Talk:Jeremiah Wright/Archive 1

"chosen" successor

How can a United Church of Christ congregation have a "chosen" successor? Something is wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.8.49 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

-this isn't the "Church of Christ" even though that's in its name--it's a stand-alone church, not part of any denomination, so they don't follow any rules of any major denomination.--Todd (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

--Actually, Trinity United Church of Christ is a member of the United Church of Christ denomination. This congregation can have a "chosen successor" first and foremost because UCC churches are highly autonomous, and second, because they called in the successor (Rev. Otis Moss III) over a year ago as part of a transitional process to Rev. Wright's retirement. Obietom (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I removed the item about the award for Farakhan since he had nothing to do with it other than the award being named after him. - Maximusveritas (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and kept it in this time since it works in the context of the other connection to Farrakhan. I moved it to the Obama section since that's the context in which these controversies have arisen. Also, I took out the bit from the NY Post editorial since that's a poor source. Maximusveritas (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

-In the Youtube video is that is cited as footnote 19, the only thing that thing Wright talks about is Clinton's lack of understanding of the black experience. There is no mention of 9/11, whites as oppressors, etc. Therefore, I intend to delete those references, as they are inaccurate, and not backed by the source cited. Also, perhaps indicative of the contributor's reliability, the word "reiterate" is misspelled.--Tkhorse (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

--The source cited in footnote 22 is Brian Ross's ABC News Blotter, a website that has been controversial in the past due to its predilection for inflammatory and attention-grabbing headlines, many of which have later turned out to be false or without foundation. Although the website has broken news stories in the past, it is a site for rumors and tips, and is comparable in some aspects to Page Six of the New York Post, except not in a celebrity or style context. The language used is often hyperbolic and intended to shock. It is therefore misleading to imply that the source is, and it is not comparable to, the television ABC News.

I have retained all the original quotations, but have made the language more neutral, less inflammatory, and in conformity to the Wikipedia philosophy and guidelines. --Tkhorse (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the YouTube citations. They were misused and are not proper sources anyways, other to provide additional content on top of a reliable source saying that these remarks were controversial. The ABC News blog seems reliable enough as it's now gotten play on television and Obama addressed the controversy himself. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

--The current version is a great improvement, and I agree the changes. In my previous edit, I had tried to respect the additions by the previous author, and kept many of the quotes from the ABC website. But I agree that the current summary and use of selected representative quotes is much more informative and even-handed. --Tkhorse (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

--An Op-Ed article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, whose bias is well-known (as opposed to its generally even-handed news pages) by an author with known partisan views is not a reliable source. In addition, the sentence language is inflammatory and misleading, and therefore, is not in accord with Wikipedia principles. --Tkhorse (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

--There should not be unattributed quotations. "Citation needed" is not an acceptable way to contribute information. The concatenation of quoted phrases into one sentence is literally the definition of taking quotes out of context. --Tkhorse (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

--Fox News and Newsmax are sources with well-known bias, and are therefore unreliable as neutral sources. They do not meet the standards of reliability and POV neutrality of Wikipedia. Moreover, the quotes are taken out of context, and concatenated in an inflammatory and misleading fashion. --Tkhorse (talk • contribs) 00:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you say Fox News is "well-known" for its bias? Half the country says CNN and ABC are biased, the other half says Fox News is biased. The fact is, neither is biased as far as *hard news*; their editorial slants may lean one way or another. By excluding hard news quotations from the organization that is number 1 in cable news ratings and is rarely wrong in its hard news reporting you are showing yourself, rather, to be extremely biased. Jsn9333 (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to get into an extended debate about the bias of Fox News. I refer you to the Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality and reliable sources. I don't disagree with you that CNN and ABC are also often problematic. I have noted above that the ABC Blotter (Brian Ross) website has an especially poor reputation for sensationalizing rumors. It would not ordinarily be considered a reliable and neutral source, but it is cited in the entry because it "broke" the news (although the topic has been previously discussed in other publications).--Tkhorse (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the place, however, to debate whether or not Wrights words that, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." Are worthy to be reported to readers interested in "controversial" things Wright has said (that is the topic heading of the section, after all). In reality, the only reason "Fox News" vs. "ABC News" got brought up is because the user who deleted the quote said the reason he did it is because Fox is "biased". I'm not debating if Fox is biased (or if ABC is). The fact is that the above quote is probably the most controversial thing the man has said, and readers deserve to know about it without people denying them access to that knowledge because "ABC" is so much less biased then "Fox". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsn9333 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with Fox News as a source, but I found another source in order to get past this objection. I'm not so sure that this is the most controversial item since there don't appear to be that many sources talking in depth about it and Obama has only gotten asked about the 9/11 and "God Damn America" quotes. - Maximusveritas (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

