Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy

Working together

Unsurprisingly, editors on this page have strong and diverse opinions about the subject matter, about how much weight is appropriate to give different arguments, about what sources are reliable and about the scope of the article. These differences of opinion have recently been expressed in the article through edit warring, which is discouraged by Wikipedia policy and is unproductive. By contrast, some editors have made a good faith effort to engage others in discussion (I'll point in particular to the discussion Happyme22 started about his proposed edits which had been reverted). This is a good model for dialogue, and I strongly encourage all interested editors to express their views in that section, or start other discussions about disputed edits in a similar format. If you disagree with an edit, please explain your reasons here on the talk page. We're all capable of being rational, and listening to each other's arguments. If we explain our reasoning, we should be able to reach a compromise that's acceptable to everybody. (If they can do it on articles like Abortion, we can do it here!)

Wikipedia operates by consensus. That means that when there's a dispute, we need to talk it out until we can find a solution. To do that, we need to be civil and stay calm. We shouldn't be dividing ourselves into camps, or categorizing each other as "good editors" vs. "POV pushers". We're all here because we want to improve Wikipedia — to make a "more perfect" encyclopedia. So let's commit to working together to improve this article, and to that end let's commit to a positive consensus-building process. I'd appreciate feedback from all the active editors here, so that if we stray from the goal we can remind ourselves later. Once we agree on this, we can start the work of improving the article — but if we don't agree to work together constructively, the article will just be a battleground and nothing will be accomplished. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we have more in common then what we actually perceive. I know that we can all rise to a higher level and work together towards a common goal of creating "a more perfect encyclopedia." Enjoy this video: [[1]] All is one.

IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that some have chosen to not engage in constructive discussion to improve the sections of the article in question. But we did establish a consensus amongst those who took part, and I think that, barring a further discussion of material in the article, we should be keeping this agreed upon text in place.Trilemma (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Josiah Rowe's comments are always well reasoned. I will to do my part going forward to avoid edit warring and work together constructively. VeritasAgent (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Joisah, Trilemma, and Vertias: the constant edit warring needs to stop and discussion is vital to the editing process. Of course it starts with us, including myself. I will try my hardest to avoid edit wars, and I especially encourage those that have declined to participate in discussions to participate for the good of this article and the good of Wikipedia. --Happyme22 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of "Reverend"

While many people call him "Rev. Wright," it is incorrect to do so. "Rev. Wright" should only appear when quoting someone who made the mistake in speaking or writing. Because he holds a doctoral degree, he can be addressed and refered to as Dr. Wright. "The" must always accompany "Rev." as must the person's Christian name or title, such as Father, Mister, or Doctor. "The Rev. Dr. Wright" is correct, if somewhat old-fashioned. See the article on reverend for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.31.233 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise on comparisons with other candidates

The following was drawn up by User:Josiah Rowe after much input by many different editors:

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

Survey on Parallel Incidents/Comparison with other candidates

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

1. Include no material

User:VeritasAgent

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

User:Ewenss, User:Cryptographic_hash, User:CyberAnth See: "New developments"

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

User:Wnt, User:Grsz11

4. Acceptable summary paragraph

User:Happyme22, User:Josiah_Rowe, User:Trilemma, User:Thrill_going_up_my_leg, User:IP75

See below: "Updated conclusion of survey"

IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The key to resolving disputes, or "no concensus" outcomes, is discussion. Therefore, I suggest to User:Ewenss, User:Cryptographic hash, and User:CyberAnth to please go through the text (which appears in its full form above) and explain to the rest of us why you don't like it and where you feel improvements can be made. After that, I will give my opinions and others theirs, and hopefully we can come up with something. Do not simply revert in the article space; if a version is discussed on the talk page, decided by a concensus that it is the favored text, implemented, and then not favored by those that did not participate in the discussion, they cannot simply revert saying that there is not a concensus. Although concensus can change, the text was worked out with input from many users who participated, and those that did not participate do not have the right to revert without discussion. I would like to encourage editors to read or re-read WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOTABILITY, especially when it comes to this. But discussion is key to reolving disputes. Happyme22 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Happy. I have reviewed the survey again and have added my support for the summary.

Updated conclusion of survey:

No material, Brief, Summary paragraph: Eight editors. Include all material: One editor.

I now feel that my revert to the summary was correct. It is the most recent version of what is favored by a majority of editors. IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I've been miscounted. I did actually feel the preceding version was getting rather long-winded, but this version, though generally well written, is cut too short. I'd have to look through sentence by sentence, but already I notice that Rod Parsley has once again disappeared, who was listed in my original edit. I am glad to see that the references were retained, at least, which should make it easier to reincorporate important information without having to change too much of the current structure of the article. Also, the new "main article" for this section is a problem - as it stands it is a loose "controversy section" that is a bad idea. Either it needs to be reworked as a general review of all religious controversies in the 2008 race (which could be a very nice article, with some work), or it needs to be "merged" back here i.e. with the restoration of a bit more detail to this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate my view that this section should be removed in its entirety. First of all, this article is about Jeremiah Wright, not other members of the clergy. Second, NONE of these alleged "controversies" are reasonable "comparisons" to Wright/Obama. Obama stands alone as the ONLY political figure in the 2008 presedential race to have a close twenty year relationship with an AIDS conspiracy theorist who admires Louis Farrakhan. The claim that there is a double-standard with regard to how Black preachers and White preachers are treated by the media is also dubious, bordering on dishonest. Jerry Falwell was abused by liberals in the media for decades, and there was no anguished commentary -- none -- about Falwell's views being taken "out of context" while it was happening. I don't recall any hand-wringing about Hagee being taken out of context either. It is perfectly clear where the double standard in the media exists. VeritasAgent (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

All this comment indicates is clear, unabashed POV pushing. Ewenss (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparing religion and politics between 2008 candidates has been a major topic of notability. For example, the Pew Forum has been holding conferences and aggregating published research and news articles on the matter (scroll down to see). Also see this link]. I've restored the material because the rational for removing it is simply false and misguided. And, it actually provides balance to the article! CyberAnth (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some editors are persisting in editing out the discussed, compromise text in favor of their version. I can't edit it, as I'd be crossing into 3RR territory, but I think an administrator needs to do something to prevent this fairly high profile article from continuing to be vandalized in this manner. Trilemma (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed upon quickly by 2 or 3 VERY EVIDENT POV PUSHERS. Ewenss (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is wikipedia. Not everyone agrees with your position on things. VeritasAgent (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Too many views from acadamians

The article currently has six paragraphs outlining the eight views from those in the academic field (counting Michael Eric Dyson twice) and they all seem to be saying the same thing: 'put Wright's comments in context' or 'many black preachers have similar preaching styles'. It seems like every time an acadamian speaks on this matter, it is added to this article. The comments are repetitive, much too long, and they do not speak for all people in the academic field.

Therefore, I am in favor of removing some of the comments, and trimming down the paragraphs to remove superfluous quotations and extra detail. The views of people working in the academic field are important, but others desere just as much say on this topic; I would also like to hear from some in the academic field with conflicting opinions on Wright. The article cannot continue to be bogged down by one acadamian agreeing with another. Happyme22 (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This section should be around two paragraphs, with more summary and less elaboration. Trilemma (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, in compiling a better section, we need to clear out the NPOV language. In place of the paraphrasing, shorter direct quotes would be better. Trilemma (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur the quotes from the academics are much too long. They need to be trimmed down substantially. Some quotes from academics with a different point of view also need to be added. Dr. Thomas Sowell, for example, is a vastly more accomplished and significant Black academic than any of the authors quoted in the article, and he has characterized Wright's comments as obscene. VeritasAgent (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That is astounding ignorance and a clear indication of the blatant POV pushing you've been undertaking here. Sowell is a freakin' economist and political commentator, not a theologian or historian of religion, like, for example, Marty Martin is, quoted in the section. Ewenss (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I put up an edit cutting down on the original article and adding several new opinions. If there are any issues with it then we can work it out here. Trilemma (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The section was excellent as is. Ewenss (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ewenss, I posted the following comments on your talk page. I do not feel these edits were a very good example of 'working together'.

