Talk:Jeremiah Wright

This is not a forum for general discussion of Jeremiah Wright. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article.

Page protection

Due to recent media attention and the resulting vandalism, I've semi-protected this page for a week... if the vandalism resumes, and a longer protection is warranted, would one of the regulars here let me know.Balloonman (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people should be able to know FoxNews has quoted Wright as saying, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." That certainly belongs in "controversy" because it is one of the most controversial things Wright has ever said. I have tried putting that quote in several times, and it has been deleted for "bias". Is this the "vandalism" you talk about? If so, you are abusing this page. Fox News' editorial slant may sway the opposite direction of ABC's, but I've seen no proof that their actual hard news is biased or wrong any more often then ABC's is. Jsn9333 (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The biographical data is slightly incorrect. Wright joined the USMC first, then transfered to the USN. (U.S. Marine Corps, private first class, 1961-63; U.S. Navy, hospital corpsman third class, 1964-67.) As the page is simi-protected, I leave this comment for someone to do cleanup at an appropriate time Steve LA (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

--The isolated quotation of the statement relating to HIV virus is out of context and misleadingly inflammatory. This is because the reference is to a legitimate (but raging) debate that has been going on for many years, ever since British journalist Edward Hooper published his book, The River, which was also the subject of the documentary The Origins of Aids, by Peter Chappell and Catherine Peix. The basic premise is that the HIV virus was a mutation of an experimental oral polio vaccine developed by Dr. Koprowski (a competitor to Drs. Sabin and Salk in the race to find the vaccine) that was tested on hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting local natives in the Belgian Congo (this was back in the days when test subject consent, at least for natives in a European colony in Africa, was not even considered). Reasonable scientists disagree about this very controversial theory. Obviously, the Wright entry is not the place to go into detail about this. Therefore, to quote the few words that Wright uttered, without putting them in context, is misleading and inflammatory. --Tkhorse (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference completely on topic because the section it is about controversial things Wright has said. Here are the words in case you forget: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." What, then is the proper context that quote is stripped from? By all means include the context if you want... but people deserve to know he has said that. You're saying that quote does not belong in the section outlining controversial things Wright has said, and that is ridiculous. That may be the most controversial thing the man has ever uttered, and it is sad that you want to hide it from people who trust Wikipedia's system to provide accurate facts. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

--THIRD RESPONSE TO JSN9333: The principle of neutrality means that all sides of a controversy must be presented in a fair and comprehensive way that is not unintentionally misleading. I suggest you read the book by BBC Correspondent, Edward Hooper, The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS, Paperback: 1168 pages; Publisher: Back Bay Books (December 1, 2000), ISBN-10: 0316371378,ISBN-13: 978-0316371377. It may or may not be true that the government might not have disclosed certain inconvenient facts in its intense and hurried effort to find a polio vaccine and in its mass vaccination program. It may or may not be true that there is a connection between simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) and HIV due to the undisputed fact that millions of black natives of the Belgian Congo were given the experimental oral vaccine without their informed consent, not in the last century, but in the 1950's. Wikipedia is not the National Inquirer. It is not looking for screaming headlines or trying to sell papers. Especially when there is controversy on a topic, and especially for a living person, it is incumbent upon the authors to exercise the utmost care in presenting information in this neutral work of reference and knowledge. --Tkhorse (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Final response to Tkhorse - I'm not here to argue about whether or not the U.S. started the AIDS virus. I'm hear to say that the topic is controversial. That's the whole point... the heading under which edit in question was deleted is *controversial statements made by Wright*. The accusation that, "the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color," is extremely controversial, and it is a hard fact that Wright said this, as reported by a top rated U.S. news organization with a reputation for accurately reporting hard facts right. By your logic Wright's comments about race should not be allowed under the "controversy" heading in his page either, because there are other pages in Wikipedia about racism and "the Wright entry is not the place go into detail about this." Gimme a break. Well, you can be sure that as soon as this ban on edits is over I'm going to put this one of Wright's most controversial statements back under the "controversy" heading in his entry. And if you try to delete it again I'll have to find some other community resources to help keep Wikipedia free from your bias. Jsn9333 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

--I quote you: "I'm hear to say that the topic is controversial."--Tkhorse (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed your troubling and sanctimonious pointing out of other editors' spelling/ grammatical mistakes. Please cease and desist immediately as this IS a violation of the principles of Wikipedia. The information should and will be added. If necessary, we will build a consensus.I hope that your disruptive removal of properly cited and sourced material will end.Die4Dixie 04:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

NOTE changed protection to 5 months... let's get through the convention... until then, as is represented on this page, this article is going to be a hotbed... there is enough reverting/tinkering with registered accounts... no need to allow vandals access.Balloonman (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Current Event?"

I believe that it is misleading to call Jeremiah Wright a "current event", as this entry is labeled. He is one of numerous individuals who has been linked by circumstance to Barack Obama and, as a result, scrutinized. Just because this scrutiny is an ongoing process that has not yet "stopped" (whatever that may mean), if candidate Obama's minister is a current event, then so is his wife and everyone else who ever influenced him and been examined as a result. At what point does it become a bio? o0O [GUTH3] O0o (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I vote to remove this. Race baiting hate-mongers are not current events. Sadly enough, they are old hat. I vote to remove the tag.Die4Dixie 06:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

COMPLETE DISAGREE, it is a current event because he has just recently hit the media. You can tell simply by looking at the edit history when he became news and when people started talking about him.Balloonman (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is not very important to me. I see that you are an administrator: perhaps you could get more involved in Mr. Chang's removal of information about Wright's bizarre statements about the origin of HIV and pettiness in pointing out other editors grammatical errors in such passive agressive ways? Die4Dixie 07:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

I haven't been paying much attention to the article, I'm only hear because as a current event on a politically sensitive subject, I knew that this would be a heavily vandalized article. I'll try to take a look later on... right now I'm going to bed. If you think that there is an issue that needs immediate attention, take it to WP:ANI.Balloonman (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as I don't wish to get into a barroom brawl, since I am personally named and my actual name is used several times, I am forced to respond. First, I was not the person supposedly repeatedly deleting the additions by the contributor about HIV --it was presumably done automatically because the page is semi-protected. I have simply been explaining some of the reasons why I thought that the reverts (presumably done automatically) were justified. The added language, by itself, was out of context and misleadingly inflammatory. I had put a lot of work in writing up these detailed explanations of the reasons, but in each response the contributor seemed not to have read them carefully before firing back another missive, which became more and more personal. So, in pointing out his misspelling, I was merely trying to request that the contributor put as much care into his comments (and additions) as I and others are putting into this volunteer effort. Of course, if English was not the first language of this person (as it is not mine), then I apologize sincerely. What I found misleading and inflammatory was adding an isolated quote without context. But the current version now does, by referring to the extended Wikipedia entry on AIDS conspiracy theories. Reading the entry, one sees that this is not a lunatic and "bizarre" theory, but one held by reasonable scientists who disagree. Yes, there is controversy, but it is a scientific controversy among informed scientists. That is all I mean by putting a controversy in context. --Tkhorse (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I expect with your degrees from Ivy League universities and your specializations in securities' litigation your plea of an insufficient command of the English language to civilly edit Wikipedia without stooping to childish displays of attacking the grammar of other editors instead of their arguments to be rather hollow. If you are indeed who you claim to be, I am surprised that you would become involved in such pettiness.Judging by the warnings that you blanked on your discussion page about your disruptive edits to the Barak Obama page I can only believe that you are trying to "white-wash"(if you will forgive the pun) the statements of the Rev. Wright to protect Obama from political fallout for his unconscionable statements. Die4Dixie 14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

TO BALLOONMAN: Just because the entry began when Wright "became news and when people started talking about him" means nothing. This could be said about countless entries. What doesn't get added when it becomes news and people start talking about it? However, Wright is not a plane crash, a sex scandal, or an "event" at all. He is an individual, and you will notice that much of the page is devoted to aspects of his life that have nothing to do with the "current event" that you refer to. Human beings cannot be current events, and to treat them as such is not only anti-encyclopedic, but a strange way to perceive any famous individual (regardless of why they are famous). Start another "current event" entry about Wright's involvement in the political battle if you want, or add it as a "current event" section, but it is downright wrong to label the entire article as such. If it is indeed protocol, find some other related articles for me in which human beings are called current events. Also, at the top of this discussion page, there are at least three mentions of this page as a biography. A biography classified as a current event is inherently contradictory. I am removing the tab, and please don't put it back up without a better solution. o0O [GUTH3] O0o (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

--As noted in the discussion above, the Youtube video is a copyright violation that was self-published, and also, its role in the sequence of events is incorrectly described. I have preserved the quote of Obama, but deleted the clause concerning the Youtube video, and placed it in a more logical location in the chronological sequence of Obama comments.--Tkhorse (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can that video be quoted if it were purchased and attributed by an editor?--Die4Dixie 01:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A video can be quoted from the news/radio program--just not YouTube/blog. A person with the right tools could change the video, but if it is on a 'respected' show, then it can be cited from there.Balloonman (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Current-related

I notice above that the 'current event' template was removed from this article (which is right, as it is not actually about an event), but I believe the {{Current related}} template is appropriate, as it is arguably related to a current event, namely the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. I have therefore added it to the article. I feel this is the best solution, as it indicates that the person in question is currently the focus of a great deal of media attention, but does not claim that the article itself is about an event. If you disagree, please discuss this template below instead of just removing it. Terraxos (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

prima facie evidence

One need only listen to his sermons to quickly determine if he is racist and/or anti-American. His statements of, "God damn America" should be prima facia evidence of an anti-American belief structure.76.189.133.191 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The legal standard of prima facie evidence, is by definition, only one of "first blush", and is generally insufficient without an "in context" and thorough examination of the full record with all the facts. Given the failure of these constantly aired and sensationalized "clips" to provide either of those, the statements themselves are really "evidence" of nothing, your hyperbole and ill-advised extrapolations, notwithstanding. Their rather transparent, constant repetition is obviously designed to elicit unthinking, purely visceral reactions. Pity, you allowed yourself to be so easily manipulated. 208.127.96.219 (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the clips reflect accurately what is on the whole tapes, and in context. Visit the sites where they are available in all their inglory and see that. The pompous and windy statement above denying Wright's plain views seems to have been drawn up by Algonquin J. Calhoun, [the Kingfish's lawyer on the old 'Amos 'n Andy show]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.80.201 (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Has the above individual viewed ALL the YEARS of tapes to place those very brief clips in their proper "context"? The suggestion that this individual has indeed done that is not only highly doubtful, but laughably absurd on its face. Since even a cursory review of the entire catalogue would reveal far more balance than this individual has demonstrated here. Seriously, the only "pompous and windy" statements are those above, which by virtue of their specious and wholly inappropriate reference to a dated and unapologetically racist "entertainment" program of the early 1950's, speaks volumes about the writer's own transparent agenda. Any further discussions on prima facie evidence of racism can begin right there. 208.127.96.219 (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire clips are available on You Tube, and the entire clips DO NOT reflect what was in the looped sound bites. For example, the sound bite that American's chicken are coming home to roost, when viewed in its entirety turns out to be Wright quoting former Amb. Peck who spoke on Fox News after 9/11. This fact alone disproves the prior assertions that the sound bites are not taken out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.209.174 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah's mother

I don't see a reference to Jeremiah's Wright's mother - he is pale - maybe she was white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.58.148 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen any information or pictures of her, but Wright does seem more pale in some videos and photos than others. You can clearly see, though, that he is black from these photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.117 (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet if an African looked at them they would clearly see that he is white.--Nowa (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This is a hit job article. It lacks material from the substantial corpus of available biographical data about Wright in multiple books and publications in favor of undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to the controversies. I have placed {{NPOV}} while this is remedied. C.m.jones (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that, other than for your very worthwhile contributions (which certainly surprised me), the entry is very one-sided in its narrow focus on a few phrases and sentences taken out of context of Wright's thousands of hours of sermons and pages of written work. --Tkhorse (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this warrants an NPOV tag. Change to {{expand}}, please. — Omegatron 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current entry, as compared to its initial versions, is greatly improved in terms of NPOV, and is beginning to present a more balanced, less caricatured picture of Wright. I am certain much more complete information about Wright will be researched and posted in the future, so EXPAND seems to be an appropriate tag. --Tkhorse (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Now the article is non-neutral in the other direction, i.e., it has become quite apparently biased in Wright's favor. For example, every single one of the "responses" to Wright's sermons listed here is positive. This creates the false impression that there were no negative responses to Wright's sermons.-Schlier22 (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "responses," since none of them is negative, and this creates a false impression. I do not believe that a "responses" section has no place in the article. It certainly does. But the section must be shorter and provide an equal number of positive and negative responses.-Schlier22 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Except there aren't any equal number of negative responses. Feel free to add reliable sources with criticism, rather than delete perfectly good content. Grsz 11 13:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo

