Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy/Archive 1

Need for article?

There is already a section in the Jeremiah Wright article about this, which is what makes this man notable. why do we need a separate article? Beach drifter (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with other editor who prod flagged this page. and you. so thats three... not that wikipedia keeps track of numbers like that lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have combined previously authored material from the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article and the Jeremiah Wright article to create an article regarding Wrights comments, public reaction, and the effects they had on Obama. Please note that a similar controversy erupted over John McCain's supposed dealings with a lobbyist, and that has its own article. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it seems like a point to me. Grsz11 04:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And it's laughable that the section title "Effect on Barack Obama" is almost as long as the rest of the article. Grsz11 04:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that entire section needs to be removed.Beach drifter (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

While Wright may be notable by himself, he is surely overwhelmingly known for this controversy. To me at least, this means that his article should really focus on that, in a NPOV way. Giving the controversy its own article like this, in such a negative light, is sure to cause many editors to label it POV. Thats of course is just my opinion. Beach drifter (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no point here. I have grouped everything together into a single article. I do not see what the problem is. It is not a POV fork, and I am not a POV editor. I have no "point" to make here whatsoever. Negative light? It is the same text from the Wright article, but grouped with other events. This article is ok, but this isn't? --Happyme22 (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Grsz11 04:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The prior version describing the post Sept 11 sermon because it actually quoted Wright as he attributed his remarks to Peck, which is verifiable.

Wright said, "I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out — did you see him, John? — a white man, he pointed out, ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true — America's chickens are coming home to roost." Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And according to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "In an article's deletion debate, an editor unfamiliar with guidelines may vote to keep an article solely because articles similar to it exist. Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article."

The McCain controversy is not an article similar to this, and that one existing is not my only reason for this one existing. They were two separate events with two separate outcomes, but the Republican controversy merits inclusion and the Democratic one doesn't? I have combined material from two different places into one to provide a better place for readers to access information with both sides arguments being presented. I don't see how it is POV here, but perfectly fine on two separate pages. Happyme22 (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see why this needs a separate article. Anyone searching for Wright will be looking to read about just this. So why not merge it? Beach drifter (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of like saying that Oliver North and Iran-Contra affair should be merged; the majority of readers to North's article are most likely there to read about his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, but we cannot merge those articles together because the scandal was much too large and there are too many details that don't all pertain to North. The same applies here. Happyme22 (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not 'kind of like' that at all. This isn't a major scandal, it will be forgotten in a matter of months. Besides that all of the details in this article pertain directly to Wright. It's really just political bantering and it seems to me impossible to create an article without some POV. Thats why I feel it should stay in the Wright article. Beach drifter (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So we should appease all the ignorant, mis/uninformed people out there who came here to read all the things he said, and they continue on their way knowing the quotes, without reading the other info in the biographies of Wright and Obama? Grsz11 04:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say that I agree with Happyme22. This subject has in the past threatened to take over both Jeremiah Wright and various Barack Obama-related articles. In terms of the latter, the Wright controversy was one of the most widely reported events of the campaign (almost as much as Obama's speech in response to it), but it's not so important as to justify the close details some contributors wanted to add to Barack Obama and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. As for Wright, it's true that this controversy was what brought him nationwide attention, but the Jeremiah Wright article was created back in 2006, and even Wright's detractors should admit that a few months' controversy shouldn't get more coverage than a 30-year career. As a subject, the controversy is notable, and the coverage here seems NPOV to me. If people think otherwise, please take the matter to AfD rather than restoring the {{prod}} template. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to put this out there, this article is longer than the Lewinsky scandal. Grsz11 04:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And "A More Perfect Union" is longer than "I Have a Dream". To me, that's an argument for expansion of the underdeveloped historical articles, not the deletion of the newer ones. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

have to agree with some of those points, especially seeing that the original Wright article has been there for two years. I removed the Obama impact section of this article because it seemed irrelevant, maybe it just needs to be (dramatically) shortened? Beach drifter (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it be irrelevant? He was impacted by this event. I'm okay with shortening it, but not removing it completely. I had taken a good portion from the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article and gave a link to this article, but that was reverted. So I think shortening it is fine, as long as the info is covered in the Obama presidency article. Happyme22 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All that I think is relevant is the media coverage. Going on and on about polls and numbers being affected by Wright seems a little too much. Beach drifter (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

how is any of this coverage not fully within the realm of A More Perfect Union? Like I said on happy's talk, this will end of being the same article as the speech page, but with an emphasis on the remarks and not the speech. Oh well, deal with it there! Don't create a new page. Just think how long we will have to make the response section, to cover NPOV. Media response, polls, Obama response, media response to the Obama response, etc. In short we will have to export a bunch of text from "a more perfect union" ANYWAYS, so why bother? We can just beef up the speech "context" on Wright if someone thinks they can produce more NPOV text on that topic. In short I would like to know WHY this should not be tagged for deletion, considering I am not the only editor who has raised this exact concern? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This and the speech were two different things. Sure, the speech was only given because of this controversy, but I don't see how we are going to have to "export a bunch of text from 'a more perfect union'". --Happyme22 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) if you don't "see it", thats a perfect example of why you should not be spearheading a drive to create a new Jeremiah Wright-related page. People have spent weeks hammering out an NPOV interpretation of Wright, against tall odds of vandalism and co-ordinated POV efforts- and I see NO reason to add to chances of vandalism or trolling by a factor of two simply because two users feel "the speech and the controversy are separate issues". Yes of course they are but that does not justify content forking, it justifies expanding the existent pages.

furthermore there is very little polling data which supports the long term notability of the Rev Wright issue alone. the notability is aided by keeping it with the speech, in so much as two related semi-notable events, are together, if editors agree, notable together but not seperately. god part of me can't believe we are parsing like this, clearly the two are one issue (part of me wants to yell) And frankly Josiah is the editor whose opinion is most critical in this matter... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think my opinion is any more critical than any other Wikipedian's here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

you have an NPOV track record, happy claims one but I don't see it... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy is right — the speech and the controversy are intertwined but separate subjects. I don't have a crystal ball, but I'm going to make two unencyclopedic predictions: 1) Obama will win the Democratic nomination, and the Republicans will fan the flames of this controversy in the general election — we haven't heard the last of this in the current election cycle. And 2) whatever the outcome of the election, the speech "A More Perfect Union" will have a lasting impact, and will be studied as a noteworthy page in the history of American race relations.