The "Academia" section on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article was reduced in size and revised today. I know you have spent a lot of time writing most of the section and feel you should have been consulted prior to these edits. Other editors, including myself, feel the section was too long. I personally think that all the "Reaction" sections were getting too long and that very important facts relating to the actual story of the controversy have received little or no mention. The impact on the church - bomb and death threats, the media hounding members at their homes and TUCC retaining a PR firm are some examples. Wright's comments at the National Press Club Q&A that caused Obama's strong response distancing himself from Wright is another example of the omission of some of the more important aspects of the story. . I thought you should be informed of this so you can contribute to the discussion on the talk page. IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ewenss, it is not ignorance toward academians. It's that the eight quotes in the section all shared similar views, and only one side's argument was presented. I will say that I think Trilemma's version was leaning a bit too much toward the anti-Wright crowd, so I have added in two more Martin Marty quotes, which balance the section out nicely. Happyme22 (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's understandable. This seems an adequate compromise text. Unfortunately, several editors have shown a complete unwillingness to compromise. Trilemma (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now we are quoting material from overtly partisan political publications and framing that as academic responses instead of political commentary, and quoting blogs. Pathetic. The material as is is balance. Ewenss (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that Happy and Trillema appear to be trying to take this article over for their political agenda. 74.233.86.207 (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several users who are refusing to discuss, compromise, or take into account anyone else's ideas besides their own. If you persist in this, arbitration is inevitable. Trilemma (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on guys. There are eight long quotes that are strikingly similar; not mention, there is only one side of the argument being presented. If you call that NPOV, then you are sorely mistaken and we will never get anything accomplished. Happyme22 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ewenss, your academic sources are no less partisan. They're exclusively pro-Wright/pro-TUCC -- in case you didn't notice. The section needs to be balanced by including comments from from academics with a different viewpoint. That is not an unreasonable proposal. Please show some willingness to compromise. VeritasAgent (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Polls from media vs. polls from organizations

It was recommended to me by User:Ewenss at Talk:Jeremiah_Wright_controversy/Archive_2#Problematic_edits to only use polls from professional polling organizations, such as Gallup and Rasmussen. This was discussed at a time when my implementation of a Fox News poll was reverted, and with the recent addition of a New York Times/CBS poll, I noticed an inconsistency. So for consistency reasons, either we only use data from polling organizations, or we use data from both polling organizations and other media/news sources (ex: NYT/CBS, CNN, Fox, etc.). Happyme22 (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing

Looking at the pattern here over some weeks, it does not take much to see clearly that Happyme22, Trilemma, and VeritasAgent have decided to try to take over this article, push their shared POV, and remove as much material as possible that might diminish that shared POV. CyberAnth (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I really find it amusing how you are on a mission to establish me as some sort of right-wing nut job, while completely neglecting to mention how you have repeatedly failed to discuss proposed versions (not to mention ignore concensus) and would rather edit war. I see that you have made a nice little comment here about my "cherry picking on a variety of articles", but you have also failed to point to specific examples (that nice little comment was reverted as being unproductive by one of the main editors of the Obama page). I have to say that I was a much happy editor before I came to this page; with my previous works, editors who disagreed with me were willing to discuss the issue and reach a compromise, rather than personally attack me and edit war. CyberAnth, you have the wrong idea when it comes to editing Wikipedia; your idea of editing is to label people who disagree with you as "POV cherry pickers" and "anti-Obama" who have "tried to take over this article, push their shared POV, and remove as much material as possible that might diminish that shared POV". I hadn't even met you before I came here, but just so you know, I've been at Wikipedia since February 2007, my edit count is over 10,000, here are two articles (1. 2.) that I wrote that have achieved FA status, and I've been featured in the Wikipedia signpost because of them; I think I know what I'm doing when it comes to editing, discussing, formng a consensus, and implementing. It is apparent that you do not. Happyme22 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Academics and comparisons

Someone needs to provide a description of what this RFC is about, particularly links to the different version of he academics section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is in the length, tone and balance of the academics section. Several of us feel that the current version is overly long, repetitive, and one-sided. Attempts at shortening it and forging a compromise text have been met with hostility and reverts.

The two different versions can basically be seen here, the one on the left being the one pre-discussion, and the one on the right being the currently discussed compromise text. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Wright_controversy&diff=211459723&oldid=211459153 Trilemma (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Comparisons with other candidates"

Bobblehead, Please see the above: "Survey on Parallel Incidents/Comparison with other candidates". It has the complete backround. The "Updated conclusion of survey" below it, shows that a brief version of the section was favored by eight editors. The three editors who prefer the full version of the section continue to revert the summary paragraph. IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Academia" Please see the above comments under "Too many views from acadamians". The proposed "compromise text" does not have a consensus or a majority of editors. User:Ewenss wrote most of the section that has been in the article. Yesterday, a few editors reverted to the "compromise text" without consulting the above editor who wrote it or waiting for other editors to weigh in on the discussion. This caused a problem! I believe we need the participation of User:Ewenss to edit the section so that it is shorter in length. IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see below: "New developments" section. User:Ewenss was a "sock" and has been blocked. IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise Academics text

This is the currently discussed compromise text, that shortens the article and gives balance:

Several academics commented on the Wright controversy and the black religious tradition, some defending Wright and others criticizing him.

Academic discussion of Wright's 9-11 sermon began in 2004, before the 2008 political controversy. After the political controversy erupted, Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson said that Wright's comments "have to be read as the bitter complaint of a spurned lover" and asserted that "Wright's critics have confused nationalism with patriotism."

Other academic figures, including Duke Divinity School associate professor J. Kameron Carter, emeritus professor of religious history Martin E. Marty, and Bill J. Leonard, Dean of the divinity school and professor of church history at Wake Forest University, defended Wright, arguing that Wright's views, as Carter frames it, are "voiced in his sermons a pain that must be interpreted inside of the tradition of black prophetic Christianity." Martin Marty agreed: "For Trinity, being 'unashamedly black' does not mean being 'anti-white.' [...] Think of the concept of 'unashamedly': tucked into it is the word 'shame'." He argued that Trinity's Africentrism "should not be more offensive than that synagogues should be 'Judeo-centric' or that Chicago's Irish parishes be 'Celtic-centric'."

Others disagreed. Stephan Thernstrom, Winthrop professor of history at Harvard, and Abigail Thernstrom, political scientist and the vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, co-penned an article saying, "he contended that blacks and whites had completely different brain structures, one left-dominant, the other right-dominant. This is nothing more than an updated version of the pseudo-science once used to defend segregation in the Jim Crow South," and going on to say, "clearly, Rev. Wright does not speak for mainstream black churches-and he has done them a gross disservice by claiming to do so." New Republic editor in chief and former Harvard lecturer Martin Peretz concurred, endorsing the article and saying that the article "puts Trinity into its proper place in relation to other black churches and shows how different it is from them." Economist and conservative social commentator Thomas Sowell said of Wright's sermons that they were, "anti-American and racist diatribes."

Trilemma (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some changes here that are justified. Excesses of the current version like linking "sought to expand public understanding" to "Intellectual#The Social Role of a Public Intellectual" need to be corrected. (Though perhaps naming the section "Intellectuals" and wikilinking the word would be fair)

However, large deletions in this version are unjustified. Removing all mention of Cook, including an academic citation, defeats the purpose of a section looking for academian commentary. Kelefa Sanneh is clearly in the wrong section, but be careful not to misplace that sentence. Leonard's comments should not have been revised so far as to remove mention of the jeremiad, a crucial concept and a helpful Wikilink. Removing James B. Bennett is unreasonable, and surely it is unsupportable to remove his quote of Martin Luther King as saying "America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive." Clearly Martin Luther King is the highest paragon not only of black preachers but of all American Christianity - e.g. his birthday is one of a handful of publicly celebrated saint's days in the U.S., the only American among them, and the only one for which many workplaces are closed. Citing such a precedent gives essential context for regarding Wright's remarks.