The photo on top of the article should be changed to a photo of only Wright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmerase (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the photo on top should be changed. It might also be worthwhile to include a photo of Wright with Obama since that is what the bulk of the article talks about and is at the heart of the controversy. It makes no sense though to have a picture of Wright with Bill Clinton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljgrimm (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A neutral photo would not be with either candidate, but would focus on some other part of his life than the controversy. — Omegatron 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you that Bill Clinton is not running for anything. He was a previous President, and showing that Wright was honored by two Presidents (Clinton and Johnson) puts his life in a much less distorted and caricatured perspective. --Tkhorse (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Both photos are phenomenal. Given the very non-neutral article text here, they help balance it out...some. CyberAnth (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The photograph with Clinton should absolutely be kept, because it presents completely new (indeed, news-breaking) information, unlike the current mainstream media, which rehashes the same few isolated quotes and stock photos again and again without presenting new information. This is what makes Wikipedia great, because it presents information that informs the public and that would have been otherwise overlooked. --Tkhorse (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the photo should be removed and replaced with a headshot of Wright. 1) The above photo was released to the New York Times by the Obama campaign. 2) The photo implicitly contradicts Wright's own comments about what Bill Clinton did to the black community, analogized to dirty intercourse with Monica Lewinsky. 3) The photo is currently being debated in the news as 'damage control' by the Obama campaign. Leading with that photo damages Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality. Frankly, I'm dismayed. With that photo as the first impression of this article, many people will view this article as obviously partisan. Given the wildfire media attention to this campaign, a distorted partisan news article on Wikipedia could become a news story in itself. Ten-K (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. A picture with either either candidate (or someone or something associated with a candidate) is biased. A simple headshot, or other pic of Wright alone will suffice and truly be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.232.134 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ten-K said it best. People will obvious be misled about William Jefferson Clinton and Jem Wright if that photo is prominent, as Clinton never called him a moral compass and saw him for half his life like Obama did. And it obviously shows there is a bias against the Clintons by using that pic, as that pic means nothing relevant, espcially when Wright said he rode them dirty like Monica.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, that is a bunch of bunk. They are being mislead miserably by the text of the article. The photo let's people know that Wight is much more than a recent controversy, but an eminent American minister who was specifically selected by Clinton to attend the prayer breakfast. Remember, this is a supposed to be a biographical article, not a political hit job. CyberAnth (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But his relationship with Obama is much more extensive than with Clinton. Why should there be no picture of Barack Hussein Obama and Wright, but one of a man with whom Wright met just once, and was only there because of the Lewinsky scandal. Barack has been under the guys wing for 20 years, and obviously has had an effect on his life, and America because Obama's book is named after his sermon, and in his first book, has a chapter dedicated to him. Without Barack Obama, MOST AMERICANS would never had heard of Wright. But because of barack hussein Obama, americans know his name now. there must be at least a pic with him if you want to do justice, or no pictures at all. This is obviously an anti-Clinton hit job. How about honor to our forty second POTUS.

Why is the picture of Wright with Clinton up again? It is not a representative photo of Wright. A picture of Wright alone needs to take its place, as this is an article about Wright.

I urge ALL, who realize that the pic should not be up with Clinton, to delete it, and get anyone and everyone you know to do so, until the editors get it. Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Resorting to meatpuppetry I see. There's a way to get quickly blocked and your views ignored. Grsz 11 03:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The page has now been semi-protected until the convention is over. Should Obama win the nomination, it will remain protected through the election. Any sockpuppet accounts created to delete the picture will be blocked indefinitely, and their creator, if s/he is identified (whether by Checkuser or not is immaterial) will be blocked for a long time. This is your only warning.

Oh, and I don't want to get either talk page messages or emails that we protected The Wrong Version. Have a nice day. Find something else to edit for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I had already semi-protected it through the conventions ;-) Balloonman (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

it doesn't matter he went to the White House

the fact is Bill Clinton did not call him his "moral compass" and "religious mentor" and go to his sermons and think that about him for 20 years. I am really sick of the ol' Clinton done it too shit from Obama supporters and conservatives alike. I think we must get that picture off Wikipedia. It is pointlessly on it. How about the picture with him and Osama Bin Obama.

Of course it matters. This is a biography encyclopedia article, not a political hitjob blog. The photo 1) is biographical of Wright; 2) shows a picture of Wright (duh); and, 3) shows how eminent of an American preacher he is that he would be one of the 100 or so clergy chosen by the Clinton White House to attend that prayer breakfast. CyberAnth (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "clinton did it too." In fact, quite the contrary, it shows that Wright was a political mover and shaker long before Obama. Which is a much more "total" picture than tying him solely to Obama.Balloonman (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK but why is there no picture on this page with Obama and Wright? That relationship is MUCH more substantial than some clinton bashing photo-op usage . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.15.205 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK CyberAnth we know this site hates the Clintons, but in todays world, Obama's relationship with the guy is at least as relevant to deserve a pic with his bigger than the Clinton one. The fact that the Clinton one is so prominent will mislead people, into thinking Clinton was closely linked to him, as Obama is. That is wrong. Obama has called this guy his moral compass and religious mentor, and even had him on his campaign, which William Jefferson Clinton NEVER DID. I don't know how to put a pic up, but one MUST be put on of Obama and Wright, or this page lacks integrity, considering how the relation with Obama is much more than some photo op with Clinton. Oh, and you must also find a pic with Jimmy Carter too, if you wanna actually be fair. Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove BOTH Johnson and Clinton pics for sake of NPOV

I the page oughta focus on just wright, yea it can mention Clinton and Johnson, but having pics with them will mislead people into thinking that Wright was closely linked with them. Neither Clinton nor Johnson called him a moral compass or religious mentor. Barack Obama did. It would be more appropriate to have a pic of him and Obama, considering Obama's deep relationship, but Clinton and Johnson do not need pics with Wright on the site, because it is misleading about both of them, and an attack point for Clinton haters, who are too loud and hateful. Bill Clinton did not go to his church and listen to hate speech for 17 years. Barack Obama did, but thats beside the point..Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. It is easy to see why the pictures are relevant. First, would Jeremiah Wright be notable if Obama had never come along? The answer is yes. The article existed for four months without referencing Obama. Even if Obama didn't exist, he would still be notable enough for an article. Second, how would one go about establishing notability? There are numerous ways, but the fact that he was recognized by both Johnson and Clinton are two obvious arguments for his independent notability! The pictures say nothing about Johnson or Clinton's perspective on Wright's theological activism, but rather that Wright was a notable African American on his own right. The pictures are necessary not because they convey any thing on Clinton/Johnson, but because they help establish Wright's independent notability. Finally, if Obama were never presidential candidate, then there would be zero question that the pictures are necessary.Balloonman (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, notice how almost nobody in America except a few political elites and TUCC knew who the fuck this guy was before BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA came along. So NO he was not notable in peoples minds to put a picture with him and a man he had little to do with. and even if so, there is no reason a picture with Obama should not be here. he is the most notable person affiliated, no DEEPLY affiliated with Jimmy Wright. This is clearly biased to try to he help Barack Hussein Obama. maybe the Clinton and Johnson pics can be there, but they should not be front in center, but being that the intent is to hurt Clinton's reputation, I say they must go.Tallicfan20 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Every CNA that took a president's blood pressure is not notable. That Nurse Fanny changed a bed pan for Johnson when he had mumps would not establish any notability on her behalf.--Die4Dixie 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

But if that nurse was part of a select group of people who were invited due to her standing within a community and her notability and her ideas--and was notable enough that she was recognized by not one but two Presidents. If said nurse was the head of a major organization of nurses, then yes that be independent notability.Balloonman (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knew... and yet... somehow he was notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia and be invited by two presidents... and watch your language.Balloonman (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Clinton picture. Maybe we could put a thumbnail of it in a "trivia" section. What the article really needs is a photo of Obama and Wright together, or write preaching from his pulpit. Unfortunately Obama is trying to keep this story down and hasn't GFDLd one of these. 71.112.130.211 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

balloonman, when I say nobody knew, I mean very few people knew who the man was before Barack Hussein Obama came on the scene. Obama is the guy's clame to national fame, and i mean household name fame. There must be THE picture with Barack Hussein Obama and Jeremiah Wright here, or this article is a scam.Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

O and balloonman, your cover is blown, and this is obviously a Clinton hit job. I looked at your profile and it says you support the Republican Party. Now you have absolutely no neutrality, and it is obvious you just hate the Clintons. Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. And for the record, it's not as if your anti-Obama vitriol makes you somehow appear balanced on this issue. Here's a clue: who are the only people who insist on xenophobically invoking Obama's middle name? Is that mainstream? Or is it a product of far-right radio hosts and bloggers? Obietom (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of original research

I have removed the original research that linked Wright's Aids comments to AIDS conspiracy theories or whatever the link was. We need a reliable 3rd party source to link this for us. --Die4Dixie 12:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I remove it again.Please discuss here before reinserting.Die4Dixie 20:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Hi, I removed the link to the Iran-Contra affair on similar grounds, as he did not mention it specifically in his sermon, and it was not cited. However, in this case I think the words, ""The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color", are distinctly implying a conspiracy theory. Our article on AIDS conspiracy theories is not specific to one particular theory, so I see no problem in linking to it. Dforest (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Split into two articles

This article needs to be split into two articles OR renamed and redirected. If the article is titled, Jeremiah Wright, then it needs to be about Jeremiah Wright (and the pictures with Clinton and Johnson are absolutely necessary.) But if this is about the recent controversies and Obama, then it needs to be moved (and Clinton/Johnson pictures shouldn't be in that article.) If it wasn't for the fact that this article is already a hotbed of controversy, I would do so on my own... but since it is a hotbed, I'm opening it up for discussion first.Balloonman (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2008

actually, looking at the article a little closer, the pictures need to go back in... but there needs to be an expansion on the earlier history of Wright. I also think the section on Obama should be moved towards the end. Wright has gained RECENT attention due to Obama but was notable before that.Balloonman (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, he is only widely known by Americans today because of Barack Obama. More people know his name than ever before because of Obama. Therefore, that picture is much more important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallicfan20 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, this article would not exist if not for Barack Hussein Obama. Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Balloonman that the photographs constitute important evidence that Wright was a nationally prominent minister prior to the current controversy. But I do not think that splitting the article into two article is necessary or even justified. One cannot discuss Wright or do a proper assessment of his life's work without discussing in some detail his relationship with Obama. At the same time, I agree with Balloonman that there should be more information concerning Wright's previous charitable work and focus, such as on religious education. --Tkhorse (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But there also should be a pic with Obama, considering Obama brought this guy to NATIONAL fame. And something else, Balloonman is NOT NEUTRAL IN ANYWAY. Look at his profile, and he is an ardent Republican supporter, as his profile says. He obviously harbours a hate for the Clintons, which is very typical of people who "support the Republican Party" as his profile says, why else would he want to mislead readers by having a picture of him with wright at the top of his page, altho his relation with Obama is actually deep and extensive, while meeting Clinton was purely superficial.Tallicfan20 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't argue that. Right now the article is terribly one-sided. Wright is being pulled through the guantlet of public opinion because of his relationship to Obama. The fact that his relationship with Obama does not mean that he wasn't a notable figure before the Obama campaign. Nor does it mean that he is the race-mongering demon with no redeeming qualities that many people make him out to be. I see the pictures not as a means to bring down Clinton and Johnson, but rather to help establish that Wright was a well respected leader in the African American community for decades. This article needs to beef up Wright's previous work. Why did he meet with Johnson? Who was he that he traveled with some pretty big names to Lybia? What did Clinton see him that he was one of a select few invited to the Clinton Whitehouse? I ask these not to bring Wright down, but to establish a broader context/history of who he was. To that end, if those questions are addressed in the article, then the pictures are absolute musts. If they aren't then the article needs to be renamed as "Jeremiah Wright Controversy" or something else indicating that this article is primarily about the Wright-Obama controversies. (And remember I'm a strong McCain supporter.)Balloonman (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the Clinton/Wright pic be moved down to the section on his "National Prominence as Minister and Educator", a picture with him and Obama be put into the section "Relationship with Barack Obama", and a more traditional head-shot (recent) of just the Rev. be put in the intro section of the article. These moves would balance out the article, and put the photos into their topically relevant sections. Lestatdelc (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, I know you are a Republican, and its obvious with that that you hate the Clintons, and are using your power to mislead people about him, with that picture front and center. You have obviously admitted your lack of neutrality. Jeremiah Wright was not notable to most people before BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA came on the scene. There must be a picture of that, and because his NATIONAL claim to fame is that, if that pic isn't more prominent than the Clinton one, your article has no credibility, and neither do you. You are giving people misinformation by implying he had a ton to do with Clinton. That was a superficial political meeting. Barack Hussein Obama's reason for being in public life is this guy, as he says in his books, and how he titles his speeches and his book. I will report your obvious lack of neutrality or I will find a way to make it known. You are not getting away with this horrible article.Tallicfan20 (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please shoe me a single edit where I have pushed an agenda? Or a position? Or where I hate the Clintons? When it comes to Wikipedia, I take a neutral point of view (which is why a Conservative called me a pro-bloomberg neo-nazi Troll a few months ago, I wouldn't let his bias interfere with an article.) Likewise, your bias and insinuation is unbecoming. Please remember to AGF and civility. Just because Wright wasn't known by most people does not mean that he wasn't notable before the recent flap. He was. IF this article is a biography on Wright, then it needs to include the pictures and to include details of life before Obama. If this article is a piece that focuses exclusively on the Obama-Wright connection, then it doesn't need the pictures and it needs to be renamed.Balloonman (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