--A Current Biography should only use reliable sources. A self-published source is not a reliable source. --Tkhorse (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

--Self-published materials which violate copyright should not be linked. --Tkhorse (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

- The parenthetical "(for its part, the Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright)" under Controversies is not cited in any way, and is misleading. That statement was made by Abraham Foxman, but in the same interview Mr. Foxman made it clear that he believes Jeremiah Wright's is a racist and called on Obama to confront his pastor about these issues. See The Jewish Week[1]. I think this parenthetical should be expanded to include the greater context, with the citation added, or should be removed entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sartzava (talk • contribs) 15:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is cited, just as everything else in that sentence is: from the NY Times article. It comes directly from that. And in that Jewish Week article you cite, it makes clear that after some thought Foxman ammended his remarks to say that he doesn't think Wright is racist, but just that he was celebrating someone who is (Farrakhan). So it would be highly misleading to present it as you are. - Maximusveritas (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

- MaximusVeritas, you need to stop sticking 'Conservative' in front of 'critics' in the controversy section. I hardly see Hillary Clinton as a conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs) 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Has Hillary Clinton accused his theology of promoting black seperatism? If not, you are simply incorrect. The source for that sentence uses the phrase "conservative critic". By removing it, it is you who is engaging in POV pushing. - Maximusveritas (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

--As has been stated numerous times, the Youtube video is a copyright violation of Fox News that has been self-published, and is contrary to Wikipedia policy. In addition, the sentence citing the video is obviously incorrect, because if the video had originally appeared on Fox News, then the Youtube video itself could not have been the medium through which the news was first disseminated. Please refrain from reposting this again and again. If you wish to link to a video, link to one that is not a copyright violation. For example, the Wall Street Journal carries videos of Wright.--Tkhorse (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Wright's ethnicity?

I notice that the WP entry never directly addresses Wright's ethnicity. The photographs that I've seen of him (notably the one run by the NY Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ) show a man who looks far lighter-skinned than Barack Obama. Can anyone shed any light upon Wright's ethnicity/parentage? Bricology (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

for all the non sence he preaches about white folks his background is made up more of european genes than black its obvious he is rapeing the one drop rule by being so black--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Theology?

Given the man is a minister with controversial theology might we speak about this in its own section and THEN show how it influences or could influence Obamma rather than assuming it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.178.253 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC) This comment was removed by an anon without explanation. --Gimme danger (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to discuss his theology, assuming that you can find reliable sources, but it is a different thing to speculate on how it might influence Obamma... remember, things have to have a NPOV and be verifiable. While radio personalities can speculate on how he influenced Obamma, Wikipedia cannot.Balloonman (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

***Artical said he was in the Navy.I may have heard or read that he was a Marine.Which?****  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.48.3 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 

Removed vs. resigned

Regarding his relations with the Obama campaign, I think it would be more accurate to state that he has resigned from the campaign rather than that he had been removed. The latter claim, one that is currently made on the Jeremiah Wright page, is one that is has not been confirmed by any major media outlet. 68.196.228.245 (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 1mpossible

Organization of article

The way the article is currently organized seems to be causing some problems. We have the section on his relationship with Obama followed by the controversy section. This causes confusion since there is overlap between the 2 sections and we seem to discuss the reaction to the controversy before we discuss the controversy itself. It might be best to simply merge these sections together, though the section would be fairly large. Any thoughts? - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

--I see your point, and generally agree with you. But given the media circus, any comprehensive reorganization will probably incite such a firestorm of recrimination and resulting vandalism that perhaps this can wait until things settle down a bit. --Tkhorse (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Union University

Virginia Union University IS NOT a seminary. The Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology is, in fact, the name of the seminary on the campus of Virginia Union University, which Dr. Wright did not attend.