I think that it is by far best to begin revisions from the existing status quo rather than this abbreviated draft. While some fairly extensive cuts may be justifiable they should be done bit by bit with explanations, so that each "diff" can be looked at one at a time and evaluated. Wnt (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If we could decide on the four or five most relevant and concise quotes out of the inflated Academics section, and reduce the rest to references with links to their respective pieces, it would likely solve this issue. Trilemma (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Academia - Edited version for reference

In 2004, prior to the Wright controversy, Anthony E. Cook, a professor of law at Georgetown University[54] who specializes in the intersections of race, law, and religion in American culture, provided a detailed comparative analysis of the full 9-11 sermons of Jerry Falwell, T.D. Jakes and Jeremiah Wright. Cook noted that the overall intent of Falwell's and Jakes's sermons was to use the the Christian religion as a justification for the War on terror, while Wright's overall intent was to side against war and to get listeners to engage in introspection about their daily behavior and relationship with God.[55]

Several academics sought to expand public understanding about Wright and the black religious tradition.

After the political controversy erupted, Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson stated that Wright's comments "have to be read as the bitter complaint of a spurned lover. Like millions of other blacks, Wright was willing to serve the country [in the military] while suffering rejection." Dyson goes on to argue that "Wright's critics have confused nationalism with patriotism.” Nationalism is the uncritical support of one's country regardless of its moral or political bearing. Patriotism is the affirmation of one's country in light of its best values, including the attempt to correct it when it's in error. Wright's words are the tough love of a war-tested patriot speaking his mind — one of the great virtues of our democracy."[56] J. Kameron Carter, associate professor of theology and black church studies at Duke Divinity School, stated that Wright "voiced in his sermons a pain that must be interpreted inside of the tradition of black prophetic Christianity."[57]

Martin E. Marty, an emeritus professor of religious history,[58] criticized the "incomprehension and naiveté of some reporters who lack background in the civil rights and African-American movements of several decades ago".[59] He went on to place Wright's comments in context of his church: "For Trinity, being 'unashamedly black' does not mean being 'anti-white.' [...], He noted that 'being shamed', and 'being ashamed' are debilitating legacies of slavery and segregation in society and church" (see Black shame). Marty also argued that Trinity's Africentrism "should not be more offensive than that synagogues should be 'Judeo-centric' or that Chicago's Irish parishes be 'Celtic-centric'."[60]

Bill J. Leonard, Dean of the divinity school and professor of church history at Wake Forest University, stated that the whole Wright affair illustrated "what we should have known after twenty years or more of discussing religion in the political square and at political election time: that American religion is very messy, and it doesn't fit all the categories and its very layered; there are many ways to look at it and we all read it in different ways with different glasses." Leonard stated that Wright "was standing and speaking out of the jeremiad tradition or preaching in the U.S.," which he said "dates back to the Puritans" and that both "black and white ministers have used since the 1600s in this country." Leonard explains that the jeremiad tradition dealt with woe and promise and moral failure not only in the church but in the nation." [61]

James B. Bennett, an assistant professor of religious studies at Santa Clara University, describes how Wright follows in a "rhetorical tradition" that has "a long history in the speeches and writings of African-American leaders who are exalted by black and white Americans alike". Bennett says Martin Luther King, Jr. shared similar feelings with Wright concerning some US activities, saying, " 'the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government,' " and that " 'America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive.' "[62][63] Michael Eric Dyson notes that on the Thursday Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, he was working on a Sunday sermon entitled "Why America May Go to Hell."[64]

Stephan Thernstrom, Winthrop professor of history at Harvard, and Abigail Thernstrom, political scientist and the vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, co-penned an article disagreeing with other views, saying, "[Wright] contended that blacks and whites had completely different brain structures, one left-dominant, the other right-dominant. This is nothing more than an updated version of the pseudo-science once used to defend segregation in the Jim Crow South," and going on to say, "clearly, Rev. Wright does not speak for mainstream black churches — and he has done them a gross disservice by claiming to do so."[7] Former Harvard lecturer Martin Peretz concurred, endorsing the article and saying that it "puts Trinity into its proper place in relation to other black churches and shows how different it is from them."[8]

IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I comend IP 75 for his work and attempt, although it's not quite what I'm looking for; I think that version is still a bit too long and only gives one side's argument. I propose the following as a way to mesh together what all of us (Trilemma, Wnt, IP 75, Veritas, and myself) have been thinking:

Several academics commented on the Wright controversy and the black religious tradition; some sought to expand public understanding about Wright, while others criticized him.

In 2004, prior to the Wright controversy, Anthony E. Cook, a professor of law at Georgetown University[54], provided a detailed comparative analysis of sermons delivered after 9-11 by Jerry Falwell, T.D. Jakes and Jeremiah Wright. Cook noted that the overall intent of Falwell's and Jakes's sermons was to use the the Christian religion as a justification for the War on terror, while Wright's overall intent was to side against war and to get listeners to engage in introspection about their daily behavior and relationship with God.[55]

After the political controversy erupted, Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson argued that Wright's comments "have to be read as the bitter complaint of a spurned lover. Like millions of other blacks, Wright was willing to serve the country [in the military] while suffering rejection." J. Kameron Carter, associate professor of theology and black church studies at Duke Divinity School, stated that Wright "voiced in his sermons a pain that must be interpreted inside of the tradition of black prophetic Christianity."[57]

Martin E. Marty, an emeritus professor of religious history,[58] placed Wright's comments in context of his church: "For Trinity, being 'unashamedly black' does not mean being 'anti-white.' " He noted that 'being shamed', and 'being ashamed' are debilitating legacies of slavery and segregation in society and church (see black shame). Marty also argued that Trinity's Africentrism "should not be more offensive than that synagogues should be 'Judeo-centric' or that Chicago's Irish parishes be 'Celtic-centric'."[60]

Bill J. Leonard, Dean of the divinity school and professor of church history at Wake Forest University, argued that Wright "was standing and speaking out of the jeremiad tradition or preaching in the U.S.," which he said "dates back to the Puritans" and that both "black and white ministers have used since the 1600s in this country." Leonard explains that the jeremiad tradition dealt with woe and promise and moral failure not only in the church but in the nation." [61] James B. Bennett of Santa Clara University, says Martin Luther King, Jr. shared similar feelings with Wright concerning some U.S. activities, quoting King as saying, "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government," and that "America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive."[62][63]

Stephan Thernstrom, Winthrop professor of history at Harvard, and Abigail Thernstrom, political scientist and the vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, co-penned an article disagreeing with other views, saying, "[Wright] contended that blacks and whites had completely different brain structures, one left-dominant, the other right-dominant. This is nothing more than an updated version of the pseudo-science once used to defend segregation in the Jim Crow South," and going on to say, "clearly, Rev. Wright does not speak for mainstream black churches — and he has done them a gross disservice by claiming to do so." Former Harvard lecturer Martin Peretz concurred, endorsing the article and saying that it "puts Trinity into its proper place in relation to other black churches and shows how different it is from them." Economist and social commentator Thomas Sowell, an African-American, said Wright's sermons were "anti-American and racist diatribes."

This version retains significant quotes, something advocated by Wnt. It is also shorter, something advocated by Trilemma and IP 75. The reason that this version is different from the others is that it shows both sides in a neutral manner, all while incorporating the ideas of contributing users. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wild about this one--I still would like to see the quotes reduced by maybe two, in terms of the defenders of Obama. I'd also like to see their paragraphs reduced by one or two--I think if we had one introductory paragraph, two Obama-defending academics, followed by one Obama-criticizing academics, for a total of four paragraphs, it'd be neater and less cumbersome on the overall article. Trilemma (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so about this:

Several academics commented on the Wright controversy and the black religious tradition; some sought to expand public understanding about Wright, while others criticized him.