so why are clinton and johnson connections so much more MEANINGFUL than Obama, even tho he has been with Obama thru his career, and the others were superficial? The fact is you must have the picture with Barack Hussein Obama and Wright if you are going to have William Jefferson Clinton and Lyndon Baines Johnson with him. No he was not notable before this, he was just another black sermon. by your logic, I guess ALL of the preachers who were at Clintons prayer breakfast are notable. So write artcles on them too. Tallicfan20 (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A case could be made for all of the ministers (regardless of race) who were at Clinton's prayer breakfast. The case becomes even stronger when there is a tie in to a second president, Johnson, where a commodation was given. The case becomes even stronger when there is a tie in to Jesse Jackson and a trip to Lybia. As for the picture being more MEANINGFUL, I have never said that the a picture of Obama/Wright would be less meaningful, what I have said is not to devalue to contributions of Wright to one simple stereotype that has become the focus in the past 2 weeks. Wright IS a notable African American REGARDLESS of the recent flack... you seem to want to isolate this one issue and make it the sole focus of his lifes work. I find that deeply condescending. Wright's career was a lot more than that, but you have put on your own political visors that you can't see past the recent flack. Rather than trying to innoculate Clinton by pretending that Wright wasn't notable, perhaps you should try to focus on bringing about the positive aspects of Wright's career? What was Wright doing good that caught the attention of Obama and Clinton? By ignoring the positive contributions of Wright, you leave only the negative stereotype---which then cn affect both presidents. If you want to defend Obama's relationship with Wright, then perhaps you should be willing to show the positives he made in the past? Sheeze, somebody reading this would think that you are the Obama basher and I was the Obama supporter! *I* want a total picture of the man, you want to preserve a caracature of him. And just so you can understand it, I do not believe a picture of Clinton/Johnson with Wright reflects poorly on either of those presidents. Right now, you are letting conservatives depict Wright, and you are accepting that depiction. I don't accept it. I think there was more to the man than a few (hateful) speaches.Balloonman (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to completely side with "Ballonman" here and condemn the extreme partisanship and clearly bad faith contributions shown here by "Tallicfan20". C.m.jones (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Howard

The peace mission which Wright, Jesse Jackson, and Farrakhan went on was, according to President Ronald Reagan, an "ecumenical body of ministers, led by Dr. Howard, who took this risky mission of mercy on faith."[1] C.m.jones (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Numerous sources in including the cited book on Jesse Jackson and the Time Magazine article state the mission was arranged by Rev. Jesse Jackson. See the following additional sources: NY Times, JACKSON COUP AND '84 RACE [2] and NY Times, JACKSON IN SYRIA SETS UP 3 MEETINGS [3]. Serveral more sources are listed here: World News Digest, Time Magazine, U.S. News and and World Report, Virginia Pilot, etc. Jesse Jackson's Mission to Damascus [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBlaz (talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Aids

Please stop linking original research to his statements on AIDS. Find a third party source to link the stuff or leave it out!--Die4Dixie 06:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting relevant contextual documentation without merit! This is NOT original research and is quite appropriate to contextually demonstrate that Wright's comments were not spoken in a vacuum. Furthermore, the information is in fact thoroughly sourced and referenced in the article, ie; Rand Corporation Study, Washington Post, New York Times and CBS. --JohnBlaz (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is patently false. You cannot link him like that without a third party source doing it for you. You can't say. Wright is black, blacks think like this because rand, gallop, or XYZ says they do; therefore, he thinks this way because.... presto he's Black???? Reinsert and I will remove until we have a consensus or we are blocked. I see you have problems editing pages that have anything to do with African Americans. Please stop your edit war now or provide a source that links him to those polls.Die4Dixie 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

What exactly is false? Dixie, you are obviously fighting against providing more context to Wright's comments. For what reason, I don't know. All of his controversial comments were run in the media and youtube as spliced sound bites without a pretense of context and some characters would like it to remain that way which---from an intellectual perspective---does a disservice to anyone who desires to gain insight into why he made them. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the context of Wright's remarks to his church, should be looked at in the larger context of the fact that a significant segment of Black America distrusts the U.S. Government to the point of believing the government may be complicit some odious endeavors where they are concerned. One is entititled to find it crazy to believe in such but ask a survivor or surviving family member of the Tuskeegee Experiment if they are crazy. --JohnBlaz (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing a Rand Corporation study the Washington Post stated, "A significant proportion of African Americans embrace the theory that government scientists created the disease to control or wipe out their communities,"[5] and a New York Times/WCBS-TV News poll conducted in New York found that a quarter of blacks surveyed said that the government "deliberately makes sure that drugs are easily available in poor black neighborhoods in order to harm black people" and a third said that might possibly be true.[6]

If this is so obvious, then you should have no problem finding a third party source to link Wright to those statistics or to link him to "What Black People Think". For us to make that link is original research , and expressly forbidden per Wikipedia policy.01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Die4Dixie 01:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dixie is someone who has been adding what appears to be anti-Obama content at every opportunity and at many places in entry, but disguising the effort through use of Wikipedia jargon. He is not an administrator or a long-time contributor. What I challenge him or anyone else to find is the actual video that contains the HIV remark. Nobody has seen it and is taking it on faith that Wright said it. Maybe it was quoted out of context. Without the video, it is also difficult to add context, or to find the likely references to the various HIV theories. --Tkhorse (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested that I was an administrator. I have injected nothing negative. But I have been in contact with an administrator. My time here is immaterial, but it certainly predates your Obama-glee club edits by a considerable margin.If you both do not understand what original research is, then I suggest you find the appropriate page yourself and examine it. It is in plain English so that purposely dense and obtuse editors can even understand it 10:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Is this a sufficient source? TheslB (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this paints a more interesting and significant picture of Dr. Wright re: AIDS: "As a leader, Wright defied convention at every turn. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune last year, he recalled a time during the 1970s when the UCC decided to ordain gay and lesbian clergy. At its annual meeting, sensitive to the historic discomfort some blacks have with homosexuality, gay leaders reached out to black pastors. At that session, Wright heard the testimony of a gay Christian and, he said, he had a conversion experience on gay rights. He started one of the first AIDS ministries on the South Side and a singles group for Trinity gays and lesbians—a subject that still rankles some of the more conservative Trinity members, says Dwight Hopkins, a theology professor at the University of Chicago and a church member." [7] Isn't that more significant, and more worthy of inclusion, than a single quote from a single sermon? --Jere7my (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Context for alleged "HIV conspiracy" remark?

Will somebody please give us the context to Wright's remark, or alleged remark, about HIV being a government conspiracy? The three relevant footnotes are all second-hand. Every alleged Wright quotation I've read on this subject is extremely brief, and often joined by ellipses to longer quotations on other subjects. Since this conspiracy theory is by far the craziest thing attributed to him, let's see it in its context. Tom129.93.16.132 (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We would need a third party source linking Wright to those crazy theories, not the 1+1 gives us XYZ original research. If by context you want the words in their surrounding context, I suggest you find those sources and add them if the have any relevance to the article. Please see the above section for more ideas about the first scenario23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

My point is:

Transcripts of Wright's sermons are available, and videos of some of his sermons are available. But when the article quotes his alleged statement about an HIV conspiracy, which Wright is supposed to have uttered in one of his sermons, the quotation is not accompanied by a footnote directing us to a transcript or a video of the sermon in question. Instead, the three footnotes direct us to press reports in which Wright is claimed to have made such a statement. Such second-hand sources are not adequate. I don't think we need a "third party source"; rather, we need a transcript or a video. Tom129.93.17.106 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote is from the “Confusing God and Government” sermon Wright gave in 2003. See here. Also, here a columnist asks for more context: "Snippets of Wright's sermons caused a furor with a lot of people when they came to light last week. Snippets never sit well without the benefit of context, and in this case that was completely lacking." TheslB (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked your "here" and got the footnote section of the article. It's not clear which footnote you're referring us to. Tom129.93.65.41 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I did check the transcript of the "Confusing God and Government" sermon. I see the quote does in fact occur in the transcript, in the form "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." Note 32 to the Wikipedia article does make that clear. Thanks to whoever provided that footnote. Tom129.93.65.41 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article currently states the remarks "widely aired in March 2008" but does not say when they were actually made. The source says April 13, 2003. At least the year they were made should go into the article, shouldn't it? —Pengo 07:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Spliced" footage

Marked the word "spliced" as needing a cite, and it was cited. However, it was cited with a source that doesn't state the video was "spliced". So I removed unsourced word "spliced", but it is now restored. Rather than edit war, lets discuss this. "Spliced" implies that the video was doctored to make Wright say something other than what he really said. This unsourced statement "spliced" either needs to be cited with a source that claims the video was doctored, i.e, "spliced", or it should be removed. Broadcasting sound bites intact is entirely different than "splicing" pieces of footage together to make a person say something other than what was really said. "Spliced" is not the proper word here. Yaf (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Spliced" does not mean "doctored". See dictionary meanings below: verb (used with object) 1. to join together or unite (two ropes or parts of a rope) by the interweaving of strands. 2. to unite (timbers, spars, or the like) by overlapping and binding their ends. 3. to unite (film, magnetic tape, or the like) by butting and cementing. 4. to join or unite. With film and videotape, splicing means joining non-contiguous segments. What Brian Ross at ABC Blotter did was clearly splicing, as is obvious from the videotapes cited and the actual words quoted. If I said, "I believe that Charlie Manson said 'We should kill all the people in LA'", and you quoted me as saying, "I believe...we should kill all the people in LA", that is splicing and taking words out of context. That is obviously an extreme example, but it is analogous to what occurred in this case. --Tkhorse (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that is not what the reference says occurred. It says that sound bites were excerpted from the full content. This is not splicing. On the other hand, it is Original Research to claim that splicing was done to "doctor" the meaning without a cite. It is not accurate to write that splicing or "doctoring" is what occurred here without a cite. Splicing means precisely doctoring, when words are left out and the meaning is changed, such as in your example. We need to find a source that claims this is what happened; otherwise, we should remove the original research word "spliced". Yaf (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"In another sermon from which sound bites were taken out of context and widely aired in March 2008[20],"

THIS is not supported by the cite. It's comming out. Die4Dixie 20:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 20:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically true, but that's taking things to the idiotic level, kind of like requiring a citation for "the Pope is Catholic". Were the whole sermons played? Were the clips played in context of the larger sermon at all? Of course not, so there is no problem with the language you oppose. C.m.jones (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Irreverent comment alert... but some do want a citation for "the Pope is Catholic"!Balloonman (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Commendations

I question if these were indeed "commendations". The one shown in the picture is not directly from the president. A commendation is a military decoration. The source for this is to me highly questionable as I have noticed other , to put it kindly, exaggerations of other notable African American achievements.It appears that the source does not exist to educate; but rather, instill pride in the A. American community. Sometimes the two are at cross purposes.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mission to Libya"

• A 17:51 17 March 2008 edit: Controversies: Added context to Libya, Syria mission to free U.S. Naval pilot, Lt. Robert Goodman by JohnBlaz added:

  In 1984, Wright travelled to Libya and Syria with Rev. Jesse Jackson and Farrakhan in a peace mission which resulted in the freeing of United States Navy pilot, Lt. Robert Goodman who was shot down over Lebanon. 1984 @ Nostalgia Central

• The Rev. Jeremiah Wright was not in the Rev. Jesse Jackson's 15-member delegation (that included Minister Louis Farrakhan), which along with dozens of Secret Service agents and journalists, flew (commercially) from New York to Frankfurt to Damascus on December 29-30, 1983, and after meeting with Syrian President Hafez Assad, secured the release of Lt. Robert Goodman from Syria on January 3, 1984, flew back (militarily) with Lt. Goodman from Damascus to Frankfurt to Washington on January 3-4, 1984, and met with U.S. President Ronald Reagan on January 4, 1984.
  • see page 93 of Chapter 5 Syria in: Stanford, Karin L. (1997). Beyond the Boundaries: Reverend Jesse Jackson in International Affairs. Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0791434451.