Of course, my predictions may be completely off-base, but I mention them to show how the speech and the controversy are distinct subjects which are likely to carry quite different significance. The March on Washington and the "I Have a Dream" speech are covered separately; I think this could be similar. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We sure managed to make a mess of this talk page in just under an hour. Beach drifter (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yes we did :) As to what you and I were talking about Beach drifter, I have added in a significantly downsized version of what the controversy has done for the Obama camp: how he responded, criticisms of that, and his speech on race (plus, to hopefully calm some out there, I've added that the speech was well received). A link to the larger Obama campaign article with the specific section where it is described is present as well, plus a link to the speech article. Happyme22 (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I've been trying to remove the countless irrelevant opinions that were in that section (currently "reactions", previously "responses") when it was part of the main Wright article, since most of the opinions were being cherry-picked to synthesize a favorable spin for Wright's sermons instead of a neutral POV. On a side note, I strongly support having this as a separate article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with A More Perfect Union?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no merge, by concensus. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A question for 72.0.180.2: why is this article somehow unencyclopedic? Your claims that it should be merged with A More Perfect Union and similarities to that article have all been discredited, and you have yet to provide a vaild rationale. Happyme22 (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since IP 72 has just proposed a merge, I oppose merger per my above comments that the speech "A More Perfect Union" and this controversy are connected, but completely separate issues. Happyme22 (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommend merge into A more perfect union because of the overlap and I recommend we expand "a more perfect union" until such time as it fully encompasses wright affair. There should not be MORE THAN ONE page which only exists because of the wright affair- considering the long term existence of "a more perfect union," expansion and merge seems totally apropos . 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, because I believe that the speech has notability beyond the vicissitudes of the campaign, whereas the controversy is almost solely a function of the campaign. There is substantial material in each article which isn't under the purview of the other. For example, the theological justifications mentioned here aren't directly relevant to the speech, and the responses of academics to the speech (talking about how Obama has moved the national discourse on race forward, etc.) aren't directly relevant to Jeremiah Wright or the campaign. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Josiah) Strongly oppose a merge between these two. I'm fine with this as a stand alone article, but if it is to be merged anywhere it should be back to the Obama campaign article and/or the article about Wright. The article on A More Perfect Union is not the place to discuss this in detail, simply because much (if not most) of the reaction to the speech has not been related to what Obama said about Wright, but rather what he said about race relations in the country (or how the speech affected his electoral prospects). The Wright controversy and the Obama speech are of course related and need to be discussed as such, but neither should be subsumed under the other, just as Gettysburg Address should not be subsumed under Battle of Gettysburg nor vice versa (and I'm not saying the Obama/Wright affair is comparable to Lincoln and Gettysburg, but I think the analogy is still appropriate).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"whereas the controversy is almost solely a function of the campaign."

hence the extremely long section on Barack Obama Presidential Campaign, 2008 that has existed for weeks. In between that and what can be salvaged for "a more perfect union", again we have all the makings of a great merge. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

that is three pages which could handle part of a merge, which again is a great argument for not inventing another Barack Obama page for people to haggle over... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a different proposal from what you suggested above. You initially said "I recommend merge into A more perfect union because of the overlap and I recommend we expand "a more perfect union" until such time as it fully encompasses wright affair." Now you are suggesting breaking it up and pushing the content into three different articles. If you are no longer proposing a direct merge between this and A More Perfect Union than you should remove that tag. I also would oppose the merge into three separate articles as I think this warrants its own article. Not having "another Barack Obama page for people to haggle over" is not a good reason to keep a page that clearly discusses a notable issue. All we need to do is keep this page NPOV.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

yes I am suggesting merge into the existent pages, of which there seem to be three applicable ones, maybe there are more. please don't interpret this as some sort of attack on "a more perfect union". This is an attempt to establish due weight for the "wright controversy" and I bring up "a more perfect union" because it provides a similar framework on notability and structure issues- and was created in basically the same time frame. I am commending the "more perfect union" page as the authority on this subject in fact, in regards to what I view as an attempted POV creation (this new page)

you call it a notable issue, but I don't know that its true outside of the notability it has in existent articlespace. Any news today or yesterday on the issue? Do the polls still reflect the effect on Obama's campaign? Answer me those questions and we can talk about notability. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't view it as an attack on the speech page, but your original proposal was to merge these two articles and I just felt that made no sense (you are now arguing for something different with which I still disagree, but which to me makes more sense). The Wright/Obama issue is clearly still in the news, but they key point is that notability does not expire and this controversy has already proven to be extremely notable. I agree with Josiah's view expressed elsewhere that your best bet might be to put this up for AFD. You might get some consensus for a complex merge there, or else we would get a sense that most feel this controversy is worthy of a stand alone article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

no one is saying the issue is not notable. not to sound like a broken record, but I added the original wright text on the Obama bio page, and I just feel its not notable enough for its own page ( and I see recent reporting misidentified all the time, I mean recent reporting of events, not analysis. We can't build a whole page on analysis however. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 is so long, it makes sense to spin out sections like this into daughter articles. Such a daughter article doesn't need to be merged with a separate article which has notability outside of the campaign. As I said on my talk page, note that we have separate articles on John Kerry's military service, John Kerry military service controversy, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, Swift Boat challenge and swiftboating. These subjects are all closely related, but each is distinct enough to have its own article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on distinctness- you can say the speech has notability outside of the campaign, but it would not exist if not for the campaign...72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To borrow Bigtimepeace's comparison, the Gettysburg Address wouldn't exist if not for the Battle of Gettysburg, but the two have distinct notability. But we've said our piece — let's see what other folks think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The controversy concerning Wright's sermons goes into depth beyond that of Obama's speech, and vice versa. While they overlap in terms of subject matter, one is not a subset of the other. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

wp:recentism advocates we take a ten-year's distance as our guidline. In short, ten years from now will this situation still be so notable as to merit 2 separate pages (essentially a "controversial remarks" page and then a "obama's response to controversial remarks" page? Thats content forking if I've ever seen it. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think that from 10 years from now will the controversy be notable as to designate 2 separate pages. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Was that a statement or a question, David? The reason I see the controversy and the speech as separate but related subjects is that on the one hand, there are responses to the controversy which have little to do with the Obama campaign (for example, the comments by Martin Marty, who's hardly a political figure); and on the other hand, there are responses to the speech which have little to do with Jeremiah Wright (for example, the commentators who highlighted Obama's comments about white resentment and anger over affirmative action, busing and so forth, and the larger points Obama was making about race relations in America). The controversy was the occasion for the speech, and Obama wouldn't have given the speech were it not for the controversy, but the subject of the speech was wider than the controversy, and reliable sources have recognized that. Furthermore, the afterlife of the speech and the controversy are distinct. It seems clear that if Obama wins the nomination, the Republicans are going to try to revive the matter of Jeremiah Wright in the general election, and so the controversy page will require expansion. It's harder to foresee the future of the speech, but some media sources (e.g. Chris Matthews, who apparently got another thrill up his leg) have predicted that the speech will be taught in schools. Now, that may be election-year hyperbole, but it may be true. It was certainly a noteworthy page in the history of American discourse on race, and as such I believe deserves consideration as a text outside the vicissitudes of the campaign. It was born out of the campaign, but has notability outside of it. At least, I think that it does now, and will in ten years' time.