After the political controversy erupted, Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson argued that Wright's comments "have to be read as the bitter complaint of a spurned lover. Like millions of other blacks, Wright was willing to serve the country [in the military] while suffering rejection." J. Kameron Carter, associate professor of theology and black church studies at Duke Divinity School, stated that Wright "voiced in his sermons a pain that must be interpreted inside of the tradition of black prophetic Christianity."[57] Martin E. Marty, an emeritus professor of religious history,[58] agreed, and placed Wright's comments in context of his church: "For Trinity, being 'unashamedly black' does not mean being 'anti-white'." He noted that 'being shamed', and 'being ashamed' are debilitating legacies of slavery and segregation in society and church (see black shame). Marty also argued that Trinity's Africentrism "should not be more offensive than that synagogues should be 'Judeo-centric' or that Chicago's Irish parishes be 'Celtic-centric'."[60]

Bill J. Leonard, Dean of the divinity school and professor of church history at Wake Forest University, argued that Wright "was standing and speaking out of the jeremiad tradition". James B. Bennett of Santa Clara University reflected upon history, and said Martin Luther King, Jr. and Wright shared similar feelings concerning some aspects of the U.S. He quoting King as saying, "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government," and that "America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive."[62][63]

Stephan Thernstrom, Winthrop professor of history at Harvard, and Abigail Thernstrom, political scientist and the vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, co-penned an article disagreeing with other views, saying, "[Wright] contended that blacks and whites had completely different brain structures, one left-dominant, the other right-dominant. This is nothing more than an updated version of the pseudo-science once used to defend segregation in the Jim Crow South," and going on to say, "clearly, Rev. Wright does not speak for mainstream black churches — and he has done them a gross disservice by claiming to do so." Former Harvard lecturer Martin Peretz concurred, endorsing the article and saying that it "puts Trinity into its proper place in relation to other black churches and shows how different it is from them." Economist and social commentator Thomas Sowell, an African-American, said Wright's sermons were "anti-American and racist diatribes."

This version tries to emcompass all views of all editors as well, taking into account the recent review by Trilemma. I only hope that Wnt likes it. Happyme22 (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The second version doesn't seem too bad - losses like the distinction between nationalism and patriotism are fairly peripheral to the topic. So far as I see the last version doesn't lose much of the content of the second, though I like the writing style less. A minor quibble with that last draft is that the introductory sentence "some tried to promote public understanding, while others criticized him" to me sounds biased in favor of Wright because it implies only one side understands. Another "pro-Wright" problem with all the versions so far is that Sowell's comments are not elaborated in as much detail as they should be - Obama's $20,000 donation and Sowell's rather overwrought comparison of his speech to 1930s show trials are probably worthy of a mention and a quote, respectively. I still would have to look over diffs word by word to be sure there wasn't some small thing omitted that I'd prefer to mention but you're on the right track with the later versions, especially the second to last above. Wnt (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Happy's first version. I agree with Wnt that the writing style is better. The Cook entry from 2004 is not a reaction and I agree it is not needed. This section is for academics so the first sentence with the phrase "sought to expand public understanding" can apply to all entries. We have to avoid "agreed" or "disagreed" with because unless stated, it is OR.

The part of the Thernstrom entry relating to brain structure is from Wright's recent comments and not a reaction to the sermons. Sowell is an economist who also writes political commentary. Although he is an academic, he has no credentials or authored anything on religion. I do not think that any of us would want a proctologist performing heart bi-pass surgery, but that would be conjecture on my part. Per Wnt's request, my edits are reflected in the above "Edited version for reference". IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can probably guess, I much prefer the second version. In regards to Sowell, remember that this isn't in the context of evaluating Wright's theological validity, religiosity, etc. but rather a comment about its social meaning and implications, and Sowell has a fairly long and developed record of social commentary.

I think by now that we have a few reasonable drafts of this floating around which are distinguished only by fairly small differences that are not exactly holy wars. As long as people continue to work together in this spirit (and recognizing that the existence of several sock puppets on my "side" of the argument may have been fanning the flames before) I think there is every reason to hope that if and when the block is taken off the article that development will follow some convergent path. I don't think there is much point to further fine-tuning on the talk page because we're not trying to develop a consensus text that can never be changed (it is a current event after all!) but only a consensus on the broader issues that affect how we develop that text. Wnt (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Wnt. We should probably pick one of the above suggestions (or other proposals are certainly welcome) for the sake of doing something to get the matter resolved. I have requested unprotection on the article as well. Happyme22 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is unprotected! So I put up a version I prefer (roughly based on #2 above - see edit summaries for differences). Hopefully we're starting a normal edit cycle and I'm not going to find it all reverted without comment...... Wnt (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Article protected, Sat 5/10/08

I note that the article is currently protected, but that the usual template saying so and for how long is not in place. Would help if some admin remedied the absence. When it is unprotected I intend to work on the first section (it isn't really a lede) to contextualize the assertion in the first sentence that the controversy began in March 2008. Obama had to respond to Wright's "chickens" sermon some time before April 30, 2007,[2] so although the controversy reached a crescendo in March it didn't begin then. This also throws some needed light on the question of what Obama knew and when he knew it. His replies this March seemed to indicate the "chickens" speech was new news to him. Not so. Andyvphil (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the Protection log, the full protection will remain in effect until disputes are resolved. Happyme22 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though we're having trouble with users reverting it, we've reached a good compromise text on the comparison section. Basically the only issue with that is the reverting. If, going forward, we can get a semi-lock on that section, or some other type of protection, we should be ok. So, looking ahead, we still need to get a compromise academics section established (I think we have a good one, FWIW), and we could revisit any other section too, including the one Andyvphil mentions. Trilemma (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't altogether satisfied with that short "compromise" a few editors came up with over a couple of days; I still was planning to put back in a sentence or two (or try), e.g. about Rod Parsley; I want to revise and add sources [3][4]. I certainly don't think that exact draft should stand as a policy - there was some agreement that it was on the right track, but nobody signed off on it word for word. I was cited above as supporting the consensus text even though I didn't see it before it was added, because in general I wanted a paragraph that named the other controversies with enough information to understand what they were about and where to find out more on and off Wikipedia, rather than going on in prolonged detail on each one.

I really disapprove of "full protection" as a solution, because it kills the development of an article and it doesn't really fix the problem, which isn't that people disagree on this article, but that so many accounts are willing to delete sourced, relevant information. I think if they ran the Main Page they'd be bragging that Wikipedia was down to 1 million articles and cutting 1000 every day. While this article is protected they'll probably go somewhere else and ruin that. (I'd like to suggest that they go edit suicide methods; maybe they could get an idea for something to cut that could improve their editing style) Wnt (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I share Wnt's frustration. I strongly disagree with the recent efforts by Happyme22 and Tilemma and maybe another to commandeer this article to redact excellently cited material that has strong elucidative value. If you want an authentic consensus, you have to consult each person who has materially added to the article, very obviously, not gang up for a day or so, proclaim the change, and enforce it while playing the system to also enforce it as these ones have done. Ewenss (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well like it or not, this article will remain protected from all editing until we can resolve this dispute. I'm going to list what I feel it wrong with the section; please feel free to comment on them. You will find that I am a nice guy when we all work together and cooperate :)

1. The first sentence: "Many academics sought to expand public understanding about Wright and the black religious tradition, while separating both from the political controversy." That is true, but it only provides one side's argument. Another academian may argue that Wright is just a racist (as they have here). So this sentence is misleading, and POV because it only gives one side's view.
2. The quotes are much too long. As it is now, we have one academian agreeing with another and saying that Wright's comments need to be placed in larger context. That's great, because that is how many academians think. But it is not what *all* academians think, as there are some that feel Wright's comments do need to be placed in a larger context and that Trinity Church is different (see here). So per WP:NPOV, this side's argument needs to be written about as well.

That's my major beef with the section. The quotes are too long and there are too many, plus as it is, only one side's argument is presented. I am definitely willing to compromise with Ewenss, Wnt, and others, because we need to reach an understanding. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise, I can live with a long section as long as equal time is given to academics with a different viewpoint about Wright. The article shouldn't be an echo chamber for academics who peddle virtually identical ideas about Wright. VeritasAgent (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New developments

I thought it appropriate that I clue everyone in on some recent doings. After a large disagreement (including edit warring, stalking, and disruption) with User:CyberAnth above, I reported him at WQA. From that, it was determined that CyberAnth and User:Cryptographic hash may be the same person. So I requested an IP check, and the results are in: CyberAnth and Cryptographic hash are indeed the same people, and User:Ewenss is also a sockpuppet of CyberAnth. They have all been blocked by an administrator in accordance with Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy.