• Kantor, Jodi (March 6, 2007). Disinvitation by Obama is criticized, The New York Times, p. A.19:

  "When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, "with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell." Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan's views or Qaddafi's.

• Perhaps the Rev. Wright went on Minister Louis Farrakhan's May 1984 visit to Col. Muammar Qaddafi in Tripoli, Libya?
  • Associated Press (June 6, 1984). Libyan press agency asserts that Farrakhan met Qaddafi, The New York Times, p. A.3:

    Louis Farrakhan, head of the Chicago-based Nation of Islam, met with the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, when he led an American delegation of Black Muslims to Libya last month, the Libyan press agency JANA reported.

Watts1886 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this. I don't see any citations saying that Wright went to free anyone. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced it was the same trip. Are there any sources connecting Wright to either of the visits? While Wright's own quote hints at controversy, the lack of sources on this seems to indicate otherwise. TheslB (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Real estate dealings

We need to add a section oon his recently uncovered real estate dealings. I am searching now for cites to add this developing story.20:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/obamas-former-pastor-builds-a-multimillion-dollar-retirement-home/

Any objections to using this source?--Die4Dixie 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/personnel.htm Comments made to fox were made by the above linked person whose credentials are not "honorary"; but rather, they were earned and appear impeccable. I think we should include his statements too. Opinions please so we can get an non NPOV insertion of all of this.--Die4Dixie 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's relevant. I have a problem with the Faux article, as it's horrible POV. Grsz 11 21:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The hard facts are what you object to? or to the source and the academician who made the reported statements? Please say if you just don't like the source or don't like what it says or if you dispute its accuracy. As you can see, I'm terribly confused.--Die4Dixie 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

“Some people think deals like this are hypocritical. Jeremiah Wright himself criticizes people from the pulpit for middle classism, for too much materialism,” said Andrew Walsh, Associate Director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life with Trinity College in Hartford, Conn." . This is what I was wanting to add.Seemas as relevant as the other lettered peoples' comments that are included--Die4Dixie 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the section going to say? That he's building an expensive house? I don't see the relevance. Grsz 11 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That this 3 rd party source says that some people find wright to be hypocritical. We do have plenty of equally impressively credentialed people cited that are serving as his glee club. For balance we need more direct quotes from those who are slightly less than enamored with him.--Die4Dixie 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

on another note, Thanks for the honest effort to dialogue here unlike another editor who will remain unamed--Die4Dixie 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Only problem is that it has nothing to do with the "controversy". It's just FOX digging for more to go on and on and on about. Grsz 11 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be generating its own controversy as we speak. Let me see how many google hits we'll get on it. I think that if he is being exposed as a hypocrite by a 3rd party source( Dr. Walsh PhD., Harvard)that that would be noteworthy. I'm not hard set on this, and have removed the subsection.If it picks up any steam, and if it is cited correctly to Walsh, I believe it will pass Wiki muster.--Die4Dixie 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

All this is is hype. C.m.jones (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Very constructive. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.--Die4Dixie 22:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

What content would you like to see? TheslB (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Imprecations

Please stop inserting the un sourced material . Your original research is not welcome at Wikipedia. Also your restoring of a section on real estate that i created and then deleted makes me wonder if you even read things that you edit.--Die4Dixie 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can make your own interpretations of anglicized Greek with out cites. That is original research.--Die4Dixie 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

I think the way that it is linked now dos justice to your concerns and is fair and balanced--Die4Dixie 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Non NPOV tag

halelujah! Now lets talk about that NPOV in this article before you remove that tag--Die4Dixie 05:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The responses that are include have significant justification. For example, the first response asks the simple question, has any of the hyperbolic critics on cable TV and the Internet watched the full videos of the sermons in question? Anyone who has not done so, or who has just seen the snippets repeated ad nauseaum on cable TV, is not qualified to give an intelligent response. The responses of McCain and Obama are significant, because the controversy is in the context of the Presidential election. The responses of clergy members are meaningful because, again, they are from people who know the body of Wright's work and reputation, who are familiar with the language of sermons, and who are not screaming that he is the devil based on distorted caricatures. I can point you to tens of other ministers and clergy (many from very conservative congregations, most of whom are not black) who have come out publicly against the unfair caricatures of Wright in the mainstream media.--Tkhorse (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps when you trot out that dog and pony show we need to link to white guilt immediately.Then we wil , as you seem fond of pointing out, have the proper context for those comments.--Die4Dixie 18:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

"Sound bites from a sermon that Wright gave in 2003, entitled “Confusing God and Government”, were also shown on ABC's Good Morning America[25] and Fox News, in which Wright made perceived controversial statements about God and the U.S. Government." Perceived is a weasel word. Either the statements were controversial( as can be clearly demonstrated) or they were not.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Meaning it isn't a controversy to everybody. Not everybody finds what he said offensive, as evident in the "Responses" section. Grsz 11 19:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Depends on what your definition of "is " is," as a great man once said.If if I find a source that says it was controversial, may I insert it, and you do the same for perceived? Can't get better faithed than that.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way. changing the argument to offensive is a Strawman argument, and a logical fallacy.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, "controversial" is in itself a POV term, which is why we try to avoid it (as we try to avoid characterizations in general.) Grsz11 (how do you pronounce that?) is correct here. Now, you could say that the statements caused a controversy. Different. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

if some people think it is controversial then it is. Anyway just put some quotes and the reader can decide if they are controversial. Rds865 (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorates of Martin E. Marty

The article states at one point: "Martin E. Marty, an emeritus professor of religious history and holder of seventy-five honorary doctorates," And then at another point: "Martin E. Marty, an emeritus professor of religious history and recipient of twenty-seven honorary doctorates," That's quite the difference. And, I'm not even sure it's relevant how many honorary doctorates he has. I'm not an expert on the subject, but can someone who's more familiar with it clarify those two statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsanders (talk • contribs) 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading it a bit further, and Martin E. Marty is brought up three times in the article, with his credentials brought up each time. This is excessive; the others need to be removed once it's clear how many doctorates he has been bestowed. Wsanders (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• None of the references to the honorary doctorates belong. The article about Marty can discuss them, but otherwise, they're here just to bolster one side of an argument, and that's not what we want in Wikipedia articles. Interested readers can click on his name to find out who he is. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Can they come out?--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Libya

I'm having trouble with this section. None of the sources link Wright to the Jackson entourage. Grsz 11 04:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the black Hitler stuff--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here are two competing paragraphs:

Relationship with Louis Farrakhan

In 1984 Wright went to Libya with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Wright has been quoted in the media: "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Muammar al-Gaddafi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell." Wright later awarded Farrakhan a medal on behalf of his church, and Obama has been criticized for refusing to denounce Farrakhan.

• and

Trip to Libya

A gaffe of Wright's has been quoted in the media: "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Muammar al-Gaddafi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell." The 1984 trip Wright was referring to was when he traveled to Libya and Syria on a peace mission along with an ecumenical body of ministers. Chaired by Rev. M. William Howard and led on the ground by Rev. Jesse Jackson who brought about a dozen other ministers including Minister Louis Farrakhan, the trip resulted in the freeing of United States Navy pilot Lt. Robert Goodman, who was captured after his fighter jet had been shot down over Lebanon. At a January 4, 1984 White House ceremony welcoming Lt. Goodman home, U.S. President Ronald Reagan stated, "Reverend Jackson's mission was a personal mission of mercy, and he has earned our gratitude and our admiration." Wright has stated that his participation in the trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan’s views or Gaddafi’s.

I think the shorter version is superior. First off, calling the statement a "gaffe" is inaccurate, or at best an opinion. It was more of a perhaps ironic comment. In my opinion. Second, the cited source in the short version is the original, not a reprint from a year later (it was an NYT article.) Third, the short version doesn't try to argue one side or another; it just presents the facts. The shorter version is still faulty, though. Saying someone hasn't done something is by definition POV (it implies the person should do something.)

We can turn this into an NPOV article without including a lot of over-the-top rhetoric. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except the comment on Obama belongs, IMHO, on his page and not here.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Relationship paragraph is blatant POV. Grsz 11 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Change tile to Libya trip and remove mention of Obama? Also , claims of NPOV with out supporting reasons is not useful. I don't like it isn't good enough--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• This unsourced sentence proposed for a "Relationship with Louis Farrakhan" subsection by Jpgordon is false:

  Wright later awarded Farrakhan a medal on behalf of his church, and Obama has been criticized for refusing to denounce Farrakhan.

  • Holan, Angie Drobnic; Hollyfield, Amy Holan (January 18, 2008). Related magazine, not church, gave award. Politifact.com
  • Holan, Angie Drobnic; Hollyfield, Amy Holan (January 18, 2008). Obama decried Farrakhan's racism. Politifact.com
  • Chiachiere, Ryan (March 3, 2008). Russert falsely attributed "epitomized greatness" quote to Rev. Wright. Media Matters for America
• The "Relationship with Louis Farrakhan" subsection added at 18:48 on 30 March 2008 by Schlier22 and reverted 14 minutes later at 19:02 on 30 March 2008 by TheslB cited as its only source:
  • Kessler, Ronald (January 14, 2008). Obama's Minister Honored Farrakhan. Newsmax.com
    • but Ronald Kessler and Newsmax.com do not have a neutral point of view and are not reliable sources.
• This unsourced sentence now in the Trip to Libya subsection of this article is false:

  The 1984 trip Wright was referring to was when he traveled to Libya and Syria on a peace mission along with an ecumenical body of ministers.

• Wright was not in Jackson's 15-member delegation (which included Farrakhan) and secured the release of Goodman from Syria.
• None of these cited references mention Wright (because he was not on Jackson's mission with Farrakhan to Syria to free Goodman):
  • Raines, Howell (January 4, 1984). Jackson coup and '84 race, The New York Times, p. A.8.
  • Stone, Eddie (1988). Jesse Jackson. Los Angeles: Holloway House Publishing. ISBN 087067840X. pp. 197–202.
  • Stanley, Alessandra (January 16, 1984). An officer and a gentleman comes home, Time.
  • Reagan, Ronald; Woolley, John T.; Peters, Gerhard (January 4, 1984). Remarks to Reporters Following a Meeting With Navy Lieutenant Robert O. Goodman, Jr., The American History Project.
• Wright's remark about his 1984 trip with Farrakhan to Libya was made in a two-hour interview in Chicago on Monday, March 5, 2007, with New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor and published in her story the following day:
  • Kantor, Jodi (March 6, 2007). Disinvitation by Obama is criticized, The New York Times, p. A.19:

    In Monday’s interview, Mr. Wright expressed disappointment but no surprise that Mr. Obama might try to play down their connection.
    
    "When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, “with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.” Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan’s views or Qaddafi’s.

  • Wright, Jeremiah (March 11, 2007). "Letter to The New York Times" in: TUCC Bulletin - March 18, 2007, pp 10–12.
• Wright's remark may indeed have been a "gaffe", but per WP:NOR, Wikipedia should not be the first to characterize it as a "gaffe".
• Using the original March 6, 2007 New York Times article by Kantor would be a better (and more accurate) source for Wright's quote than the now used anonymously-authored article written over 10 months later and 4,000 miles away in London's The Sunday Times:
  • anonymous (January 13, 2008). Dirt begins to fly at Obama, The Sunday Times.
• Or better still, remove the Trip to Libya subsection of the Controversy section because, with no reported further details about Wright's trip twenty-four years ago to Libya, no real controversy about it has yet developed.

Watts1886 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What a busy typer you are :). I think that to say Newsmax is not a reliable source of hard news while Media matters is ( and hence from a nuetral point of view by posit) is disingenious at best.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not "disingenious at best" to say that in a Wikipedia biography of a living person, an inaccurate "hard news" story from a questionable source like Newsmax.com should not be used a source (much less the only source) of an article subsection.Watts1886 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Responses

The negative responses which I've added belong. Grsz: You are being very disingenuous. You removed one of the responses which I listed on the grounds that it "is a response to the responses and not to Wright himself," while neglecting to notice that Martin E. Marty, in one of the responses kept, is also giving a response to the responses. You removed another of the responses I listed because it is a "response to Obama, not to Wright." But it is obvious that the quote from McCain can also be construed as a response to Obama, since it is determined by McCain's alleged personal familiarity with Obama. Finally, David Sirota, whose response is kept, writes a regular column for The Nation magazine, which certainly qualifies as an "opinion magazine," if National Review does. In short, all of criticisms you've raised against including the negative responses that I've posted fail, for each of these criticisms can also be applied to the positive responses which you've maintained.-Schlier22 (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP has very strict guidelines when including criticism of living persons.

