have additional, new arguments to bring up, we are obligated to consider them. Yet you haven't brought any new ones up. Therefore, after a short while, we can recognize the consensus, add Clubjuggle's Version 3 and move on. That's the way consensus works. I have absolutely no idea what your reference table is supposed to show. Perhaps you could explain it. Noroton (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] I don;'t know how you define consensus, Noroton, but Scj's version has the support of Lulu, Shem, Scjessey, Wikidemo, and me as of now, and Clubjuggle's has Clubjuggle, you and Wikidemo, with Scjessey saying he prefers his own version although hasn't withdrawn his support for Club's. WorkerBee74 is blocked for his behavior, so I don't see how we count him anywhere since he can't change his mind or comment. Bobblehead hasn't been here for this last round, but Scjessey's version was similar to what he proposed regarding leaving off both criticism and scrutiny; perhaps he'll come back. Other editors haven't spoken, assuming I haven't missed anyone. So it's not clear to me at all that Club's has the consensus you assert. Tvoz/talk 05:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Add S. Dean and Bobblehead to those who appear to support Scjessey's version, and Arkon to those who prefer Club3. Tvoz/talk 05:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We use consensus, not voting. As I've pointed out previously, there is a sampling bias inherent in these discussions, in that an article about any political candidate is bound to attract supporters of that candidate in disproportionate numbers. While this creates a natural tendency to railroad through changes over the objections of the minority, the only way to achieve true consensus is for those in the majority to make an extra effort to hear and understand the minority point of view. To be sure, the situation has been compounded by individuals in the minority who have behaved less-than-admirably, but when individuals like myself, who have been sometimes on the side of the majority and sometimes on the side of the minority, feel that our legitimate questions and concerns are being flat-out ignored (not just "not accepted", but "ignored"), that's indicative of a problem. When just under half of the editors active in the discussion do not support the purported consensus, it's not a consensus, and in light of that, I am somewhat angered by the fact that my attempt to place the interim "scrutiny" language back in place pending resolution of that issue has been reverted. If those opposed to "criticism" get what they want before negotiations can take place, what's their incentive to negotiate at all? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 06:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I really object to that comment, Clubjuggle. First you are making assumptions about who supports which candidate if any, and for the millionth time, we're here to write a biography of an individual's entire life and career, not a piece about a candidate and candidate issues., pro or con. I object to your use of the word "railroading" - it is unjustified. If some concerns were ignored, you might consider that folks you call the "minority" have drowned this page in paragraph after paragraph, new section after new section, and a whole lot of abuse, making it all but impossible to read or comment on most of it, and chasing away dedicated editors. As has been pointed out several times now, the so-called majority has bent over backward to accommodate the so-called minority point of view by including a long paragraph when a much shorter one would be what some think is the proper weight, with a footnote for a few details, citations, and links to other places that go into more detail. What was "railroaded", if anything, was this overly long text that you seem to think is the norm for this section - Newross' painstaking evidence proves that it was not the norm at all. And finally, I posted the names of those who supported your version 3 and those who supported Scj's to indicate that Noroton's claim that your version 3 had consensus was just not true. So your anger ought to be directed as well at his assertion that your version 3 had consensus - was it? I thanked you below (or above?) for trying to mediate, because I think you were trying to help here, but your comment above has me wondering. (And please remember that I've already said I can go along with "scrutiny" although prefer leaving both off and even more prefer getting this back into proper weight for the biography.) Tvoz/talk 06:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I always though we were supposed to ignore suggestions which violate multiple WP policies or guidelines. In view of current sources and structure, there is no way use of the word "criticism" will happen anytime soon, so don't be surprised if suggestions along those lines get ignored. It seems you are ready to take a break, which looks like a good idea to me considering the late history of the page, and if you come back please keep in mind the more reasonable your suggestions are the more likely they are to be treated reasonably, especially considering the continued failure of your arguments to overcome "rough consensus." 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference table

This will help to make it obvious that we already have consensus for my preferred version, but not for the "criticism" phrase in other versions:

Sentence	Accurate?	Sourced?	Contentious?
Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood.	Yes	Yes	No
The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year.	Yes	Yes	No
Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama.	Yes	Yes	No
The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted.	Yes	Yes	No
Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.	Yes	Yes	No
Alternate language: Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship drew criticism.	Arguably	Questionably	Definitely

-- Scjessey (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The version presented in this table (in the base version, not the "alternate language") is better than previously proposed versions. Avoiding the unnecessary (and apparently contentious) terms "criticism" and "scrutiny" is cleaner and reads better. I currently "vote" for this version, and against all the others. LotLE×talk 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow! And I have just been worried about the age old include or delete debate of a new article. You guys have been very busy with this Rezko stuff. I am very sorry if I've distracted any of you--and yes I confess there is a little sarcasm there. Yet I know all of the Rezko activists are acting in good faith. I always assume good faith. Still, what an epic discussion!--Utahredrock (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Middle name in infobox

I admit that I wasn't able to read every bit of what posts there were in the archive concerning this issue, but there was at least one section of one archive that argued against including his middle name at the top of the infobox because that space is reserved for names as the candidates are generally known (ie Al Gore, John Kerry, etc.). It should be noted, however, that neither of those people, nor countless others (George Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, Henry Ross Perot, Ronald Wilson Reagan, and the list goes on) are noted by their familiar names, but by their full names. So unless some other kind of explanation can be given for why we list in their respective infoboxes John Forbes Kerry, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., and William Jefferson Clinton, there is obviously every reason to list Obama as Barack Hussein Obama, II here. Comment here please or I will go ahead and make the appropriate change. And, for the record, going now and changing the infoboxes of all the people I mentioned here and coming back saying I'm full of it doesn't address the point. --DanielNuyu (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to two things: John McCain and Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008#Obama's name. So please don't. Wikidemo (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we know how Obama's name appeared on the ballot for his Senatorial race? Or how it will appear on the presidential ballots (assuming he's the actual nominee, etc). But actually, since Senate is his highest office, is indicated in the infobox, and there is a factual answer about what the ballots said, I think we should treat that as binding. LotLE×talk 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just to make sure I'm unambiguous: The name of the article should definitely be the most commonly used "Barack Obama"; the lead of the article should definitely use "Barack Hussein Obama II" as his complete name. The question is only what the office holder infobox should say; which should be the exact name he was elected as. LotLE×talk 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt the ballot had the "II", since that was only recently uncovered on the birth certificate when some people were trying to claim he wasn't a natural-born citizen. I'd guess the same applies to the middle name, but I don't have any source. However, my understanding has always been that we go with the official Senate/House/other office website and use the name that is used there on the office holder infobox, which would be Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and actually would be John Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy, not "John Forbes Kerry" or "Ted Kennedy". I've not particularly seen anywhere that we go by the ballot which would also be a lot harder to verify. Tvoz/talk 18:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This page lists all the Senators from Illinois, and is compiled by Senate professional staff rather than by Obama's staff. This produces the same spelling as that Tvoz points to, so I think we're good with the existing infobox (if the Senate historian used a different spelling than Obama's own staff, I'd defer to the Senate historian; but that's a moot issue). LotLE×talk 18:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz's comment on the name.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Some trivia: I went to normalize the infoboxes of some other senators, where the infobox did not necessarily follow the name as office holder. I found that for Kennedy, the Senate historian and Kennedy's staff both used "Edward M. Kennedy". However, in Kerry's case, the Historian used "John F. Kerry" while Kerry's staff used "John Kerry". Confusing... in this case, as well as deferring to the Senate historian, I happened to have been a Massachusetts voter, and saw the actual ballot which read "John F. Kerry"... in other states, I wouldn't have that knowledge off-hand. LotLE×talk 18:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree about using the Senate historian/Biographical Directory as definitive source too in the event of a conflict with what the staff uses - and of course this is especially so for the office holders from the past who don't have websites to look at. Tvoz/talk 19:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)