I hope that the obstruction of justice that had occured with the three users is now finished. The blocks also allow us to resolve the pressing matter at hand: what to about the academian section. I am really hopeful that we can reach a compromise. Right now, the standings are as follows:

1. Support trimmed down version: User:Trilemma, User:Happyme22, User:VeritasAgent
2. Support full version as it is: User:Wnt

So my question now is for Wnt: What don't you like about the compromise version, and what do you think needs to be changed? --Happyme22 (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've mostly been concerned with the comparisons with other candidates section. For the "academian" section (yes, that's a word, but is there a less obscure title?) I actually expressed some concern about how these people are chosen in my general comments for the proposed "mediation cabal" action, but I don't know how to decide on an impartial representative sample. (Actually, I think this should be impossible, for truly worthy academians!) The only thing I'm sure of is that if someone has cited a reliable source about a particular academian, that reference should not be deleted, and it should stay attached to a sentence that gives some idea of what it says. If someone thinks one "side" is underrepresented, find more sources with different academians. Keeping the section from becoming too large would be nice, if it can be done by trimming excessively long summaries and quotes, but not at the cost of sources. Wnt (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it is not a place where a lot of people share an Internet connection? Daimerej (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. The users in question were voicing virtually identical complaints and making virtually the same edits on the same cluster of pages over and over again. VeritasAgent (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean like User:Trilemma, User:Happyme22, User:VeritasAgent have been doing? Daimerej (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We have the same general stance on a few issues in question. We are not in total agreement on everything and have not made virtually identical edits. We have not engaged in stalking and harassment either. Check the change log if you want to see the evidence of CyberAnth and Crypto's stalking. And if you want to request an IP check on Happy, Trilemma and me, feel free to do so. VeritasAgent (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work in catching that, Happyme. And yes, hopefully now we can work out an improvement on the rest of the article without disruptive edits, etc. Trilemma (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally! - Josiah reported User:Cryptographic hash last week and I made a formal request to block the user from further participation on the article. Also, User:C.m.jones, who was an active editor on the Jeremiah Wright and TUCC articles, was also found to be the same user. In November, 2006, User:C.m.jones made bio edits on the user page of User:CyberAnth. IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave into curiosity. CyberAnth has a suspected sockpuppet listed as 74.233.157.42, which reverse DNS resolves to adsl-233-157-42.mia.bellsouth.net. Using the Geolocate link from User:74.233.157.42 to IP2Location.com, I was able to get a report of its precise latitude and longitude: (38.9048, -77.0354) Using Google Earth, Voila! the video dives into Washington DC like Flight 77, and hones in on one single building, which is helpfully labeled as a landmark: the Trilateral Commission. Now I'll tell you, with the Trilateral Commission on Obama's side, there's no way he could lose! ;) Wnt (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Pssst... Wnt, very amusing but keep it quiet. There are still socks among us. IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Geolocate and Google Earth say you're connecting from the former L.A. branch of Jim Jones' Peoples Temple. This is starting to read like a Robert Anton Wilson novel. ;) Wnt (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hanson quote and other blog references

I noticed that 75. deleted a quote from Victor Davis Hanson during a move of poll information. Now I really don't want a return to the constant deletions of sourced, relevant material here, and so I put this back in, but there is a problem. A reference to http://corner.nationalreview.com/ was lost, but that page doesn't contain the quote (but maybe it did before, as he has several articles there). The only reference I can find that actually contains the quote is some entry on Blogger. The problem I have is that I have no idea whether this guy is known to anyone and whether this quote was appearing in notable places, or if it's just one of billions of forum posts wasted on this teapot tempest.

Too much of the political action goes on on blogs (as revealed by the reference list - 34, 66, 80, 84, 85, 104 all use the word) for me to be happy about just cutting out all mention of the word without stopping to think. There is too much blurring of the line between news and commentary, media and blog, in the current market. (e.g. blogs.abcnews.com) So the question is - do we have any fair standard we can go by for deleting blog references that are not notable, and if so who would we end up getting rid of?

When all else fails, Read The Friendly Manual (i.e. WP:V).

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Now this last special BLP term is something that if I ever knew about I'd certainly forgotten, and I think we have could have real problems there - first because so many sites are self published, second because what does "self-published" really mean? (are individual editors' columns on the blogs.abcnews.com site "self-published?"), third because what does it mean to be a source "about" a living person i.e. if someone says that Obama was a member of the church for 20 years and should have picked another religion by then, is that a "source about him" or only a social commentary?

Bottom line: now that the stupid stuff is out of the way we have some genuine thinking to do. Wnt (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Retitle?

The Jeremiah Wright bio should present coverage of the reverend's general controversiality.

Yet as a dual sub-article of that and the "Barack Obama 2008 presidential election campaign" article, this sub-article ought be sure to reference its connection with Obama, to avoid ambiguity (that is, be as non-misleading as possible about the who? what? where? etc. of the subject it covers. For example, see guidelines at style manual, naming conventions. Hence: Good: Bernard Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik; bad: an overly ambigous title e/g Bernard Kerik election controversy.)

How 'bout----

1. "___?___"
2. Barack Obama association with Jeremiah Wright
3. Barack Obama pastor controversy
4. Barack Obama—Jeremiah Wright election controversy
5. Barack Obama—Jeremiah Wright controversy

? — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wright BLP does present material regarding his controversiality, but this article is a sub-article from that page, talking soley about the Wright controversy per WP:SS. That said, I support your notion of including Obama's name in the title, but I would like to hear what others have to say about it and about the specific title. Happyme22 (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Happyme22. — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay with adding Obama's name to the title. However, #2 isn't good (there's no association, just a pastorship). #3 is no good - it's not Obama's pastor, it's the church's pastor. #4 and 5 imply that there is a joint controversy or an association. So I'm just not sure how one can come up with a good title. The long version would be "Controversy in 2008 presidential election over statements made by a pastor at Barack Obama's church at the time" but that's way too long. How to shorten it without it getting inaccurate or POV? In this case I think it's fair to mention it (in passing) in the Jeremiah Wright article because he did something that was controversial, which differs from the identical question about Bill Ayers (where it is a brand new controversy that is a few step removed from anything Ayers did). But that is a separate question, and the question here is what to call this article. Wikidemo (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 U. S. Presidential Election: Barack Obama's former church and pastor. That it's a controversy will emerge in the telling. Andyvphil (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I REALLY LIKE it! Thx Andyvphil. — Justmeherenow (   ) 09:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me the practical advantage of changing the title? I don't think there's an intuitive name for this (unless maybe it's the name it has -- "Jeremiah Wright controversy"). The question I always ask in these things is: How would the reader be helped by a name change? I don't know of any advantage to it. I'm trying to imagine a reader looking at it on some category page and thinking it is about something other than what it's about -- but I can't. If someone wants to find out more about this subject, they'll probably go to the Jeremiah Wright article first and then see a link to this and click on it, or see a link on one of the articles about the campaign or about Obama and click on it. The other times I've been involved in discussions of name changes, these ideas came up, which seem to make sense to me:

• Ideally, an article name is
  • Short
  • Simple
  • Something a reader might type in the search function of Wikipedia or a search engine
  • A name that a reader could guess that Wikipedia might have for a particular topic
  • Something that doesn't mislead the reader into thinking the article is about something else or has a different scope

To me, "Jeremiah Wright controversy" fits. There's only one notable controversy (if there are others in the future, which is entirely possible with this guy, we can change the name later, either by combining it or them into this article and changing the name to "controversies" or, if it's after the election, changing this one to "Jeremiah Wright 2008 election controversy"). But, so far, it ain't broken, as far as I can see, so why fix it? But frankly, the name is not that important to me. I see no real harm in any of the other name ideas. Noroton (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget the title problem. I think that this article shouldn't even exist. The pertinent details should be merged into Jeremiah Wright, with an appropriate section on how the reverend impacted the 2008 Democratic primaries. There is no question in my mind as to what this article really is. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's okay for the article to exist, if it covers things neutrally, rather than being a dumping ground for negative material. It's good that people are emphasizing the title, because the title can really set the stage for what the content is. Therefore, since this is a sub-article from both Obama and Wright, it ought to have both their names in the title, IMHO. I like something like this: "Barack Obama connection/association/relationship/tie/link with Jeremiah Wright." Take your pick.16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should exist, and that it should indicate the association with Obama in its title. Of the suggestions, I think this is best: Barack Obama—Jeremiah Wright election controversy. It's not short, nor probably anything readers will type as a first thought; however, a few forwarding pages with shorter titles can guess some more common possibilities. Or DAB pages, if the short versions could mean different things.