• Kurtz's comment has no place here, as it's purely satirical and provides nothing relevant.
• You're right about Marty, i'll try and remove it, but that doesn't mean Hanson gets to stay.
• And like I said about Goldberg, it's a response to Obama, and should be addressed in the controversy section of Obama's campagin article if anywhere. Grsz 11 04:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed not only yours, but other responses on the grounds I've already stated. Grsz 11 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurtz's comment does have a place. If the comment by the actor stays, which is equally satirical, so does Kurtz's.-Schlier22 (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How is Weber's comment at all satire? Grsz 11 05:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you need a magnifying glass? "The one that the mainstream media diced and sliced and handed out like amphetamine-laced communion to its maddeningly impressionable flock?"-Schlier22 (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm would be a better description of Kurtz. On the other had, Weber specifically addresses the situation, and what he thinks is happening to people who view the story. Grsz 11 05:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Satire: the use of irony, SARCASM, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. Weber-- btw, quite an authority, as an ACTOR (this is sarcasm, but if I'm pointing this out to deride you, it can be interpreted as satire)-- is responding very similiarly to Kurtz. Kurtz also is specifically addressing the situation (his point is that the content of Wright's sermons could only be acceptable by an adherent to the sort of radical philosophical positions which he describes) and what he thinks is happening to people who view the story (viz., these people are finding Wright's sermons acceptable due to thier adherence to these radical philosophical positions).-Schlier22 (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As it says in the history tab, Kurtz stated, "OK, I’ve been tweaking actual deconstructionist and post-colonial texts, and adding some "original" analysis of my own, to fit the Wright affair". This piece is not about Wright. Its about Kurtz and is his harangue against those academicians who find postmodernism a useful analytic tool. He just hitches on to the Wright affair hype to draw reader attention to his piece. Cryptographic hash (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If we have Wright's sycophantic glee club's responses, then we must give balanced shrift to his detractors and their responses. The article should not read like an apologetic essay.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie: Precisely. This whole article on Wright is an apologetical essay. Cryptographic hash: Your analysis of Kurtz's intention is wrong. Kurtz is using postmodernism to interpret Wright's sermons, but he's doing so satirically, i.e., in imitation of those postmodernists who have interpreted Wright's comments favorably. His point is that only such postmodernists are capable of disguising the real, hateful nature of selections from Wright's sermons. This is why he concludes that, "The serious point is that these radical theorists, so popular in America’s academy, do in fact approve of figures like Wright, which is why respectable universities have tenured Wright’s spiritual mentors."-Schlier22 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Satire is not helpful in encyclopedia articles. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I say no inclusion of either satirical parts, from either side. But we need some conservative detrators to give balance. If they didn't exist, then all these cheerleader's wouldn't have made any comments. to put their responses to the conservative criticism , with out the conservative criticism that generated the response is academically dishonest.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Die4Dixie.-Schlier22 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC) I've added a more conservative response from Ben Wallace-Wells.-Schlier22 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Responses listed in this article should be directly relevant to the article. We could have people from Alec Baldwin to Zelda Rubenstein responding to the controversy, but who cares? The responses should be strictly limited to things like the church, the current Presidential candidates, etc. - people who are involved in the controversy in some fashion or who are part of the reason why the controversy has become notable. In other words, merely finding some guy who publishes an opinion column and posting a quote from it here, even if the person is notable in his own regard, simply isn't notable in the context of this article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 16:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to quote actors like Weber, then there's nothing wrong with quoting a columnist from Rolling Stone. But even if we aren't going to quote Weber, then we can still quote this particular quote from this particular columnist. Why? Because the quote captures not so much the columnist's perspective, but rather the rage, lack of control, and irresponsibility that is inherent in so many of the Rev. Wright's sermons.-Schlier22 (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. You need to become more familiar with WP:NPOV. We're not supposed to be pushing a viewpoint here; we're supposed to be reporting facts, as neutrally as possible. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Wallace-Wells's opinion any more important than Weber's, Brit Hume's, Margaret Thatcher's, or mine? The answer: it's not. Countless columnists and other opinion-foisters have pontificated on this issue since it hit the media. None of them have any notability in the context of this article; merely being notable and voicing an opinion does not make that opinion notable. By limiting the scope of the "responses" section to people who are either involved in the controversy or linked to the reasons why it's notable (as I've mentioned above), we can avoid cherry-picking and synthesis of opinions. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I see two people pushing an angle here trying to ram a claim of "consensus" when the edit history and talk history deny them that very clearly. CyberAnth (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Slow down please

Could everyone please slow down on the edits? We seem to be able to discuss the article reasonably; I think it's time for talk first, edit later -- even if I've violated this myself. Right now, the article is in thrash mode, which doesn't help anything. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree: Revert to your last edit and lets talk. I wanted this for a minute now. Good luck getting certain ham fisted editors to join us--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't revert. We'll all talk. Or I'll ask (and receive) full page protection, but I'd really rather not have to go that far. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

to which edit would the protection work from?--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping one with fewer (or no) quotes from people who are irrelevant to the topic at hand. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The protection would be of the wrong version, as always. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Roflmao :). True. I have requested all recent editors to come to talk page, even the ones I don't agree with.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

honorary doctorates and naivete

OK.

Martin E. Marty, an emeritus professor of religious history and holder of seventy-five honorary doctorates,...

What's the point of including the honorary doctorate stuff? To my eyes, it seems to be for the purpose of inflating Marty's credibility for the purpose of supporting this argument. Since we don't list the religious and academic background of most people here stating their opinions, there's no particular reason to mention Marty's. As I said in my edit comment, people interested in who Marty is will click on the link.

Likewise, why are we assuming our readers are illiterates by pointing one word to wiktionary? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

' Agree': the wikilink to his page is sufficient.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You ALWAYS give a brief overview of who the person is, no matter who they are. An article should be completely self-contained, and written as if it were to be printed out and read. CyberAnth (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• In that case, "professor of religious history" would suffice; you don't need his honors and awards. Also -- I'm not sure we really want to consider blurbs as reliable sources; they're generally marketing tools, not reference documents. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't ALWAYS do anything. I see that some editors seem to treat this article as their personal property with their fiefdomism .--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jpgordon on this - stating his title and where he used to teach would be more than sufficient, especially considering that honorary degrees are of even less credential value than Microsoft certifications. :p --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you ALWAYS tell your reader who is talking - didn't you learning that in English 101 in college, or did you go yet?

Replying to "Jpgordan": No way. That is like calling Michale Jordan simply "a basketball player". Martin E. Marty is a world-renowned religious history scholar and people ought be told that right up front so they know who is speaking.

Also, on another issue here, you have to assume your readers are literate on the level of about an 8th grade reading level - the national average - so it makes great sense to wikilink some words to the "Wiktionary".

CyberAnth (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If true, let's add that he used to hold an endowed chair, so we know exactly WHO he IS.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And Wikilink to the controversy section about these dubious degrees.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying only that Michael Jordan played for the Bulls and leaving it at that. Martin E. Marty should be called "a world-renowned authority on religion and ethics in America"[8]. CyberAnth (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - that seems like the sort of phrasing that begs to have "considered by some to be" inserted in front of it. Is there a better way to convey why he's notable in this context besides honorary degrees of dubious import or potentially POV assertions of authority? --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is no disputing the fact that Marty is "a world-renowned authority on religion and ethics in America." Now, that doesn't mean that his interpretation is accepted by all, but you would be hard pressed to find a credible source that doesn't say this. To continue the Jordan analogy, there is no disputing that Jordan is a great basketball player. He is "considered by some to be" the best basketball player ever. Marty is an authority, and possibly "considered by some to be" the authority. But the article is making the claim that he is THE authority.Balloonman (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Book review clubs, trying to sell us things, even if it is the Harvard press should be discounted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good thing that's not a book review club but Harvard Press. CyberAnth (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is trying to hawk us his books that THEY published. don't be dense.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You are showing your lack of life experience here. World-renowned academics become so through a long history of very important publications and collecting honorary doctorates in recognition of those and other qualities. The best way to handle the matter is to keep the current text: "a professor emeritus of religious history and holder of 75 honorary doctorates". Then people can make up their own mind how to weigh it. CyberAnth (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? This discussion isn't about me. Besides, you just got done saying that we should assume our readers are at an eighth-grade level, and most eighth graders (not to mention most non-academics in general) will probably give undue weight and inference to the mention of honorary degrees. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clintons minister

The mention of the Clintons and there former pastor is gratuitous. One editor argues that it establishes notability. my argument is that does the Girl who gave them change at Starbucks have notoriety in the same fashion. It needs to come out, IMHO--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than focus on individual quotes and examples from that section, we need to establish a uniform guideline for what qualifies as notable and acceptable in this context. Once that's done, determining what can stay and what can go (including future contributions from other editors) will be much easier. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You are going to get a lot of Clinton supporters protesting that, but that is exactly the reason why the pastor's comments are note worthy. Without the association, you might as well call him Joe Smoe. CyberAnth (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

He is Joe Smoe, and I'm no Clinton lover. Obama supporters try and White wash Wright in this manner.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. Keep in mind this is an article about a person who is interesting primarily because he's the pastor of a (possible) future President; this makes the pastor of a past President and a (possible) future president a lot more interesting and quotable. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that if this minister had generated as much controvery for the Clinton's, then it might be noteworthy.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty high bar. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

don't worry die4dixie, there is a blantant anti-Clinton bias. The fact is he was not the Clintons moral compass and religious mentor. Big deal if he went o the White House. What about all the others who went that day? Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Did the girl at Starbucks come out and talk about Wright to a reliable source? No? Accusations of "anti-Clinton" bias are laughable. Grsz 11 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I think this article is certainly a good candidate for full protection. Several of us are guilty of edit warring, probably most of us have violated 3RR. Grsz 11 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've requested it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done, once it expires the 4 month semi-protection for the extreme vandalism needs to be placed back on it. Tiptoety ^talk 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. Let's not let this time go to waste, by the way. We should at least try to achieve a consensus in principle by the time the protection expires. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for quoting opinions

Most of the edit warring today seems to revolve around whether one opinion or another should be included in the article. I'd rather avoid going into the whys surrounding each individual case; rather, I'd like to arrive at a consensus on some criteria that we can use to determine what's appropriate or inappropriate to include.

I personally feel that the criteria should be fairly strict. What we've seen so far is that people are citing opinions by people who, however well-known or well-regarded they may be, have little personal connection with Wright or with the circumstances that have made Wright notable. To a large degree, these opinions are being added to the article to subvert the rule against original research, by cherry-picking and synthesizing these opinions and hiding behind the fact that citations are provided. This should be avoided, and I think the best way to do this is to greatly limit the domain from which these opinions can be drawn.