Anyway, that's why I oppose a merger to A More Perfect Union specifically. I've said more about the other merge proposal and some general thoughts below. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to respond directly and hopefully honestly to 72.0.180.2's ten years distance remark. If all that was at issue here were "controversial remarks" and a "response to controversial remarks" than I would fully agree that what we are seeing is content forking. However I disagree with that characterization. The Wright controversy is arguably the most discussed controversy of the 2008 Democratic Primaries and thus is inherently notable now and in years to come (until such point as we stop caring about presidential elections - keep your fingers crossed!). Obama's speech was cast by his handlers in historic terms and to a significant extent has been received that way (at least for now, but also for the foreseeable future). Whether Obama wins the nomination and the presidency - or the first but not the second, or neither of those - I would bet hundreds of dollars (which is big time money for me) that some discussion of his speech will begin appearing in undergraduate history textbooks within the next two or three years (this is something I do know a bit about). I don't imagine, regardless of the election outcome, that intro history textbooks will stop talking about the speech 10, 20, or 30 years from now, and I likewise doubt that the controversy over Wright will be left out of said history textbooks. I always enjoy these kind of "ten years on" thought experiments and, for what it's worth, this is one on which I would bet serious (i.e. very little) money.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - instead merge relevant material to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, discuss here. Ewenss (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no merge, by concensus. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The merge should be considered to be made to Jeremiah Wright. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge in this case as well. It was just split from that article today, with massive improvement to both topics. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

disagree with massive improvement... article currently ends with a more perfect union speech, which indicates POV in my mind. That is less info than the old section on the Obama campaign page had, with all the polling data taken out among other things. I am worried this will become a POV fork, I am not the only person who originally flagged it as such, but to keep things less agressive I switched it to a merge discussion. However who ever is merging the info out of the other articles to this page, I would like to know why leave out the polls and any critical responses after the speech? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that you'll have to pay constant attention to this article to prevent critical commentary from being removed or subtly replaced with more favorable language. It happened repeatedly in the Jeremiah Wright article before this article was split, usually with edit summaries that used poor reasoning to attempt to justify the changes, and it's pretty clear that the same people are doing the same thing here. Attempts to balance the article or even to remove favorable commentary that was non-notable in the scope of the controversy were repeatedly removed using those same poor justifications. The good thing is that this article has gained attention from a much greater number of editors, so hopefully any POV problems can be taken care of here. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

support merge to Wright page. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose merge to Jeremiah Wright and A More Perfect Union; the section was much to long on the Wright page and here, it is put in context with all the events surrounding it. Furthermore, the long mention of Obama's campaign role in relation to this controversy that was once located at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#Controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright is now a mere paragraph with a link to this article (and I was not the one to do that). Why would a long section on the effects the controversy had on Obama be placed in a biography of Rev. Wright? See my reasoning above for my opposition to merging with the Perfect Union page. Happyme22 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose to both merge suggestions. Please see Wikipedia:Summary style: article splitting is a normal process when articles grow very large. It is also a way to keep article balanced: otherwise, e.g., ""Criticism" section may well occupy 80% of an article in some cases. Mukadderat (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

that is exactly why we need to merge with Wright or with A More Perfect Union, because otherwise the issue does get imbalanced. The article split into the speech page is two weeks old, why can't people try a little bit harder on that page before making a new one? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

IP 72, first you wanted it merged into A More Perfect Union, now you are wanting merged into Wright? Which is it that you want? Merging the content into A More Perfect Union would generate a completely different result than merging it into Wright, and visa-versa. I oppose both for all the reasons outlined above and many examples given, but I'm starting to think that you just don't want to see the words "Jeremiah Wright" and "controversy" in the title of an article. If that's not the case (and I hope it's not), perhaps you can clarify what you really want. Happyme22 (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, as with other merge suggestions. I just don't see any reason why we cannot maintain a sourced, NPOV article here on this clearly notable topic and I think it is in our interest to do so. This has been an extremely widely discussed issue that had significant ramifications (which are still playing out) for a historic presidential election in the United States. I was surprised we did not have an article about it earlier. There are POV dangers here, obviously, but that's true of nearly any article on politics.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose both merge proposals. Editors will, of course, have to remain vigilant against letting the article lean towards one POV or another, but the subject is both noteworthy and distinct from Jeremiah Wright, A More Perfect Union and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Yes, elements of this article overlap with each of those, but having a separate article allows a level of detail and focus which would be inappropriate in any of the other articles because it would place undue weight on the controversy. For example, the religious responses talking about the prophetic tradition of the black church in America are irrelevant to the campaign article, and tangential to the speech and the Wright BLP. The effect on Obama's campaign is irrelevant to the BLP of Wright and tangential to the speech. This article can provide a focus on the different aspects of the controversy, without weighing down the other articles with excessive detail. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

well I'm clearly in the minority here so I will try and keep this brief. I really disagree with the idea that this page will be notable outside of the Obama campaign page in ten years. Some political flaps have their own page, but some do not. Like the killian documents thing has its own page, but dukakis in a tank does not. Oh well... I am very nervous about the idea that we are just going to keep adding pages to "give the issue space" yes that makes sense to a point, but it almost implies that (if and when) the republicans make it an issue in the general, if it gets framed a little differently or if Obama gives a new speech about it, we will have ANOTHER page on the same general topic. Like, if we keep giving the issue space, we will keep filling that space with something, even if it is not clear the issue is continuing, outside of the echo chamber here. No current reporting, some current analysis, poll data shows issue has passed-- I just can't see how that justifies the extreme level of notability we are giving this issue with all the sub-pages, in number alone. Again it makes me think an Obama and Race page may be the best long term solution. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that everyone should remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and making assumptions of whether this will be notable is ten years isn't very productive. Happyme22 (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

crystal ball is about making predictions in article space, not about figuring out what is notable in the first place. and yes 10 years is exactly what wp:recentism advises. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to notability is not temporary: "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 01:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

correct, I am not advocating for zero notability, I am arguing against 2-3 separate long pages worth of notability. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - instead merge relevant material to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, discuss here. Ewenss (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing

There is no mention of the part where Rev. Wright humps the air saying, "Bill rode us like he rode Monica Lewinsky." Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.122.59 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Article POV conversations

• At some point, the {{POV}} or its closely related template {{Bias}} was put on the article page. They are subject to removal, if there is no active conversation about the the Neutral Point of View, or lack of same. It is not enough to tag the article without undertaking a conversation here on the talk page indicating what specific aspects of the article are in need of improvement. I've moved together two separate and disjointed sections on the topic, below, for ease of review and comment, pending potential removal of the tag. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

---

npov

thi article is very NPOV. the controversy as covered in the mainstream press was very easy to understand, but anyone coming to this article has to wade through overly long quotes from the sermons. the controversial points should be made more prominent, ie GOD DAMN AMERICA and 9-11 is AMERICA'S CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST. Also, accusing the government of spreading HIV to kill off the black community is not an "origin theory", it's a conspiracy theory. Only a fringe group of whackos think its true, sort of like the flat-earthers. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just said that the article is NPOV, so I think you meant to say that it was not NPOV. I have to disagree; this article is about the entire controversy, which means that all of Wright's rhetoric needs to be covered in equal weight. Placing some comments more promininently than others is showing undue weight. True, they are probably the most outrageous of the comments, but that cannot interfere with weight concerns.

As for the HIV theory, I actually agree with you. It is not an origin theory, but it is a conspiracy, in which Wright accused the government of conspiring against black people by creating and implanting the HIV virus in them. I'm willing to support you in that change. I don't think that any of these somewhat minor concerns merit a POV tag on the article, though. Happyme22 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with the use of the word "conspiracy" instead of "origin", but my agreement is for reasons similar to those stated above by Happyme22, and is not an endorsement of the POV-pushing advocated by CarlosRodriguez. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of the word 'conspiracy' within the body of the section, but having it in the title in bold type is clearly undue weight, POV and a violation of policy for BLPs in dealing with controversial issues. In regards to the media, most responsible journalists reported the facts and did not characterize it with the phrase 'conspiracy theroy'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.71.62 (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind giving vaild rationales as to why it would be "undue weight, POV, and a violation of policy for BLPs in dealing with controversial issues"? Are you saying that it is okay to call it a "conspiracy theory" in the text, but an "origin theory" in the section heading? That would be POV, because it would be nitpicking certain words. Happyme22 (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In your above comment to Carlos you said "Placing some comments more promininently than others is showing undue weight." I agree with you and a section heading in bold type is quite prominent. Re POV: Even 'talk page guidelines' state 'Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.' BLP policy states 'Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.' Please note that I am not saying that I do not view it as a conspiracy theory - but that is only my POV. I do not like the heading 'HIV Orgin Theory' - though it is more NPOV. After looking at the other section headings, I noticed that that they start with 'Comments on...' I changed the heading to 'Comments on HIV'. This conforms with the other headings and is pure NPOV - I hope this is a satisfactory solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.71.62 (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the heading "Comments on HIV" is much better. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 09:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the heading "Comments on HIV" is terrible. It it is vague and non-descriptive to the point of being misleading (which, I take it, might be the idea behind using it). Let's look again at what Wright said: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." That statement is perfectly clear. so the section title should be as well. This way, people who are in a hurry and scanning the page will have some idea of what is contained in the section. If maintaining parallel structure with the other section headings is important because of MOS issues, the solution is not to use headings that are so vague they are misleading; it is to make the other headings more descriptive. VeritasAgent (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article's complete and utter disregard for presenting the unbiased truth, and its obvious need to whitewash and explain away every blasted thing this hateful man has said is absolutely disgusting. -Schlier22 (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problem

I find the same problem here that I find in the Barack Obama article: there are zero quotations from the many prominent, notable sources who have criticized Obama and Wright. There are, however, several quotations from Obama himself and from others who rationalize and explain in wonderful, complimentary terms. Criticism of Barack Obama is simply not allowed in an article mainspace at Wikipedia, even if it comes from the New York Times. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the "Campaign reaction" and "Polling" sections? Grsz11 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article is NPOV, because it shows Wright's comments in the fullest (i.e. all of them, including "America's chickens are coming home to roost" and "God Damn America") while providing responses from both sides, including theological justifications. Readers can judge Wright's comments however they want, with information from both sides. Happyme22 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments by Grsz11 and Happyme22. Did you not notice that the Barack Obama article did not have quotes and was narrative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.71.62 (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge to

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no concensus. Happyme22 (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this article, the very idea of it, is amateurish to the hilt, treating the matter as important apart from its context, which is the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Relevant material needs to go to that article. Ewenss (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you might want to review the reasonings of many editors above, who state their points for keeping the article here very clearly. Happyme22 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for similar reasons to those that I've stated above for the other merge suggestions. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - see my reasoning at the two other merge discussions, as well as comments below. Happyme22 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Merge in lines with topic reaching proper due weight. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

IP 72, you first proposed merging to A More Perfect Union, then you supported a move to Jeremiah Wright, and now you support this going to the Obama camp article; it appears that you want this anywhere but here and I reckon it's because the words "Jeremiah Wright" and "controversy" are in the title. Your position has changed frequently depending on what merge will get rid of this article, yet the outcomes of merging with each starkly different article would produce devastatingly different results. See my comments below for more. Happyme22 (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge with Ewenss' comment about the context. The McCain article has context outide of his campaign, while this one would have no relevance if it weren't for the campaign. Grsz11 06:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; please see my comments below. Happyme22 (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see why this article is amateurish, anymore than John McCain lobbyist controversy or MoveOn.org ad controversy. We have Category:Political controversies with over 50 articles in it. The Wright affair is an extremely notable political controversy, and its effects moved beyond a simple impact on the Obama campaign since it led to a flurry of stories relating to race in America, attitudes of African Americans, black churches, etc. It seems quite obvious that there is not going to be a consensus for any kind of merge here on this talk page. As has already been suggested, the thing to do is to take this to AfD if folks are still concerned. A merge can be one of the options there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support merge - this article has no relevance outside of the context of the 2008 presidential campaign, so it should go there where the material can be placed in that context. 169.139.190.4 (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then why not merge John McCain lobbyist controversy with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008? They tried, and it failed. This does have relevance outside of the campaign, including why Barack Obama aligned himself with a spiritual mentor for twenty years who cursed America and blamed his own government for creating and spreading AIDS. Now I'm not accusing Obama of anything and I'm not saying that he's a bad person because of it, but it is a valid question regarding him personally, not his presidential campaign. Therefore this cannot be confined only to the campaign article.