I don't find it at all Coatrack or inherently POV to discuss the election flap that was raised over Wright in association with Obama's campaign. It's just not a topic that merits huge discussion in either Wright's nor Obama's biographies themselves (WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and so on). As a media event, it was certainly mentioned enough to reach encyclopedic (again, as a topic, not necessarily endorsing the specific wording that currently exists. LotLE×talk 16:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters has hit it right on the mark. That said, I would support Barack Obama-Jeremiah Wright controversy, retaining the simple 'controversy' as was discussed here. Happyme22 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Background: The article “Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy” was created on April 10th as a sub article of ”Jeremiah Wright”. On May 5th, after a through discussion of the article’s content, direction and potential names (“Jeremiah Wright political controversy” was the other choice) by active editors/admins and a subsequent almost unanimous vote, the article was moved to “Jeremiah Wright controversy”.

Reasons for keeping the existing name “Jeremiah Wright controversy” :

1. Although the controversy began as a result of Obama’s candidacy and the political context is the main focus of the article, the article goes beyond the scope of a political controversy

2. Wright is currently a highly controversial figure completely outside of the political context and the existing title allows for this in addition to other aspects of the controversy.

3. WP naming conventions/guidelines suggests titles that are short, simple, and are commonly known or referred to. The existing title meets all of the criteria while the suggested names are long, convoluted and unknown. I believe that the most important criteria are the article being easily found and read. The “Google search results” below show that the existing title is the most widely known and referred to and this article appears as the 4th entry in search results. The links to “Jeremiah Wright controversy” at the other six Obama related articles per WP:SS, allow readers who want more detail to easily access this main article.

4. A review of articles of other presidential scandals/controversies show they are titled by their known name or the name of the other party and not preceded by the name of the president.

Precedence and examples of presidential controversies/scandals: Whitewater controversy, Lewinsky scandal, Watergate scandal, Iran-Contra affair, A More Perfect Union (speech).

Google search results :

Jeremiah Wright political controversy – 0 results (10 are WP)

Jeremiah Wright controversy – 52,000 results (with quotations) Note: 4th entry in results

Jeremiah Wright controversy – 901,000 results (without quotations) Note: 4th entry in results

I think the existing title is perfect for all of the above reasons and strongly oppose any change.

IP 75 75.31.209.178 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I also oppose the title change. The controversy is about Jeremiah Wright and this is a name for it. It is true that the aim is at Barack Obama, but that isn't enough. For example, the Iran-Contra affair is not titled Financial support of terrorism by the Ronald Reagan Administration by selling arms to Muslim extremists. Besides, while I didn't get into the merge discussion and it was decided against, to me it seems fated that some day this article will be merged into Jeremiah Wright, unless his article is expanded considerably. Wnt (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I also oppose the title change. A primary reason that the Wright controversy is on a separate page is so that the approximately twenty seconds of sound bites that have been the heart of the controversy can be put into context of the sermons from which they were excerpted. There is simply not enough room on the other pages, either Wright page or Obama pages, to put the before and after text that surround the various sound bites (e.g., an initial version of the entry when part of the Wright main page had to relegate much of the sermon context into bulky footnotes). --Tkhorse (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I oppose this retitle for the same reason that I supported the move from "Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy" to the current "Jeremiah Wright controversy." The fact is, anyone that that refers to the controversy in either the media or the popular consciousness calls it the "Jeremiah Wright controversy." Why complicate things by labeling it anything else? -Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

• Oppose because the current title is adequate. Hey User:Justmeherenow, just as well you didn't suggest Jeremiah Wright's Controversiality!. Wherever did you get that word "controversality" from anyway. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

'Twas easy, doc. If controversy means dispute, controversiality means prominence of disputes or disputatiousness. (By way of analogy, if commerce means buying and selling then I suppose commerciality would mean ability to be bought and sold.) By the way, this word is pronounced either con'tro·ver'shē-ăl'ĭ-tē or con'tro·ver'sē-ăl'ĭ-tē, innit? — Justmeherenow (   ) 20:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

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

The result of this discussion was no merge, by concensus. Happyme22 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's proposed to MERGE this sub-article into a section of Jeremiah Wright's BLP. Please comment. — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already indicated in the previous section that I would SUPPORT a merger, as long as some of the extraneous detail was cut out. A wholesale merger would create undue weight. I'm aware that this would be a difficult merger. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MERGE. Too dinky on its own. — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

STRONG NO. Been there, done that. WP:WEIGHT issues make it impossible to cover the charges and counter-charges in the depth required. These merge requests have been made as part of a pattern in increase the ooh! ooh! factor in Wikipedia, something I strongly disagree with. Flatterworld (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's part of the problem - the "charges and counter-charges" aren't important. This whole article is a massive coatrack of a POV fork if you ask me. The WP:WEIGHT issues have been created because of the need to provide a neutralizing balance to all the negative stuff, when actually it would be better to cut down on both. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

iow, you see Wikipedia's role not to inform, but to ignore. At least you're honest about your motivation.
The problem is that we have no shortage of Wikipedians anxious to have a 'short description', but one packed with dog-whistle terms and innuendos. Flatterworld (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

KEEP oops was up too late so got (is-dinky) Ayers controversy mixed up with this one — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Just remembered - actually haven't even read it yet — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

AMBIVALENT. I haven't looked at this article, so I am completely neutral here (or ignorant, depending upon your point of view). In principle, it might be okay for this article to exist, if it covers things neutrally, rather than being a dumping ground for negative material. The connection/association/relationship/tie/link between Obama and Wright has been in the news for quite a while, lots has been written about it, and so it may be a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article. If it were all merged with the Obama or Wright articles, then that could create undue weight. But, I'm not really feeling great about having scads of Wikipedia articles abut the relationship between politician X and unsavory thing Y.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just quickly scanned the article. One thing that jumped out at me were these two statements in the lead paragraph: Wright is a former pastor, and Obama quit the church in May. This seems incongruous. If Wright is a former pastor, then is he really the cause of Obama quitting the church, and isn't quitting the church somewhat unrelated to Obama's connection to Wright? I think maybe the scope of this article should be broadened, instead of deleting or merging the article, to something like "Barack Obama's connection to his former church and pastor."Ferrylodge (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

About any incongruity - I don't think so: Wright is a "former" pastor because Wright left his job before the controversy broke, not because of it or anything Obama decided. Obama left the church in May, in the context of the Wright controversy - so it seems appropriate to me. But since it might be unclear to readers less familiar with the whole saga, I moved up the explanatory reference making the connection (which was already there lower down) to the intro and added some clarifying words in the resignation section. Tvoz/talk 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thx, the NYT article also mentions that a Catholic priest named Pfleger made some incendiary remarks that may have been the proverbial straw. Expanding the scope of this article might cover stuff like that, instead of focussing exclusively on Wright.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge. This article is about a media event. Wright had a role in it. So did Obama. But it's not "about" Wright per se, but rather about the use of a few of his remarks. Inclusion in a main bio would lean very heavily WP:UNDUE, making it seem like the only thing Wright did in his life was make these few comments. LotLE×talk 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE (1) The amount of important information out there is too large to be put into a section of a biography article. (2) This is a subject involving not just Wright, but Obama and others. Moving this information into a section of a biography article is a bit like hiding it. (3)It is easier to create an NPOV article when you have more space. (4) A U.S. presidential election is so important that it needs space across numerous articles. Noroton (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge is problematic Per Scjessey and others: I'd support a merge if this could be significantly cut down as I think it should be, as including all of it would be a weight problem; since that's not likely to be agreed on, I suppose I'd weakly oppose a merge as is. Tvoz/talk 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge. This has been discussed here before. This is too much information to place solely in a BLP about Jeremiah Wright. The controversy has gone beyond simply Jeremiah Wright, and has impacted Barack Obama, his presidential campaign, and the 2008 presidential election. Happyme22 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge. There is a legitimate need for an article that deals with the Obama-Wright-TUCC happenings, which have gone on for quite some time now and have led to various consequences. Trying to place all this material in one or the others' BLP would likely lead to either undue weight (if all of it put in) or hazardous oversimplification (if boiled down). The scope of the article can also include things beyond Wright per se, such as the nature of rhetoric in churches, the Pfleger appearance, Obama's history in the church, various commentaries on the whole business, etc., all of which would be hard to do in one or the other BLP. Of course the name of the article may need changing, but that's the subject of a different discussion. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge. As Happyme22 has noted above, "This has been discussed here before". I believe this is the fifth merge proposal since the article was created on April 10th. IP 75 75.31.209.178 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 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.