I propose that the following domains be fair game, as long as the commenters in question are responding to Wright's statements directly:

• Jeremiah Wright, his successor, and members of his church who are already otherwise notable
• Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and representatives of their campaigns

There may be other appropriate domains here, and there may be restrictions on these domains that would be appropriate, which is one thing we'll need to hash out here. Thanks. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Except this article isn't about Obama, Clinton, or McCain. Grsz 11 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean, if they're replying directly to what Wright said that's fine. Grsz 11 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my intention, but I guess I forgot to say it ;) I've edited my proposal above to reflect this. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle; however,I do not believe that the article should read like an apologetic essay. The arcticle should be balanced, and there is room for source material from sources that are less than enamored with him.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we already have viewpoints from both sides within the above-given domains (I'm actually surprised that Clinton's "he wouldn't be my pastor" comment hadn't shown up here), but if you think there is another class of people who have the notability in the context of the article, go ahead and explain what that class is and why its members qualify as more than just part of the talking heads parade. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being dense, but you of course don't think it should read like an apologetic essay, do you?--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of a loaded term. But most of the apologies you're talking about would probably be outside the domains I listed above. That's part of why I'm favoring this approach, because it will prevent the addition of endless point-and-counterpoint opinions which purport to try to apply NPOV, even though there was no POV problem in the first place. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm on board for balanced, and I think I am hearing you say that the article lacked balance. Would the mixed race couple that he married be included?--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I want to try to hash this out without getting down to specific articles if possible. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 23:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with a source

i have a problem with the corinth. bulletin as a reliable source. Many other sources go back to it, and it is of dubious reliability IMHO. I think that anything that comes from it, and the text below the web page with it( and no author attributed to it) should be removed and reliable sources be used. This would not include ones that work forward from this questionable source.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What contentious material is being supported by the cite that you would like to see a better source for? TheslB (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Particularly the citations about Johnson. The letter from a Johnson aid that is attached to the photo is not a commendation. It is a thank you letter, and not even from the president himself. I think this might be some of the hyperbole that the black church, according to the professor who possess "75 honorary doctorates", employs. If it is hyperbole, then it should not be included.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do either of these sources suffice? Predictions of God's damnation emanate from both black and white churches: "King delivered that speech the year Rev. Wright ended his six years of service in the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy, for which he received three commendations from President Lyndon Johnson, whom King was confronting." or The Lies and Distortions of the 30-Second Sound Bite: "[Wright] served six years in the U.S. Marines, much of that time as a hospital corpsman, and received a letter of commendation from President Lyndon Johnson for assisting in his heart surgery procedure in December 1964." TheslB (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the reporter used Wikipedia for the first instance as his source, and the second is probably the letter, which is not a commendation from the president, but rather a nice thank you letter from a presidential aid. To call it a commendation, especially in connect to his service, will only confuse readers and purposely mislead them. A commendation is a particular award/ decoration for service that entitles the receiver to were a specific ribbon or medal. Do you dispute that the thank you letter that appears in the picture with Johnson is not a presidential commendation?Die4Dixie (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

the second source is unreliable, as half of it is not true for sure, and the rest suspect. a Hospitalman/ corpsman is not a Marine, but a sailor, and clearly in the Navy. If this source cannot get what branch he was in right, what the hell will he know about commendations?--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the commendation letter reads, "The President thanks you for your help at the time of his recent hospitalization." Wright's biography at the The HistoryMakers reads: "Wright is the recipient of numerous awards, including three honorary doctorates and three presidential commendations." TheslB (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

is it you contention that a thank you letter from an aide is a Presidential Commendation? Also i find the "History Makers" to be suspect. they provide no cite for the info. I think we need the original source, the actual commendations. A thank you letter on behalf of a third person is not a commendation by the third person--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How many letters does the President himself actually write? If it says "The President thanks you," then it means just that. Grsz 11 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Then let the article say , "Recipient of three Presidential Thank You Letters ." I get signed thank you letters from the president all the time for my contributions to the GOP. Can I start a page for myself and say that I have recieved Hundreds of Presidential Commendations over three administrations for that ? Die4Dixie (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a copy of a presidential commendation and sourcing for the three commendations. What material would you like removed from the article? TheslB (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the sentence "Wright has also received three presidential commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson" redundant anyway? --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And some of the sources that used the language were wrong about other things. A commendation, in conjunction with military service(where this is mentioned) implies misleadingly , a Decoration. We do not have a copy of a Presidential Commendation; but rather, we have a copy of a nice thank you letter. now if he releases his military jacket, and it reveals being decorated with a Presidential Commendation, I think it would be appropriate to use this psuedo-officious language for a nice thank you letter, otherwise it is NPOV, IMHO.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In conjuction with his service, this is what this conjures up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Navy+commendation Die4Dixie (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you believe using the term presidential commendation conjures up the results of your original research, what room does The HistoryMakers source leave you in believing Jeremiah Wright was not commended accordingly. TheslB (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You really want me to chase the rabbit here, don't you? Please just answer the question: Is a nice thank you letter from an aid a "Presidential Commendation" or is it still a thank you letter. If the letter said, " the president commends you on changing his catheter," or words to that effect, then I would be happy to concede the point. If when you wrote thank you letters to your grandmother when you were a child(or continued as an adult ) for a Christmas present ( and I'm going out on a limb and giving the benefit of the doubt that you were well bred) would it not seem strange to say that your grandmother received " Grandson Commendation" letters from you instead of the more usual you wrote a thank you letter? I really don't even like the passive construction in the article either.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No chase required. The source tells us Wright received three presidential commendations. No need to talk about hypotheticals. TheslB (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

One of those sources also lied about his service, while providing some oth the other information that the others used. A thank you letter is a thank you letter, not a Presidential Commendation--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=presidential+commendation&fr=yie7c vs. http://www.google.com/search?q=thank+you+letter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Die4Dixie (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Now here's one, and its signed. Still a thank you letter. I think we can call his Presidential Aid Commendation Letters, since as the link shows, a person who is really thankful ,signs his own letters :

http://www.letsrollmusic.com/pres.html Die4Dixie (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The HistoryMakers source tells us Wright received three presidential commendations. The December 19, 1966 letter of commendation is addressed to HM3 Jeremiah A. Wright, USN and begins, "Dear Hospital Corpsman Third Class Wright: The President thanks you..." I do not think we can ignore (not mention) the three presidential commendations Wright received or remove the letter of commendation he received. TheslB (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An official publication of Wright's church is a reliable source. It contains Wright's resume in extreme detail. Only Wright himself or someone close to him could have provided such detailed information. Now, if you are calling Wright a liar on his resume, then you must have shred of some proof. Wright is widely respected, has received many honorary doctorates from respected seminaries and institutions, so if you are calling him a liar on his resume, then you are also saying those seminaries or institutions are fools. In summary, the source should be cited and the information in it presented.--Tkhorse (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Much to the contrary, Wikipedia policy states that a self-published source such as this may only be used in a BLP article if it was published by the subject of the article. I don't know where Corinthian Baptist Church is, but it's not Wright's church, and it's not Wright himself. On those grounds, this source, and all statements in the article that it supports by itself, should be removed in their entirety. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to calling a thank you letter a " Presidential Commendation". Are the letters that the Presidents Bush and Reagan sent me for my donations " Presidential Commendations"? What a peculiar--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC) thing to call them. I think, given the possessor of 75 honorary doctorates says the Black church in America is given to Hyperbole, this source is highly questionable.

IN RESPONSE TO above comments:

1. Corinthian Baptist Church is NOT a self-published source. It is an operating church located at 6113 North 21st Street Philadelphia' PA 19138. This is its website:

http://www.corinthianbaptistchurch.org/

Wright's biography is linked under "Spring Revival". You can see that Wright probably preached at the church from April 21 to April 23, 2003, and this is his biography as included in the program for the church. I have called the church, and it is a working phone number (but closed for the holidays).

All of the above point to the fact that the source is reliable, and that the document is the resume (or C.V.) of Wright, all but certain to have been provided by Wright himself. There is no reason for the church to lie. Would a publication of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York be considered a self-published source? Does it have a reason to lie in its programs?

2. Secondly, relating to "commendations", the word is not capitalized, so it can be a general commendation, as interpreted by Wright. It is not a formal capitalized term that needs to fit some legal definition. The words come straight out of Wright's resume (C.V.). Again, unless you have any evidence that Wright would intentionally lie on his resume (C.V.), and on such a minor point, then the information has to be reliable. If you say that the information on his resume (C.V.) is not reliable information, then is the resume (C.V.) of anybody reliable information? What is your standard for distinguishing one from another? --Tkhorse (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The church's website is a self-published source. They set up their own website, and they put their own information on it. No third-party fact-checking, no presumption of neutrality. Self-published. We have no way of knowing for certain where the information on Wright came from, because they don't provide any information on where they got their data. As a self-published source, it is not valid for inclusion in a WP:BLP article. Furthermore, primary sources such as a person's CV are not trusted as much as a reliable secondary source, such as a newspaper article where there is a presumption that someone has done some fact-checking. CVs, resumes, and other documents intended to be self-aggrandizing are, in particular, of poor reliability, since they are frequently embellished. There is no need for a standard to establish the reliability of one person's CV over another's, because they're all inherently of poor reliability. As policy states, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And that goes extra for biographical articles. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Has the "History makers" established a reputation for fact checking, or do they only ask the self-aggrandizing person who has told them that a Presidential Aid Thank You Letter is actually -factually a.... drum roll please....a... " Presidential Commendation ". Such loose and fast playing with the facts is why no one past 5th grade can use it for a source for anything. We should be proud.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep capitalizing presidential commendation? TheslB (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to above:

I don't know about you, but the resumes and C.V.'s of most people who are not in their twenties are accurate with respect to basic facts such as degrees, board memberships, etc., simply because there is no reason for padding and because the consequences of being found out are so catastrophic. Below is the Wikipedia definition on primary materials, which are considered the best source:

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as DIARIES, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; AUTOBIOGRAPHIES, original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

Now, if diaries and autobiographies are acceptable primary materials, how can resumes and C.V.'s not be? Again, you are calling Wright a liar on his resume, and you simply have no basis at all for doing so.

As for the Corinthian Baptist Church, the resume in question is not something that is about the church, where it might be biased. If the publication of a well-established church in Philadelphia not concerning itself is self-publishing by your definition, then the publication of many well-established institutions and reporting in many lesser newspapers and magazines would also not meet that criterion, and a significant amount of information currently on Wikipedia would have to be deleted. --Tkhorse (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One, don't put words into my mouth. I didn't call anybody a liar. The point is that there are rules on Wikipedia, those rules are very strict in the case of BLP articles, and the Corinthian reference is woefully inadequate in terms of reliability, whether it's true or not. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Two, primary sources are not the best source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Even if we were taking material known to be authored by Wright himself, we would not be able to portray it as fact, because doing so makes a conclusion about the material unsupported by a secondary source. We could indicate that Wright states that he has these commendations, and we could display the photo of one of the letters, but we can't conclude on behalf of the reader that he has any more than one of them because that's all the secondary sources support.

Three, the permissibilty of self-published sources such as the Corinthian reference differs between BLP and non-BLP articles. Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself. Plain and simple. We don't know that Wright wrote that material, but even if you assume that he did (a point I'm not conceding, just stating for the sake of argument), then we still wouldn't be able to use this on its own, because there are further restrictions (such as the material not being self-serving). On the other hand, Autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses ... are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published. That's Wikipedia policy, and if other articles go against that policy, then yes, they should be edited for correctness when the problems are discovered.

I'm not making this stuff up as I go along. These are three Wikipedia policies, they're supposed to be followed, and so far, I've seen no compelling argument for why we should go against those policies. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you take issue with the Reverend Wright biography on the HistoryMaker's (an African-American biography publishing house) website, a third-party source? TheslB (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That one seems fine to me, although it's a bit difficult to dig up information about that organization due to the fairly generic name. This does, however, bring us back to the original question of whether the term "presidential commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson" carries unintended meaning. Uncapitalized, I think it's okay, although the presence of the word "presidential" in that sentence is still redundant. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this third-party sourcing about The HistoryMakers, and of course its own description (in particular, this). And another source, the distinguished alumni biography published by Howard University, for Wright's presidential commendations:

[Wright] is the recipient of numerous awards, including several honorary doctorates and presidential commendations.

For the sentence in the article, I propose removing from President Lyndon B. Johnson since neither of the biographical sources mentions that specifically. TheslB (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now three "Presidential Aid Thank You Letters" are now "several" Presidential Commendations? Is Howard Univesity now using the same hyperbole that the possessor of "75 honorary doctorates" has warned us about? I imagine that each of these sources is using Wright as their source without having verified it. If I say I have a pet dog, but really have a pet cat, then do I have a pet dog or a pet cat? Now if I tell you I have a pet dog,still only having a cat, and you tell your neighbor who tells his aunt that I have a dog, do I sill only have a cat , or is it now ... drum roll please... a Presidential Commendation a cat?What we have here is a Presidential Aid Thank You Letter". It even says thank you in the first line, and it is signed by an aid. How have we let this morph into a Presidential Commendation? Let's call a spade a spade, and a "Presidential Aid Thank You Letter" a "Presidential Aid Thank You Letter".--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, "several" is too inaccurate a term for our purposes, and all of the other sources mentioned above indicate exactly three. (I usually consider "several" to mean more than that, but hey, whatever.) Anyway, TheslB is correct in observing that none of those sources attribute the commendations to Johnson, although we do have other sourcing indicating that one of them came from Johnson (saying nothing about the other two). How that should be framed is (hopefully) a question primarily of style, though. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 04:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE:

It completely escapes me why anyone would question this as a reliable source for factual biographical information. Now, does anyone doubt that his wife's name is Ramah, and he has children named Janet, Jeri, Nicol, Jamila and Nathan? Because that's where the information for the Wikipedia entry comes from. If you take out this source, then you will be deleting many paragraphs of useful information. Now, does anyone doubt that he taught the courses listed? Does anyone doubt the books that he wrote that are listed? What motivation would the church have to lie on such a long list of biographical information. It's not like Wright's CV needs padding. There is also various circular logic in some of the above. The bottom line is, this source is not self-publishing. And all this quoting of Wikipedia principles bureaucratic language is just throwing up smoke. The bottom line: deleting this source means deleting a lot of useful biographical information in the Wikipedia entry that nobody has questioned at all as to their veracity in the first place. --Tkhorse (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Usefulness is trumped by policy. The source is self-publishing - I don't see how "published by oneself" and "self-published" could possibly be incongruous. And claiming that quoting policy is like blowing smoke is akin to claiming that citing a statute in a legal brief is an attempt to put one over on a court of law. Surely you can find a more reliable source for that information, such as this one. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments after September 11

This section should be amended to the effect that Template:Editprotect "No evidence has been offered to show that Wright quoted accurately, or paraphrased fairly, Peck."