This article also includes theological justifications of Wright's comments, which would not be relevant to the Obama campaign. It's comprised of much writing that I'm willing to bet would be too long for a single section in the campaign article. Happyme22 (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge with the Obama campaign article, where the topic has the most relevance. TheslB (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read my comments above regarding this very issue? Happyme22 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop spamming this discussion by responding to every support declaration.TheslB (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, you call it spamming, and I call it having a serious discussion. I have made many good points, and you did not even make an effort to address them, yet you still support moving the article. Happyme22 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to continue voicing your opinions. I don't see a problem here. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors are free to voice their opinions, but responding to every vote in a straw poll that is different from one's own does not help the process. TheslB (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose — The full context of Jeremiah Wright's sermons, not just snippets, needs to be included. The campaign article does not have sufficient space/breadth for this. TheslB (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose — the controversy has substantial context outside of the campaign, with overtones about race and religion in America. Much of the content is not relevant to the campaign and would be lost in a merge. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very poor reasoning. Can we imaging placing the material at racism or religion? Of course not. Because the undeniable context of it even reaching public knowledge is the 2008 presidential campaign. Without that, we'd not even know about Wright, nearly none of us would, anyway. 169.139.190.4 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How the material reached public knowledge isn't terribly relevant. Once it did reach public knowledge, it was discussed in contexts which were not directly related to the campaign. For example, the history and theology of the black church is not directly relevant to the campaign, but it is directly relevant to this controversy. The controversy sprang out of the campaign, but it cannot be reduced to the campaign — the subject has become broader than that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your reasoning and Josiah's reasoning sound substantially similar. This article overlaps both of the articles on racism and religion, and it also overlaps the various articles that have been suggested for merges here, but none of them are subsets of any other. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 02:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revision of Origin of Controversy

After reviewing other editors versions and concerns, I have revised the origin of the controversy to reflect the sequence of events in what I feel is an accurate and NPOV manner. If we are going to have a dedicated page on the controversy, it is important to show how it began and evolved. The content is from material already cited in the artcle. The quotaions are directly from ABC News.

I didn't see any actual citations for the quoted material there, only the [1][2] that came from a failed copy-paste attempt. To get the references to copy as well, you need to edit the page and copy the references themselves. You'll need to take care of this, because the citations that are currently in place don't actually produce those quotations, and the rest of us will be unable to fix it becase we aren't aware where the quotations came from. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 13:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. However, I take issue with your use of the second citation there. The quote from the cited source is, "This is the full response from Sen. Barack Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, to the media coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's more inflammatory comments." The part you used is in bold. Note that the sentence does not specifically mention ABC News's involvement, only indicating "media coverage" in general. It seems disingenuous to me to attach the comment specifically to ABC News when the quote does not attempt to make that association. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 13:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point - I think the ABC video clips were the same as the other networks but I will have to review the videos. Thanks for the info on the cites - I tried to add them before but an editing conflict fouled things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.71.62 (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved the material on the origin of the controversy to its own section. We will need to be careful to avoid original research on it. TheslB (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better - I removed the second quote, citation and revised the wording to reflect the source. Do you we a separate "Origin" section or can it be merged with the lead? It now seems repetitive.75.36.71.62 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the lead to make it less repetitive. I think the article could still use more background on the origin of the controversy. As I have the opportunity, I am going to be adding additional content to this section, depending on what sources materialize. TheslB (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the origin section necessary? IP 75 above stated that it is similar to that of the lead, plus tagged with OR. ThesIB, what kind of background are you thinking of adding? I'm not being critical; I'm just confused, because I don't know what kind of background there can be. There is a link to Jeremiah Wright, so readers can get background info on him, and later in the article, Obama tries to place the comments in a historical context. Happyme22 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm working on. I added the OR tag. If you have any ideas for what can be added, please let me know below. TheslB (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't; I think I'm going to leve this one up to you :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I thinks it's important to have more than the lead states...which is essentially: there is a controversy. Can someone explain how this is OR? Grsz11 04:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

While looking up sources for a related article, I found this article by the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz, which gives a good summary of how the matter bubbled up in the media. If people want a section on the origins of the controversy (and I think this is a decent idea), this article would be a good source, and would enable us to avoid OR. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions of sermons

Perceptions of Jeremiah Wright's sermons have been both positive and negative. I changed the section under Origin to reflect more neutral language about this. How best can the critique of Wright's sermons as being anti-American and reflective of racism be integrated into the article? How best can this critique be balanced by countervailing opinions? TheslB (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just show both ideas in two separate sentences? How about:

"Publication by other media outlets followed, drawing attention to what many perceived as anti-American and racist ideas. The comments were later defended as being Wright's usual manner of preaching and expression of ideas."

Thoughts? --Happyme22 (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I would agree with that defense characterization or the neutrality of the criticism. But see below, as I have conceded on having the Origin section. TheslB (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the rest of the article already provides the point and counterpoint of opinions that spewed forth once this controversy hit the fan. I think the "origins" section, if we decide to keep it (it's awfully short to be its own section right now) should attempt to provide a recounting of crucial events in the controversy, rather than provide analysis. This means that the emphasis should be placed on what major events happened when, without trying to provide any sort of "balance". Controversies about people rarely make them look good, and a recounting of events here can be factual and NPOV without trying to counterbalance every single event that made Wright look bad with a commentary intended to make him look good. (In fact, doing so would make the article more POV, not less.) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why I went with neutral language, to simplify things. I am having a difficult time finding the meta articles necessary to write much that is meaningful about the origin of this (without delving into original research). We need some reliable, third-party sources to write a post-mortem. So I will concede that the Origin section should probably be removed for the time being. TheslB (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably is best to just remove it, although we cannot disregard the fact that Wright's comments were preceived to be anti-American and racist (by many). There are justifications from religious professors and so forth in defense of Wright, and I agree with Dachannien (to some extent) that not every criticism needs to be countered (it is an article about a controversy, after all). If they were perceived to be anti-American and racist by many people, then include it. As I already said, many theologians have come out in Wright's defense, which is the other side's argument and that is accurately displayed. Happyme22 (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. TheslB (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is frustrating that more of the origin information can't be included do to the OR issues. Perhaps we can add a couple of sentences to the lead.75.36.71.62 (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Domestic Policy?