How do we treat the subject of Jeremiah Wright on the Barack Obama page?

How much information should Obama's bio article have on his embarassing associates -- Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko? The Barack Obama talk page now has an important discussion about this (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details).

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Other examples:

• Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
• John McCain and John C. Hagee
• Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but the discussion will move to Wright and Rezko. Again, please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus. Noroton (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The crucial part is that you should focus on what Obama did. The reason why the Ayers thing is so problematic to describe on his page is that there's nothing to it. You can say Obama accepted a $200 donation from a college professor; you can say that he served on the board of a non-profit group that also invited Ayers to serve ... you can say that Obama was lambasted by corporate media based on this slender evidence. You can even - in a suitably brief way - explain that Obama faced a tremendous amount of criticism because Ayers might have implied that he helped someone get away with bombing an empty building 40 years ago. What you shouldn't do is get into a long drawn out explanation of what Ayers did, when he really is not very important in the story to begin with.

With some of the others it's much less difficult. You can cite sources to say that McCain sought Hagee's endorsement, McCain repudiated Hagee's anti-Catholic comments, McCain said it was a mistake to seek Hagee's endorsement but he's glad to have it. All that's about McCain. Likewise when Giuliani hires a priest facing allegations of child molesting who was a long-time friend of his, you don't have to talk much about the priest beyond identifying the controversy and his relationship/interactions with Giuliani. Wnt (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Amerocentricity

The American exceptionalism found in this article is astounding and unfair to other English-speaking nations. Just look at the first paragraph of this article: It refers to a "national crisis", though from what nation it does not say. It simply assume the reader is aware that the crisis is in America, and regards America as a singular entity... --71.88.47.207 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have assisted the article in that regard, and thank you for doing so. Happyme22 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Italians

Didn't he also say something about Jesus being lynched Italian style or something like that? Perhaps we ought to put that in? Here's something with a bit of info- http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/03/rev_wrights_italian_job_hold_t.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.80.94 (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Durban conference

I removed the part about promoting anti semetism, not supported by the citation. It saays the conference turned into an anti Jewish free for all? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted by GHcool without talk here. -DePiep (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Another talk on this started here, I will continue on this page for clarity. The point of focus is slightly different from Tom's: is there a relation between Durban 2-anti-Semitism (assumed: sourced) claim and Wrights behaviour, apart from same time same place. Source + Latest remark by GHcool 'copied':

JTA-source

(other talk in the section not copied)

"Wright ... criticized the president for opting out of Durban II, the sequel in Geneva this year to the 2001 Durban Conference on Racism that had devolved into an anti-Jewish free-for-all." (emphasis added) [3] There should be no doubt that an explanation of Durban II is necessary background as to why Wright's statements are controversial. The JTA is a reliable source. I've fulfilled the arbitary request The Squicks asked for. Even he/she is content with the way it stands. Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are different things, but Durban II was both and so is Wright. This conversation was over before it began. (original post:)--GHcool (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RE Emphasised quote: the quote is written by JTA, it is not a quote from JW. We still have no connection between the Durban2-anti-Semitism-claim and JW.

JW is quoted in the source: ""Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing (by) the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel," he said.". See: no anti-Semitism.

RE "explanation of Durban II['s anti-Semitism-claim] is necessary background" to JW: not so here. A. It is only an association, not a connection. So not related to the topic. B. Even worse, it is a guilt by association, or smear. C. To top it, and GHcool will know but I'll point to it just the same: in a BLP this guilt by association is explicitly to be prevented: WP:BLP Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. The main introduction of WP:BLP is also very clear on this.

RE your closing statements: User:The Squicks may be satisfied or content, but that not do for the article; "... Durban 2 was both ..." is original research (and even then: does still not provide the connection asked for!).

RE Tom's argument: IMO since anti-Semitism/Durban 2 is not connected at all with JW, that sentence should go indeed, irrespective of the source.

Concluding: Apart from association (by guilt), no connection between Durban-2-anti-Semitism-claim and JW. So the reference to it should be deleted. -DePiep (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Was it not proper for JTA to associate Wright's support for Durban 2 with Wright himself? Is there no connection between Wright's other alleged anti-Semitic comments with Wright's support of Durban 2?

It would be a guilt by association argument if one wrote, "Obama is anti-Semitic because his ex-pastor is anti-Semitic." It would be a statement of fact verified by a reliable source if one wrote that Wright "suggested that Obama did not send a delegation to the Durban Review Conference in Geneva, a conference partially dedicated to promoting antisemitism according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency,[5] because of Jewish pressure." --GHcool (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for formulating your point(s). I truly think this is helpful for the project. I'll re per quote.

• "Was it not proper ..": no, no judgement from me on properness. Free to publish anything out there and no border in sight yet. I am talking about the usefullness of a publication as an encyclopedic source here. I am stating that the source, in this topic, does not describe nor support the claim (I paraphrase): "Durham2 is anti-Semitic (sic), JW was there, he said X, so JW is anti-Semitic". Still not proven. (Were X an anti-Semitic quote in itself, we wouldn't even need a Durham2-environment.)
• "associate Wright's support for Durban 2 with Wright himself ..": To me this is like zooming way out: 'JW's support for D2': phew, did he realy do that, blindly, taking a responsability for everything that happened? No nuance or detail from JW? That would need an extra source, I think. I do not have a clue or fact what this "support" is, in Wiki-think. Anyway, not a sourced fact. A distracting original research, so I'll leave it.
• Together, your sentence "Was it not proper ...": As you write, JTA made the extension from 'being there' to 'being accountable for what is going on there'. They may realy do so, but it is their logic, based on their own statements.
• Semi-indirectly "... because his ex-priest is anti-semitic ...": huh? That's not an example of guilt by association. It' something else, and very smelling. It is an abuse of my AGF here. I'll stroke some text before saving.
• "It would be a statement ...": The missing link is anti-Semitism -- JW at Durban2. We together have not found any source that can support the link.
• Opening line: "I don't understand": Oh yes you do.
  

-DePiep (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep is either not understanding the words I am saying or I am not understanding the words he/she is saying. Regardless, no WP:NOR violation has been committed by me and certainly not by JTA. --GHcool (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And the missing link JW -- Durban2 -- anti-Semitism is: ... ? -DePiep (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

All these comments seem to be going off track. The issue here is that of sourcing. We have two things being stated in the article: (A)That the Durban conference was anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish (the words mean the same thing) and (B)That Wright criticized Obama re the conference. The question is whether or not we have a reliable source that links those two points in that "A + B = AB".

We do have that source. It's the JTA article, which says that Wright blasted Obama re the conference despite the fact that it was an anti-Semitic event (in their opinion). Since it is a notable reliable source making this statement, it can be added to Wikipedia.

Piep objects on two grounds- first that the conference is not anti-Jewish and neither is Wright in his/her opinion, second that Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association is our BLP guideline.