Further detail could include:

According to LexisNexis transcripts, Peck did not appear on Fox News during the time from September 11, 2001 to September 16, 2001, the date it is said that Wright delivered his sermon. Peck made three appearances on Fox News on October 5, 10 and 11, 2001. During these appearances, Peck did not mention Malcolm X, "chickens coming home to roost", or bombing Hiroshima or Nagasaki, etc."

Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean . How would you incorporate that into the article? What does this mean?--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any supporting evidence whatsoever? Grsz 11 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just my incomprehension. It's a gut reaction, I can't source it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK here's the paragraph, as it exists currently:

In March 2008, ABC News broadcast sound bites[23] from a sermon that Wright gave shortly after September 11, 2001,[24][25] in which Wright paraphrased Edward Peck,[26] former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq, former deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under the Reagan Administration and former U.S. Ambassador to a number of countries, who was appearing on Fox News, as allegedly having said: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye...and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." Wright went on to state: "Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people that we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."[23]

The phrase "gave shorlty after September 11, 2001 appears not to be true. On March 21, 2008, Roland Martin posted "The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon" [9] In the post, Martin wrote:

"I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001. One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation."

We have three issues: 1) the date of the sermon; 2) whether there is any evidence that Wright quoted Peck accurately; and 3) whether there is any evidence that Wright, if not quoting Peck, paraphrased Peck fairly.

On the issue of the date, it is quite unlikely to be September 16 for at least 2 reasons. First, on September 16, the death toll was still unknown and thought to be much larger than the 3,000 people that Wright mentioned in his sermon. The 3,000 tally was not known until October. Second, Wright says he saw Peck on Fox News "yesterday", i.e., September 15. However, Peck did not appear on Fox News following September 11 until October 5, 2001.

Now, Peck did appear on Fox News on October 5, 10 and 11. Peck did not mention "Malcolm X", or "chickens coming home to roost". How do I know? I have checked the transcripts during this period provided by LexisNexis. Since LexisNexis is copyrighted material, I have not posted the 4000+ words covering the three appearances.

Further, no one has shown any evidence that Peck said anything like what he is alleged to have said. No youtube clips, no transcripts. No evidence at all other than Wright's assertion that he saw Peck on Fox News.

Later on March 21, 2008, CNN journalist John King interviewed Martin on Anderson Cooper 360°. King noted that CNN staff could not find any evidence of Peck making the statements attributed to him by Wright and Martin.[10]

Here's the clip from the transcipt:

KING: We went back and we looked for any appearances by Ambassador Peck during this time once you pointed this out to the staff, and can't find any.

MARTIN: Right. And I actually called the church to find out, first of all -- first of all, Reverend Wright is out of the country -- to find out, was that the actual date of the sermon? Was that actually right? Or did he make a mistake in terms of where he saw the ambassador, who actually was a Republican ambassador to Iraq under Ronald Reagan [sic -- Peck was in Iraq under President Carter]?

This would seem to indicate, that there is no evidence that Wright is either quoting or paraphrasing Peck.

Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should work it in if others want to claim that he paraphrased him( which seems like libel to me)--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE POINTS:

1. There is absolutely no question that Wright SAID that he was quoting Peck. He says that repeatedly before and after the allegedly quoted language. Whether we now think he was or was not quoting Peck is not really relevant (and constitutes original research). The existing text makes it clear that Wright THINKS that he was quoting Peck.

Wright never said "I am quoting Peck." Wright said "he [Peck] pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Now, on the question whether Wright was quoting Peck accurately. The text says "as allegedly having said". That indicates neutrality as to whether Wright quoted Peck correctly. And our investigation as to whether the quote was accurate or not is not really relevant (and constitutes original research).

I think the Wiki text should say that Wright cited Peck as "pointing out ... chickens roost". Wright did not attribute any other observation to Peck until the 11th paragraph. See Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon" [11] Thus, citing Hiroshima, etc seems inaccurate." Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Let's look at the original research. I called up Lexis/Nexis and discovered that they only carried the transcripts of CERTAIN Fox News programs. They do not have transcripts of all Fox News broadcasts. Therefore, the fact the contributor did not find the relevant transcript does not really indicate that the broadcast did not take place. Also, Lexis/Nexis does not transcribe the programs itself, it simply takes what transcripts that Fox chooses to give it. In addition, there are hundreds of local Fox affiliates, each of which broadcast independently its own programs, and I know that none of those is carried by Lexis/Nexis. As an attorney, I have used Lexis/Nexis very extensively in the past in my work, and know its many and often extremely severe limitations.

Wright said he saw Peck on "Fox News", not a local Fox affiliate. The missing/incomplete transcript argument is not a strong argument to support the notion that Peck make such statements. Rather, the existence of multiple transcripts from the dates in question, where Peck does not make such statements, points out the lack of support for the contention that Wright "quoted" Peck, other than Wright saying that Peck "pointed out .."Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

4. As anyone who has listened extensively to Wright's sermons (as I have tried to do) can tell you, Wright's is an intelligent, thoughtful and rational speaker. In fact, most of his sermons concern Biblical subjects (and are long and, apologize for this but it is relevant in this context, somewhat boring) that are very much like the sermons you hear at most churches on Sundays.

Now Wright must have heard something from Peck. Peck is not a common name, so Wright could not just have invented Peck out of thin air. And Peck is well-known for being extremely forthright and, as he is retired, not afraid to speak out on what is on his mind. His expressed views are generally consistent with the sentiments expressed. In addition, you have to put his alleged remarks in the context of the first few days after September 11, when everyone was searching for explanations. Recall that Jerry Falwell said shortly after September 11 that it was caused by homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. and let me point out parenthetically that McCain has embraced him and spoken at his Liberty University (and nobody has called McCain on it).

5. It is simply not likely that Wright just invented his quotation of Peck out of thin air. Now, the fact that a very casual looking by Martin or Anderson did not find the relevant quotation does not mean that it does not exist, and really is not the thorough research that should be put into the entry, as it would be very misleading. As noted above, even the extended original research by the contributor above still probably missed a lot of the 24 hours a day of broadcasts that is on Fox News every single day (the entire transcript must run into the tens of thousands of pages) and the hundreds of hours daily of independent broadcasts by local Fox affiliates.

6. In summary, the existing text accurately states that Wright stated that he was quoting Peck, and it accurately states that it is only what Peck allegedly has said. --Tkhorse (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The existing text is not accurate. To make it accurate, it would have to read that Wright said Peck "pointed out".Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The current text is not supported by the source (Martin, at CNN.com)[12], or by the transcript therein. Our secondary source (Martin) says Wright "quoted" Peck, not "paraphrased" him. And there is nothing in the embedded primary source to indicate that the quotation went beyond the line Wright took as his text, "America's chickens are coming home to roost". I am appreciative of the work Youngwarrenbuffett has done to examine the question of whether and what Peck actually said and to clarify the dates. The question of how to consult and use primary sources referred to (in this case indirectly) by secondary sources is not properly dismissed as WP:OR. Consult WP:NORN and its archives for more (much more) on this. All this business about driving out the Indian tribes and bombing Nagasaki and terrorizing Palestinians is almost certainly Wright's exegesis on his chosen text from Peck, not quotation or paraphrase. It's the kind of things ministers do all the time with lines from the Bible, so it isn't that hard to recognize the form. Andyvphil (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO Andyvphil:

On the contrary, the current text is supported by the video cited at Footnote 26. Please watch it. That is not original research. That is what citation to a video means, and would be same as a citation to a transcript of the video. The video is undoubtedly genuine, but if you think the cite is not NPOV enough, the same video is found on Trinity's official website:

http://youtube.com/user/TRINITYCHGO

which is linked to:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

In the video, Wright also said, just before the quoted text: "I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out--did you see him, John?--a white man, he pointed out, an ambassador..." This is quoted at footnote 26, since it is important evidence that he is quoting Peck.

If this is not clear enough that Wright SAYS THAT he is quoting Peck, I don't know what is. That's the crucial point in this context, that Wright says that he is quoting Peck, and that he thinks he is quoting Peck. It's not really relevant whether we think he is or is not.

So, in fact, I agree that "paraphrased" should be changed to "quoted".

Now, if the statements quoted were inconsistent with what Peck has said in the past (say, Peck was a writer for the National Review), then I might agree that maybe Wright misquoted Peck. But if you Google Peck, you will see that he is an outspoken critic of US Middle East policies and says a lot of things that are extremely (perhaps even more) controversial. One article has a colleague of his saying that Peck just says what is on his mind, and is not afraid of what others may think. So, the quoted statements are generally consistent what Peck has said in the past. I do not agree with your assumption, not backed by a source, that they are flourishes added by Wright. And Peck is not a flake, because he actually held the high government posts that he held in areas related to foreign policy and the Middle East, so he is an expert, albeit and opinionated one, and his statements carry some weight. That frankly, was what Wright was trying to say in his sermon.--Tkhorse (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it your expert legal opinion that that constitutes a quote? If it is, then it leads me to doubt that you are who you say you are. I try to imagine you trotting that out in arbitration or in a brief and wonder how quickly your practice on 44 Wall Street would dry up.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Improper source quotes Wikipedia article

{{editprotected}}

Wright concludes by stating:" The government gives them drugs [referring to the Iran-Contra Affair],[28] built bigger prisons, passes a three strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America. No, no, no, not God bless America! God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God damn America, for treating her citizens as less than human. God damn America, as long as she pretends to act like she is God, and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent."[27][29]

The bolded comment is improperly sourced and should be removed. The source given, an editorial [13] , quotes an earlier version of this Wikipedia article, [14]. Note in the editorial the comments "referring to AIDS origins theories" and "[referring to the Iran-Contra Affair]", which were not part of Wright's speech and originated in this Wikipedia article. This should be removed immediately as it is original research. Also, according to our source [15] Wright said "the drugs". The "the" has gone missing from recent revisions. Dforest (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For Iran-Contra and drug importation, this source states:

Murdoch's right-wing rag, noted The New York Times, also criticized Wright for "accusing the United States of importing drugs, exporting guns and training murderers." These things are all true (please reference "Iran-Contra," "U.S. as top arms exporter," and "School of the Americas").

For AIDS/HIV origin theories, this source states:

The belief cited by Wright—that the government invented HIV—seems to have originated during the early years of the epidemic. "

TheslB (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dforest that the bolded statement is improper. The Rall article makes the supposition that that's what Wright was talking about, but that's pretty brazenly an opinion piece with no evidence that Wright was specifically referring to Iran-Contra. We should simply have the Wright quotes without intervening commentary, and let readers infer for themselves what he is referring to. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 13:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ON THE HIV/AIDS CROSS-REFERENCE:

The implicit cross-reference to the Wikipedia entry, AIDS origins theories, is appropriate and informative, and it is useful to the Wikipedia user trying to find information on Wright. Wikipedia provides a neutral and useful source of information, and a counterpoint to the sensationalist distortions in the mainstream media. Most people are not familiar with the many theories that are debated among scientists as to the origins of HIV/AIDS. First, the fact is NO SCIENTIST knows for sure what is the origins of HIV/AIDS, and why it suddenly appeared out of nowhere in the 1980's (that is quite unusual, unlike cancer or other diseases). There is NO scientific consensus. Second, there are many theories debated among scientists as to the possible origins of HIV/AIDS. A significant number of these theories involve the U.S. government, and its undisputed heavy funding of polio vaccine research and biological weapons research. It is also undisputed that millions of doses of an experimental ORAL (as opposed to the final successful injected) polio vaccine were administered without informed consent to MILLIONS of unsuspecting citizens of the Belgian Congo (it was a colony of Belgium, and that's what colonial powers did in the past) in the, astonishingly, 1950's! This is the same location in Africa where the FIRST instances of AIDS were reported. The hypothesis concerns the relationship between simian immune deficiency (SIV), found in chimpanzees, whose innards were used (but then covered up by both the scientists involved, who were funded in part by the National Institute of Health, and possibly by the US government, as polio was a true national crisis, witness FDR, who was crippled throughout his presidency) in making the experimental vaccine. I have seen the extremely persuasive recent documentary film on this subject, and recommend it highly.

Of course, none of the above needs to be in Wright entry. But the point of this explanation is that Wright is not a lunatic when he mentions HIV, as is the first impression of everyone when he hears his statement in isolation. Many respected scientists believe in different theories about the origins of AIDS/HIV. They are debated extensively in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals, such as Nature. There is no scientific consensus at all.