In a January 13th sermon, Wright said:

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”75.36.71.62 (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember that being shown at least on Fox News, because the "ridin' dirty" quote stood out for two reasons. One, Wright was showing his age, because "riding dirty" isn't sexual innuendo - it actually means you're driving around with drugs and/or guns in your possession, making it more inconvenient than normal to get pulled over by the cops. And two, I was in Monterey, CA, for a while when that song was popular, and at any given moment, at least one of the radio stations there was guaranteed to be playing it. :P However, I don't know whether the quote was part of the original ABC News segment, or if it was uncovered later. Regardless, here's a reference that includes that quote, among others. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 13:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would add it because I too heard it on Fox News, and techically it is part of the controversy. Just cite it to a reliable source (see my comments below for additional info). Happyme22 (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was not familiar with the "ridin' dirty" reference or the song. Here is a link to a video of the above Rev. Wright quote. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enMWfQl_Qeg75.36.71.62 (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I actually had this song in mind, although the one I linked to earlier is related to the term as well. In any case, I'm waaay off topic, so I'll shut up ;) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 15:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional Controversial Quotes by Wright Missing

The article fails to mention two of Wright's more incendiary and controversial remarks, both of which were widely discussed in the media; when he was in the pulpit at Trinity, Wright referred to the US as the "US of KKK A" and called Israel a "dirty" word. I believe these quotes need to be incorporated into the article, because they are an element of the overall controversy pertaining to Wright and his sermons. Unless someone voices an objection, I will run down the sources and make this change. If you DO have an objection, please explain why these quotes should not be included. VeritasAgent (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't object. This article is about the entire controversy, so all aspects need to be included. I remember hearing about them on the news, so feel free to find them and cite them. Happyme22 (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I also recall hearing those particular quotes being aired on mainstream media. On that note, I'd like to make a comment on the addition of more quotes in general. It seems to me now that we need to be careful about adding quotes to this article, with one particular criterion taken into account: did the quote receive coverage in mainstream media? There's always the possibility that Wright said some other things that could be considered controversial, but if it didn't surface in the mainstream media, then it never became a part of the controversy (and this article is about the controversy specifically, not merely "things that Wright said"). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article should be limited to controversial things Wright said in this sermons. This is a good point. When I get around to it, I will add the following controversial quotations.

"Hillary Clinton was never called a nigger." "Bill did us the way he did Monica." "Isreal is a dirty word." "US of KKKA"

VeritasAgent (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama context needed

I noticed that this article doesn't go into any details about the nature of Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright. I think that's important context, because it helps explain why such a big fuss was made over what Wright said. I don't have the time right now, but if someone wanted to put together a neutrally worded, appropriately sourced history of Obama's relationship with Wright I think it would be an important contribution to this article. Such a history should include things like Obama's first meeting with Wright in 1985 and first attendance at Trinity (as recounted in Dreams from My Father); his joining Trinity after law school; Wright performing Obama's wedding and baptizing his daughters; Obama's use of Wright's words and inspiration in The Audacity of Hope; and his partial efforts to distance himself from Wright during his presidential campaign (including the disinvitation to his candidacy announcement in 2007). Any takers? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that that would be a great addition, but I too am swamped (in the real world, mostly) so I don't have time. Good idea Josiah. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this subject merits its own article on Wikipedia. I don't agree with adding it here. I think it would cause this article to lose focus. VeritasAgent (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I need a little clarification: are you saying that the history of Obama's relationship with Wright isn't relevant to the Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy? Because if you are I really don't understand the reasoning. I'd think that the context of Obama's relationship with Wright prior to the offensive soundbites becoming public is as relevant to this subject as the effect on his campaign after they became public. I'm also not clear on what independent benefit a Wright/Obama article would have, separate from this article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Exploring Obama's history with Wright would take us pretty far afield from the topic of this article -- the March 2008 controversy and its subsequent fallout in the campaign. For that reason, I don't think it belongs here. On the other hand, I think it's something reasonable people can disagree over, and if you want to write it up, you'll get no objection from me VeritasAgent (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright has a section on his relationship with Barack Obama. What would you like to see added? TheslB (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with VeritasAgent. If Obama hadn't known Wright, this wouldn't have even been an issue. Some background info is needed on their relationship; not an incredibly large amount, but some. Happyme22 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, the article in general is pathetic, an embarrassing display of amateurism. I don't know how Wikipedians have so been acculturated to it, but most articles are terribly, terribly decontextualized, and thus elucidate a topic no more than would five or so minutes with Google news. This article is such an example. Of course, creating this article, its title, was the first poor step to decontextualizing things, but in a place where students outnumber professional writers and the former do indeed drown out the latter (think: "students 'know better' than professors at Wikipedia"), I suppose it should not be surprising that the fruits of such an amazingly poor system are poor. Ewenss (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If "decontextualizing" means "removing POV analysis", then yes, we're guilty as charged. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks in direct quotes

This article has a number of sizable direct quotes, and many of these (a growing number) contain wikilinks. The MOS suggests avoiding wikilinks within quotations, because, as it states, "links can alter the form or emphasis of the original". I'm not saying we have to remove all wikilinks from the quotes here, but we should probably limit ourselves to links that (a) are obvious references to fact rather than opinion, (b) are necessary for readers to understand the reference, and (c) can't be worked into the surrounding text. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Happyme22 (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Ewenss recently made this change, adding a very long paragraph with quotes by yet another professor justifying Wright's comments. He/she also split the page into different sections.

While I respect the editor, I am opposed to the edit for a few reasons. First, there are already five justifications by those in the academic field, theologians, someone who served under Ronald Reagan, and the church itself. I applaud Ewenss for adding Wright's own response to the controversy, which, actually makes it six justifications. Another, which is simply expanding on the point made by Mr. Korb, is unnecessary.

I am also unsure of why the page was split into different sections not using sections headers. Though not required, they are beneficial to editors when only editing a section of the page.