To the first point, the fact of the matter is that many people use anti-Zionism as a fig leaf to hide their anti-Jewish opinions. This is fact, not opinion. Take a look at the cherished "anti-Zionist" icon David Duke. It is well documented by people all over the political spectrum. To the second point, the policy says (in full detail)-

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The BLP guideline is not talking about legitimate un-biased reliable sources reporting on people. It's meant to prevent against gossip from unreliable sources. The Squicks (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Why is this being reinserted here? Maybe take this to the Durban article ect, not needed, folks can link to article. --Tom (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the citation syas that the conference developed into an anti Jewish free for all, is that the same as a conference to promote anti semetism? How is the Durban article crafted? I'll take a look, thanks, --Tom (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

re Tom's: Agree on both. Straight thinking, makes sense. -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC) _{(signed later, by mistake)}

re The Squicks (not dropping Tom's remarks). The rewrite indeed makes things clear, thx. (Irrelevant to the logic, I'd like to correct: I did not claim that Durban2 was anti-Semitic or not. My opinion does not matter. Should be proven elsewhere). I skip the fig-leave part, because it is not invoked here by any source.

- First we reconfirm that JW's statement in itself is not anti-Semitic. (Not my opinion, it just is not there.) Second JTA states that as their opinion, that the conference was. (Whether it's yelled or well-documented doesn't matter here; but see Tom's point). And then it happens. The Squicks sees: both are written near each other in a RS, therefore JW is anti-Semitic. Well, I do not see that, and JTA does not write that either (JTA does not conclude JW's anti-Semitism). So, the conclusion (the logical link) is made by the editor, not by the source: OR. JTA does not prove or support anti-Semitism by JW.

- And on the BLP: the guideline against guilty-by-association does not differentiate between RS and non-RS. That makes sense, because a non-RS would not be in here at all, irrespective of their quality of logic. The guilt-by association is a fallacy, also in a RS. And so I state that accusing JW of anti-semitism because Durban was named so by others, is such a fallacy.

-Concluding: JW cannot be accused of anti-Semitism in the Durban2-subject. Consequently, a reference to this should not be in the article.
-DePiep (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are objecting to something, "JW cannot be accused of anti-Semitism in the Durban2-subject," that no one here advocates. As far as logical fallacies go, you are committing a classical straw man by attacking a position that noone here supports.

"First we reconfirm that JW's statement in itself is not anti-Semitic." I wish you could understand that your personal opinion of Wright is completely irrelevant to this article. You could love him, and you could hate his guts. That does not matter one bit. The question at hand is what information from sources to include in the article.

"JTA does not write that either (JTA does not conclude JW's anti-Semitism)" Here you are kicking that straw man again. The JTA does not say that Wright is anti-semitic, it says that Wright criticized Obama re the conference despite the fact that it was anti-semitic. Observe the difference.

What I want is the article to say "AB" based on the source. The source says (a)Wright blasted Obama re the conference and (b)it was an anti-Semitic event. 'A' + 'B' = 'AB'. 'AB' = Wright blasted Obama re the conference despite the fact that it was an anti-Semitic event. This is what the source says.

What you are falsely claiming is that I want the article to have 'C' where 'C' = That Wright is an anti-Semite. The source does not say 'A' + 'B' = 'C'. It says 'A' + 'B' = 'AB'. The Squicks (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's getting more clear: if nothing and no one is accusing Wright is anti-Semitic, why is the text "a conference ""that had devolved into an anti-Jewish free-for-all"" in here anyway at all? The only reason I see is guilt-by-association, which BLP does not want in, whereever from. What you see as my strawman, is this association, right now in the text. Then, now I can clarify and throw out the strawman: I am not claiming The Squicks or any editor want's ([I wrote 'see']) conclusion 'C' in, I am describing their logical steps AGF as I see them, and end up pointing a possible OR. Since editors want the text in, I was looking for the reason(ing) for that. But if it is not at all about Wright being anti-Semitic or not, indeed this has become beside the point). Then about the JWT you paraphrase "... the conference despite ...": why is the "despite ..." relevant here? Left is: an association only, putting A tightly next to B without logical glue, creating a guilt-by-association. To put it different: if not about anti-Semitism, what does Wright have to do with the claims of Durban=anti-Semitic in RS's out there?-DePiep (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just the question: if nothing and no one is accusing Wright of being anti-Semitic, why is the text "a conference ""that had devolved into an anti-Jewish free-for-all"" in here anyway at all? -DePiep (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Concluding: the reference is irrelevant here. Removed. -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hannity's Role

Sean Hannity is mentioned, but I think his role in pushing this controversy should be made clear. There was a contentious interview on "Hannity & Colmes," March 1, 2007, a year before this article says ABC News broke the story. I believe Hannity had been hammering on Wright all those months, and even after the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.228.99 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete Dates

Throughout this article there is an abundances of 'in March', 'in August', etc. which do not make clear in what year a given event took place. The result is very poor readability and I suggest that it does not in fact meet certain standards to be expected of an encyclopedic work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.123.66.205 (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Move proposed

There is so much of Obama in this article that I am inclined to propose that it be moved to "Wright-Obama controversy" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Doesn't a controversy have two sides, where is the other one? How about this story?[6], "The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth. I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy. And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said." Roland S. Martin, CNN. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Government criticism

Under the confusing god and government section in the article:

"The government lied about Pearl Harbor too. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie. The government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. They wanted that resolution to get us in the Vietnam War. Governments lie. The government lied about Nelson Mandela and our CIA helped put him in prison and keep him there for 27 years. The South African government lied on Nelson Mandela. Governments lie."

Wright then stated:

"The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis. Governments lie. The government lied about bombing Cambodia and Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, 'Let me make myself perfectly clear...' Governments lie. The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme orchestrated by Oliver North, and then the government pardoned all the perpetrators so they could get better jobs in the government. Governments lie.... The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and a connection between 9.11.01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie."

If this guy doesn't belong in the conspiracy theorist category, nobody does. J390 (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that define him as such? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's in the article itself already. Look at the section from the article that I just brought up. He'd already be in the conspiracy theorist section if his party affiliation were different. J390 (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If the reliable source is already in the article, could you cite it here please, so that it can be reviewed? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

One that specifically identifies him as a "conspiracy theorist", that is. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Undid revision 559478977 by The Magnificent Clean-keeper!

I would like to comment on this. I spent a half hour editing a tiny part of this article. I did not state anything from my pov, and I included a link to CBS to back the timetable of Obama and Wright's relationship. Further, It IS factual and important to note that before the controversy started, there was absolutely no dissent by the Obamas to the radical and disgusting turn their church took. "the Magnificent Clean-keeper" decided to just hit the undo button and erase my link to CBS's undisputed timeline, and every change and letter I wrote! Screw you man. Further, how is it that within 60 seconds of saving the changes this dude, who is no Wikipedia guru, just flat out disobeyed the rules and deletes my changes?

Let me quote the rules here:

1. Be polite, and welcoming to new users
2. Assume good faith -Avoid personal attacks
3. For disputes, seek dispute resolution.
   
   FAIL on all 3 of 3 rules! ---Jf (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jeremiah Wright controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080423123440/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337515,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337515,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080403162127/http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/gallup-obama--1.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/gallup-obama--1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeremiah Wright controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_8635235?nclick_check=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jeremiah Wright controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401054243/http://www.tucc.org/pastoral_staff.htm to http://www.tucc.org/pastoral_staff.htm
• Added archive {newarchive} to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/obamas-church-b.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/colbert-lampoons-medias-w_n_99435.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1734809,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_8635235?nclick_check=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

2020 Georgia Senate race bringing Wright back into the spotlight

I might leave this to someone else to write this up, but figured it worth adding to the page. I only intend to give the information. In the 2020 federal election, there's a special election to finish Johnny Isakson's unfinished term who resigned due to health concerns.

Raphael Warnock (Democrat) is going up against Kelly Loeffler (Republican). Kelly was appointed by Georgia governor Brian Kemp to finish Isakson's term, but Georgia law (or is it federal law?) requires her run again. Along with the normal Senate election, which has Jon Ossoff against David Perdue, this puts the US Senate control in the hands of Georgia.

Where Wright comes in is... apparently a ways back, Warnock defended Wright's words. I'm not sure if his words are being twisted out of context or not. I'm not here to defend or decry his actions. I just feel this info worth putting into Wikipedia to inform the public.

Not sure if it will help you but here's a starting point.

--RabblerouserGT (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)