The Wright entry is a summary biography of Wright, that tries to present his 35 years life's work as one of the most prominent ministers in the US in a fair and neutral manner. As anyone who has listened extensively to his sermons (as I have tried to do) can tell you, Wright is NOT a lunatic. He is intelligent, thoughtful and rational. To make him sound like a lunatic, as the mainstream media has done, is neither fair nor accurate.

In summary, I believe that the implicit (not explicit) cross-reference to the Wikipedia entry on AIDS origins theories (probably keyed off the words, HIV virus) is appropriate, useful to the Wikipedia user, accurate, and reaffirms Wikipedia as a calm, neutral source of information in the midst of the distortions and inaccuracies flying about in the mainstream media and on the Internet. --Tkhorse (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Dforest's proposed edit is done, per WP:BLP. Not sure what all the stuff about AIDS above has got to do with that. Sandstein (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary of above Tkhorse comments: Link the words "HIV virus" to the Wikipedia entry "AIDS origins theories". Dforest had taken out the link. --Tkhorse (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's because he copied and pasted the text from the article itself, rather than viewing the source and copying it. The wikilinks don't get picked up in a copy and paste unless you are copying the source rather than just the article text. (That's why the [28] reference was plain text rather than a link to an actual reference.) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Or maybe not. To be honest, I'm completely confused as to how Dforest would be responsible for "HIV virus" not being wikilinked in the article. However, as long as it's being discussed, I think there's probably a way to link to AIDS origin theories that would be clearer to the reader in terms of what clicking on the link would take you to. See MOS:LINK#Form for more info. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with removing the link of "HIV virus" to AIDS origins theories. I was merely pointing out that the editorial linked as a source for the Iran-Contra comment, http://www.webcitation.org/5WeLkgUtU, was apparently plagiarizing an earlier version of this article by including the comments copied verbatim without acknowledgment, and is thus an improper source. Dforest (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Moves into gated commmunity on a golf course

Quoting this article here: [16] or any other number of articles on the Internet right now, Wright's church has bought him a $1.6 million dollar home, on a golf course, with a black population of about 1.9%, certainly not representative of his 'flock.' I believe that this is a legitimate addition to the man's bio under controversy - it is certainly becoming one, especially considering that this is the guy talking about greedy white people, and this money comes from members of curch community from a less-than-wealthy section of Chicago.

Sorry, but a blog doesn't constitute a mainstream "controversy". If we see this on CNN, etc., then we'll talk. Until then, it's just propaganda. Grsz 11 18:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this has been reported by the AP, although the conclusions given above are inappropriate synthesis of that report and a few other statistics about that community. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Type 'Jeremiah Wright Gaited Community' in Yahoo search and you get eleven pages of hits. I don't think that this is a flash in the pan. Especially considering that he SPECIFICALLY tells his flock (as we're calling it) to congregate with other African Americans and to avoid this sort of lifestyle (lot's of reference to 'middle classism' and avoiding rich white people, now his neighbors) I'd say that this makes fair commentaryUser talk:Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 00:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Wikipedia is not the place for "fair commentary"; it's the place for encyclopedic, verifiable information gleaned from reliable sources. It's also small-minded chickenshit, but that's another issue. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When I search for "Hillary Clinton death list" I get 20 million results. Should I start an article on this? Grsz 11 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break - the guy actually IS moving into a house, which actually IS on a golf course, which actually DOES cost $1.6 million dollars. He actually WAS a pastor for lower income black people who actually WERE told BY HIM that they should shun this lifestyle. It is donations from THOSE PEOPLE who make this home a possibility for him. How is this NOT a relevant comment for his entry? Tell me this - if were Pat Robertson, and the house were a gift from Bob Guccioni, would you put that on Robertson's Wikipedia entry?--Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oprah and Obama are low-income? Grsz 11 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, Oprah actually left his curch when he started up on the 'I hate whitey' speech. Honestly, Grsz - are you SO deep in a hole for Obama that you see nothing noteworthy about this guy saying to his followers/parishoners/whatever, "White people created AIDS to kill people of color", and then when he retires moving into a million dollar home where all of his neighbors are white, and making those followers pay for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.218.135 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between preaching against oppression based on race, and oppression based on class. Grsz 11 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)'

From the churches site: "We are called out to be "a chosen people" that pays no attention to socio-economic or educational backgrounds. We are made up of the highly educated and the uneducated. Our congregation is a combination of the haves and the have-nots; the economically disadvantaged, the under-class, the unemployed and the employable." Grsz 11 01:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• His church owns the property -- or rather, owns a mortgage on it. What's the big deal? That a church is providing a nice place to live to a former pastor? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Chickens coming home to roost

Wright said in his sermon “I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”

In fact, there is no independent evidence offered that Ambassador Peck actually said said "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

See commentary in "Comments after September 11". I have found, however, a reference to "chickens coming home to roost" made by a guest on Fox News on September 18.

The guest was Hussein Ibish, the communications director at the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, who was interviewd by John Gibson.

Here is the exchange:

GIBSON: Is a war waged on Islamic terrorists offensive to all those Muslims who are not terrorists?

IBISH: Not necessarily. I don't think so. I think that the United States clearly has a right to hunt down and punish the guilty parties and those who would assist them and make their work possible.

And I think that the entire Islamic world, with very few exceptions, has said so publicly. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, 57 states have said so. Every Arab state except Iraq has said so. And they simply have made the point that they feel -- they've made basically a Malcolm X-style statement about chickens coming home to roost. But even they have not praised the terrorists who did this.

And so I think there is very little support out there except in pockets of Pakistan and in very, very isolated places around the Islamic world. There's really no constituency for this kind of action and this kind of politics either.

I think if we play it right it could be OK. But it's a very dangerous game. And it needs to be calibrated carefully.

Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Unfortunately, when the media spliced together sound bites from Reverend Wright's sermons they removed the context necessary to understand what he was saying. The part you keep mentioning is incomplete. To more clearly understand what Reverend Wright was saying, read this:

“I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost."

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

Given the context (referring to the above statements) the source tells us that "He [Wright] was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril." TheslB (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you show any evidence that Peck said these statements which are attributed to him? I am not attempting to include original research. I am challenging the verifiability of the quotes attributed to Peck. Simply put, no one, at this stage, has any verifiable link indicating that Peck made such statements.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright said he attributes things he is saying in his sermon to Peck. This can be verified by the source above or going to the original sermon. We do not know whether the attribution is true or false. We know that it was made and, thus, is verifiable. So long as it is clear Wright is attributing these things to Peck, discerning the truth value of whether Peck in actuality said these things is not necessary. TheslB (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• @what point do you think he stopped quoting/ Is this more hyperbole? Are you arguing that Peck did indeed talk about Indian tribes? I'm beginning to feel that with this example and the lycanthropic thank you letter that hyperbole is a very kind word for a most distasteful habit with the truth or lack thereof.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Time frame

All we know for sure is that Wright gave this sermon, "shortly after" September 11. This doesn't imply the following Sunday, or the next Sunday. It's been 6+ years, a short time could be 3 months. Here is an article that links Peck to the Wright comments, and people from Peck's former organization confirm that they are things he would say. Also, here, are quotes from when Peck appeard on Fox News on October 10, a "short while" after 9/11. You can tell from the interview that the Foxers are getting frustrated, like Wright said they did. For example, the anchor says the Iraqis are miserable, to which Peck replies: "Does it have anything to do with the 11 years of economic embargo we imposed on them?" Grsz 11 23:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You have linked to someone who was willing to post the copyrighted transcript of Peck's appearance on Fox News. Please show where in the transcript Peck says "chickens are coming home to roost", or mentions Native American tribes, Nagasaki, or Hiroshima. And if Peck does not say the items Wright attributes to Peck, the Wiki entry should be revised to reflect this verifiabe fact.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To: Administrator

While this discussion is going on, can you remove the vandal paragraph with obscenities that is located at the end of the section entitled "Comments about the government"? It is most embarrassing that it is hanging out there for all to see, especially for those of us who have spent so many hours trying to improve this entry. --Tkhorse (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Begins with "In one of his sermons..." Grsz 11 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is substantiated by the cite, or did you both not read it? I'm surprised Mr. Chang.Disagree. Clearly not vandalism.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That is, if you consider Rolling Stone a reliable source. Not to mention that these alleged sermons aren't in the mainstream and haven't be publicized, and aren't' part of the "controversy". Grsz 11 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more complicated than that, though. One, how do we reach a determination of which sermons are and aren't a part of the controversy? This one has apparently received attention in one quarter (namely this article) - the article author was using it as an example of the fiery speeches Wright gives, so does that mean that it's synthesis to include it as part of the controversy, or would we be ignoring a valid source by omitting it?

Two, the cited article includes the emphasis, but of course, the speech itself was given verbally. That means that the emphasis was done subjectively on the part of the article's author (to reinforce it as a "fiery" example), so is it OR to omit the emphasis, or is it POV/inaccurate/unencyclopedic to include it?

Three, in terms of Rolling Stone's viability as a reliable source, I don't see an issue with including this reference as a purveyor of fact, but I would oppose citing Rolling Stone for analysis in this matter (mainly because doing so would be arbitrary - were this an article about music, things would be different).

Finally, if we do decide to keep the quote, neither Wikipedia nor the cited article is censored, so the word "shit" should appear without the asterisk. And on a side note, this was not vandalism. Remember to assume good faith. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 04:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Until a consensus is determined on whether to keep or remove the quote, it stays. Understand that the full-protection is almost up anyways. Tiptoety ^talk 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE:

It is true that I had assumed that the paragraph was vandalism because of its use of blasphemous misspelling and shocking use of words like "GAWD", "KILLERS", "To be SICK! OF THIS SH*T!", with editorializing wild use of exclamation points and capitalization.

With the rest of this biographical entry, what many of us have done over the past few weeks was to find the actual sermons in which inflammatory quotes were taken from, and then present the isolated phrases in the context of the sermon, as a way of presenting fairly the summary biography of someone who is one of the most prominent ministers in the country and a member of a predominantly white and moderate church.

Here, we are back again to the where we started from, but this time, much worse, because these are not actual sound bites that at least we can see and hear, but we are relying on the accuracy of quotation by an author who has strong opinions, which he tries to convey through misspelling, punctuation and capitalization. By the use of the word "GAWD!", which of course he has the right to do since it is a rock and roll magazine, he really steps beyond the bounds of accurate reporting, and into editorializing (which is what Rolling Stone is known for and what it is good at).

This is all assuming he quoted correctly, which has not been established.

Below are the first few definitions of "GAWD" from the Urban Dictionary (the word is not in real dictionaries):

1.way of writing "Oh my God." while denoting that you're rolling your eyes at the same time.

Boy: "Hi, I'm a boy making some lame comment to you!"

Girl: "Oh my gawd, what a nerd."

2. slang term for "God" or "god" 2) Also used to avoid using the lords name in vain (ex "oh my gawd") 3) Used by non-secular people to attain the meaning of the words "God", "god", or any form of it.

"oh my gawd"

"gawd, don't make me come over there!"

"Gawd damn it!"

3. The noise evangelical rednecks make when they are trying to say "God."

You kiyds git outta thar or Gawd is gunna send ya'll to heyall.

4. A secularized version of the term "God". Sometimes used by secular people who still wish to use a phrase such as "Oh my God!" but don't actually want to acknowledge a deity since that would be hypocritical.

Oh my Gawd are you hurt!?

Gawddamnit, that was my last doughnut!

Granted, these are just opinions about the possible definitions of the word. But what it does emphasize is that the author was not interested in reporting accurately Wright's sermons, but in exaggerating an editorial point that he is pushing in the article. This is consistent with the typical article in Rolling Stone, which I actually enjoy reading. But I know I would never cite Rolling Stone in a college paper or bibliography, because it is simply not a reliable and neutral source of information. --Tkhorse (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your final conclusion that Rolling Stone in general should never be cited as a purveyor of fact. However, your argument (the one above the Urban Dictionary quotation), that the manner in which the quotation was presented in this specific article casts doubt upon its reliability as a source, seems reasonable. I'll support removing the quotation for that reason. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To: Administrator, pls add transcripts

Please add links to transcripts of the controversial sermons

Ttranscripts of September 16, 2001 sermon:
The Day of Jerusalem's Fall- partial transcript

Transcripts of April 13, 2003 sermon:
Confusing God and Government - full transcript
Confusing God and Government - partial transcript
--Kitov (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest not linking to the sluggy.net forum post, since forum posts are usually not considered acceptable references (and especially not in BLP articles), although in that post is a link to an audio file described as being a recording of the sermon in question (I haven't listened to it). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)