And then the article was tagged for being {{topheavy}} by User:Grsz11. As I've explained before, Wright's comments are given, five justifications for them are given, the Obama camp's response is given, the repercussions are given, and finally Wright's own quotes are given in defense of himself. I would argue that with Ewenss' recent edits, the article (or at least the section) is biased in favor of those points. Happyme22 (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did mean slanted in favor of Ewness' POV, ie the Dyson bit, that's longer than the content of the controversy section. Grsz^talk 02:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I appologize Grsz; I only realized that that may have been your reason for the tag after I wrote this tangent above, so I'm sorry if I came across harshly. I am in full agreement that Ewenss' edits cannot remain, for they are provide too much undue weight to those arguments. Happyme22 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You fundamentally misunderstand some things. It goes to quality of sources, that's all. On one hand you have people who are experts in the field of black religion, e.g., professors of religion who enjoy academic freedom. They should be favored to speak to matters precisely because they have devoted years of study and have made it their life's work to become in depth experts in the subject. On the other hand, you have journalists and pundits, with usually no more than a bachelors degree and breadth of but superficial knowledge, who are driven by the economic demands of their editors to produce stories on typically cutthroat deadlines. These are obviously dramatically very types of sources, and each must be handled and situated in a text differently and for what they are. You can't treat them as cut from the same cloth and say that writings by experts are equivalent to writings by journalist and have an encyclopedia article that really elucidates the topic. Ewenss (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how they respond. A response is a response all the same. There were a lot more people pissed off then there were people who gave these types of responses, and that is why this subject is notable. Grsz^talk 03:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just not sound information literacy. A source is not a source is not a source just because its a source. They are qualitatively very different and must be handled differently. Ewenss (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's wrong to say the reactions of people (the reason this whole thing was notable) are irrelevant. Grsz^talk 04:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said that? Not me. Ewenss (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I dont even know what was "fundamentally misunderst[oo]d." Grsz^talk 04:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental misunderstanding is that the writings of experts on a topic are equal to those of journalists, as I described above. Quite on the contrary, it is just poor information literacy to treat them the same, but treating them differently, as they should be, is here being called POV. But I can't sit here and explain this in great detail. That's what colleges are for. :-D Ewenss (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Then likewise, did I say they were the same? No. I perfectly understand that they are wholly different, but both are relevant to the scope of this article. It was Marty Martin that made this event notable, it was the media, and their reactions, and those reactions need covered in this article. Grsz^talk 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that the addition of the Dyson material was appropriate (although it could have been cut back and summarized a bit more). I also think that the article needs to illustrate not only the historical and theological context of the original sermons, but also the political and media context in which soundbites from the sermons were used. To that end, we need to tell the story of how the portrayal of Wright as anti-American and anti-white bubbled up from right-wing talk radio (Sean Hannity had been pushing Wright as a topic since 2007), and give some examples of the people who've condemned Wright's remarks. (One example that I just found: Dick Cheney called them "absolutely appalling". I leave to others the question of by what moral sense and judgment Dick Cheney can call anything "appalling" — I'd say that preemptive war and torture are "absolutely appalling", but this is not a forum for such discussions.)

The NPOV policy requires that we present all notable points of view, and allow the reader to decide which are more justified or supportable. Yes, scholars know more about African American religion than reporters do, and have less motivation to spin the truth than politicians or pundits — but people care about the views of the journalists, politicians and pundits too. We have to present all the notable viewpoints in a balanced fashion, and allow the readers to judge. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here Josiah indicates a good handle on information literacy (see the quote I added to the intro there). He seeks to contextualize the information and "look beneath" it--the why, the how, and and the what of it, and handle it in that light. Let me add one thing I was going to add here anyway, before he gave his good comments.

Consider how ABC "broke" this story. What is the context? First, it is presidential politics--that speaks literal volumes in and of itself. Second, it is a highly competitive media market, wherein Fox News currently dominates, and ABC News (owned by Disney) is, frankly, in serious trouble. The principle strategy of underdog media outlets is to enlarge their market share among media consumers. In that, ratings is the currency, because ratings translates into a larger price that can be charged for advertising. In this way, they try to keep shareholders invested by undertaking types of "reporting" that might increase their stock worth over and against the top-dogs.

So there is that context. And in its activity, there is really no impetus to explain things in depth: the goal is eyes, not minds, and as a quick way to differentiate, note the (mostly) commercial-free NPR and the differences from it and profit-driven media.

So you have to see all that about media outlet sources to evaluate them as sources, which is something historiographers routinely do in constructing histories--and accept it or not, Wikipedians construct histories with every edit.

On the other hand, when one adds this sort of material, it is of a radically different qualitative nature from what I just described. You have not media outputs as I described above; you have not Sean Hannity-type outputs, a person with only a high school diploma who has made millions from his academically laughable books by constructing political polarization and a Manichaean worldview in his followers. Instead you have - well, it is academic publishing, and perhaps I need not give a primer on the differences between that and the sort of publishings I have already here described.

I hope you get what I am saying without me getting more wordy. Of course, I know Wikipedia. Some will care less about anything I've said. Their whole point in being here is merely presidential politics. Ewenss (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that academic sources from peer-reviewed journals are among the best sources for us to use. It's great that you've found a source which discussed the sermon as a sermon long before the controversy in the context of the Obama presidential campaign. But we also need to tell the story of the political controversy, which means that we've got to include some examples of the people who excoriated Wright (like Steve Adubato on MSNBC calling his comments "vicious, racist, and un-American"). We need the quotes of the Sean Hannitys and the Bill O'Reillys to indicate just how much vitriol was stirred up about this, and to explain to a reader who doesn't know anything about the subject (perhaps they just awoke from a coma?) what the reaction was, first in the right-wing echo chamber and then in the mainstream media. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I of course agree. They just need to be properly contextualized. As I've argued, we don't treat all allowable sources as equal. Because they're not. And on the matter of me finding a peer-reviewed journal article that discused Wright's 9-11 sermon before the current matter--what this indicates is terribly troubling ethically. It says that Wikipedia articles are largely controlled by people who are themselves not very information literate; people who rely not on the library and high quality published scholarship but merely Google and what is popular at the moment as determined by its search algorithm, and who in turn spread that information illiteracy internationally through WP's high Google PageRank on the Internet. Of course, this says that either 1) that articles are controlled by people who are not college educated; or, 2) are controlled by people who are college educated but just do not care to exercise the skills they (hopefully) learned there; or, 3) are here to use their veil of anonymity to merely push their personal political agenda over top articles. Terribly sad, terribly sad. :-( This can and should change and it can start with whoever is reading this! Ewenss (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you can't (or don't want to) hear the teeming masses from the heights of your ivory tower, but lacking a college education is not a reason to disqualify a person from editing Wikipedia. Considering that the title of this article is "Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy", and the article is all about said controversy, it is logical that editors focus on... the controversy. You create a false (or perhaps misconstrued) dichotomy between the various responses by academics versus those of journalists by claiming that the responses from academics are more important. The controversy is comprised of recent events untouched by the slow-as-molasses academic research, peer review, and publishing process, while journalists have provided ample information on all aspects of the controversy. All we've gotten from the academics are their opinions on Wright's sermons directly, not their well-studied conclusions on the controversy itself (and, quite frankly, any such conclusions would probably be premature until at least this November), and while their opinions carry some weight, I don't see how their opinions could possibly be considered more reliable or even more mainstream to a degree that would justify giving them more weight than the journalistic reporting done on the matter. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Dachannien and Grsz; the current section title "General reaction" is misleading. The general reaction was anger, not people defending Wright. Had Wright been defended right off the bat, Obama never would have had to give his "More Perfect Union" speech, and he wouldn't have dropped in the polls. The comments by those in the academic field are indeed justifications to what Wright had said, not the immediate, general reaction.

Of course views of journalists and members of the media should be included, because they are the ones who broke the story and that generated a negative general reaction. Ewenss, you have made some good points, but the views of some cannot be considered superior over the views of others simply because one is written by a professor or someone in the academic field. Views of Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney have just as much weight as one from Dr. so-and-so does. So I am in favor re-titling that section for the reasons I've outlined above, and adding in the real general reaction, which was not supportive of Wright. Happyme22 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the Bill Moyers Journal information as it's the first in depth interview Wright has given about the controversy. I had to change some section titles for the new section to make sense. Don't take it personally, I was only trying to clarify. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Other reactions needed

Something needs to be mentioned to the affect of how the people responded. References could be found on the number of hits on YouTube, or opinion polls, etc. Grsz^talk 03:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, my first cite is on the blacklist. Will look later. Grsz^talk 03:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This can be done through exit poll data. Ewenss (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

North Carolina GOP ad?

Should this page mention the recent kerfuffle over the North Carolina Republican Party's plan to air an ad using the "God damn America" clip? In case you haven't been following the story: the North Carolina GOP produced an ad nominally targeting two Democratic gubernatorial candidates but really targeting Obama by stirring the pot on the Wright soundbites. John McCain and the RNC asked that they pull the ad; they initially refused, but after some confusion and internal dissention they supposedly withdrew the ad. (Although it's still up on YouTube, and apparently they're now saying that it will air as planned.

So, would this development fall under the purview of this article or not? (My leaning is yes, but I'm not completely certain.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Moyer - not Wright's first "reactions"

So I don't have to revert this same thing again: Saying that Moyer was Wright's "first 'reaction'" is false, an example of the media not really knowing their subject in depth and yet repeating something false so often it "becomes true" (I listened to CNN repeat this falsity probably 30 times this morning--but reporting "firsts" is one thing that enables them to up their ad prices, so they do this, we swallow it, and advertisers don't fight it and pay up anyway). Wright's first reactions were given when he officiated the funeral of E. Eugene Pincham at Trinity United Church of Christ. You can Google and find the comments if you wish. Ewenss (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright's role as Campaign advisor

Whether in an "official" role or not, Wright was definitely a member of an advisory panel to the Obama campaign. Although the Obama campaign is now trying to minimize his role, this is a fact. This is also relevant to the story, because the primary center of the controversy regarding Obama is a matter of choice of association and judgement in selecting advisors, as well as pastors.

It should not be removed from the article. See the MSNBC article for more information.

What I cannot locate, and would appreciate help with, is that I know it was reported in the news that he had stepped down as such, but I cannot find a reliable source for this information. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found it. I think the accurate word is "former". See here. DavidBailey (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The title "campaign advisor" is very misleading. The MSNBC article does not use that title! The article states he was on the "African American Religious Leadership Committee, a loose group of supporters associated with the campaign". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.111.54 (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Obama’s campaign announced that the minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., had left its spiritual advisory committee..." I think we have another source that said that committee did absolutely nothing, and never even met. It would have been the group he talked to before the CNN "Compassion Forum." But like the anon said, stating that Wright was part of the campaign is misleading. Grsz^talk 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it misleading to call him a campaign adviser, when in fact, Jeremiah Wright was a member of an "advisory panel" to the Obama campaign? Regardless of the fact that the campaign has since said he had no "official role", the fact is that he was a campaign adviser, even you think he was not very important or prominent. Your attempts to remove this important, relevant fact from the article, and refusal to even discuss it before removing it when I have provided factual, credible citations is tantamount to vandalism. DavidBailey (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And your edits are edit warring. Grsz^talk 22:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Grsz, please check the policy. It isn't edit warring if I make adjustments to find a compromise as I have been doing. Actually, I'm surprised that you and anonymous user 75.31.111.54 find it so outrageous that Wright is a campaign advisor when the news has been reporting on this from the beginning. However, I'm not surprised in the Obama campaign response. After the controversy it would be very uncharacteristic of a political campaign if it didn't try to minimize Wright's role, but it is a role that he, in fact, had with the campaign. Take care! DavidBailey (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to earlier, I'm fine with the edit now. Grsz^talk 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

context

From "The Day of Jerusalem's Fall" 9/16/2001

"I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday, did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, did you see him John, a white man, and he pointed out, an ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammed was in fact true, America's chickens&are coming home to roost. We took this country by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arowak, the Comanche, the Arapahoe, the Navajo. Terrorism. We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Granada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers, and hardworking fathers. We bombed Qaddafi's home and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against a rock. We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hardworking people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they would never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children from school, civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Why not include the entire comment rather than just snippets? The Squicks (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Even more is available at The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon. Of course, any one part is also a part of an entire sermon, which is also a part of an entire body of work (36 years). The media-selected soundbites do need to be given proper context (see also The full story behind Wright’s “God Damn America” sermon). TheslB (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename?

This article is about and quotes from controversial sermonS, not a single sermon. Shouldn't the title say Jeremiah Wright sermons' controversy? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that would make sense. I'd still give time for some others to weigh in though. Grsz^talk 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

After Wright's media tour of the last few days, I'd say that the subject has expanded beyond what he said in his sermons. Perhaps "Jeremiah Wright political controversy"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this entire article ought not exist because it decontextualizes everything. The matter ought be a section at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Ewenss (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there's really no point in bringing that up, for it was proposed it in the past and rejected. As we all can tell by the extensive media coverage, this issue is no longer limited to Obama's presidential campaign. Happyme22 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Prior to Wright's recent media tour, the article addressed issues on race, religion and politics. It now appears to have a more personal dynamic - Wright's ego and his possible motivation to hurt Obama. Perhaps "Jeremiah Wright Controversy" would be more appropriate.75.31.210.156 (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I second that. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think "Jeremiah Wright controversy" is much too vague. I actually think that the article title is fine as it is, but if I were to vote for renaming, I would favor "Jeremiah Wright political controversy". --Happyme22 (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine. Anything but SermonGate.75.31.210.156 (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22, the title specifies "sermon". There were sermons, plural, not one sole sermon. So the title is not "fine as it is" as you claim Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So, is that rough approval for a move to Jeremiah Wright political controversy? Shall we have a formal move request? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How will this effect the other 5-6 articles with "Sermon Controversy" sections containing summaries and links to this as the main article?75.31.210.156 (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If the article is moved, the {{see also}} templates and similar can easily be changed. Also, if the article is moved to a new title Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy would remain as a redirect to the new name. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.75.31.210.156 (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm putting in a formal move request. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)