Dr. Wright attended VUU as an undergraduate student (and later withdrew) but was never enrolled in STVU. I know this because I am a graduate of STVU and many of his undergraduate classmates can attest to his having been an undergraduate student but not a graduate student. Dr. Wright was not a student of the Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology hence I changed the word "seminary" to "university" in the article's opening. http://www.vuu.edu

-Secondly, On the Matter of Black/Liberation Theology- An earlier poster (who will remain unnamed) referred to Dr. Wright's theology as controversial. When, in fact, Liberationist theological systems are prominent all over the world, especially in Latin America as evidenced by the works of Professor Gustavo Gutierrez as well as a number of mujerista theologians.

Specific investigations of Black/Liberationist models are best found in the works of James H. Cone of Union Theological Seminary in New York in addition to Dwight N. Hopkins of the University of Chicago (furthermore, Dr. Hopkins is a member of TUCC).

However, actually researching data that you cannot glibly cut-and-paste for the purpose of launching a cyber-based hit job against an entire theological system might seem beneath the overwhelming majority of those who hold neither graduate nor doctoral-level training in theology or religious studies. (Please stick to character-assassination, as it suits you best, and leave the theological, religious and pastoral discourse to the professionally trained scholars, who are far more qualified that the intemperate, unprofessional quasi-intelligentsia, who are overly-obsessed with trying to denigrate a pastor and a congregation whose resolve will only grow stronger).

P.S. - Reinhold Niebuhr's Love and Justice and The Irony of American History also formed Dr. Wright's theology in addition to the work of Dr. Samuel DeWitt Proctor (who conspicuously does not have a wikipedia article despite his prominent role in the Kennedy administration in addition to his contributions to the Civil Rights movement).

Shalom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrygrimes (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps with your postgraduate degrees and interest in the subject, you could be the one to make the article.--66.20.144.188 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tuskegee experiments

Many people on the news said that all of Wright's statements were false or anti-american.Why are the comments not on this page even with all of the news coverage? However I thought the syphilis experiments that happened to 400 black men happened? What about that town massacre during the 1920s was it Roseville, or did he talk about the other one?--Margrave1206 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tuskegee experiment did happen. But Wright said that black men were injected with Syphillis, and used this allegation to support his assertion that the government is involved in a conspiracy against black citizens. In actual fact, nobody was intentionally infected with Syphillis. Instead, a large group of males who were already suffering from Syphillis but had not been officially diagnosed were studied and monitored instead of being adequately treated. When some of these men were eventually officially diagnosed, they received treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.242.85 (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

further reading

I would like to see a link to transcripts of his sermons. -tadpol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpol (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of deletions

Space devoted to Obama's responses to Wright's comments was twice as much as space devoted to the comments. Simple as that. This is an article about Wright and the section is about the topics of controversy, not a place to post every response Obama has ever made about the comments. Let's keep in mind that the section is not about the criticism on obama, but the criticism on Wright. So Obama's response is irrelevant in this article and should probably not even be mentioned — certainly not anything longer than a short summary sentence. Obama's responses are more suited to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, where the topic is focused on the criticism directed at Obama. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. I just made a couple small changes to reflect that the entirity of this controversy arose during the Obama campaign, not just this most recent flurry with the videos. - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo (search for United State with no "s"). I would fix it but can't be bothered to register. --196.40.10.254 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"chosen" successor

How can a United Church of Christ congregation have a "chosen" successor? Something is wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.8.49 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

-this isn't the "Church of Christ" even though that's in its name--it's a stand-alone church, not part of any denomination, so they don't follow any rules of any major denomination.--Todd (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

--Actually, Trinity United Church of Christ is a member of the United Church of Christ denomination. This congregation can have a "chosen successor" first and foremost because UCC churches are highly autonomous, and second, because they called in the successor (Rev. Otis Moss III) over a year ago as part of a transitional process to Rev. Wright's retirement. Obietom (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I removed the item about the award for Farakhan since he had nothing to do with it other than the award being named after him. - Maximusveritas (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and kept it in this time since it works in the context of the other connection to Farrakhan. I moved it to the Obama section since that's the context in which these controversies have arisen. Also, I took out the bit from the NY Post editorial since that's a poor source. Maximusveritas (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

-In the Youtube video is that is cited as footnote 19, the only thing that thing Wright talks about is Clinton's lack of understanding of the black experience. There is no mention of 9/11, whites as oppressors, etc. Therefore, I intend to delete those references, as they are inaccurate, and not backed by the source cited. Also, perhaps indicative of the contributor's reliability, the word "reiterate" is misspelled.--Tkhorse (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

--The source cited in footnote 22 is Brian Ross's ABC News Blotter, a website that has been controversial in the past due to its predilection for inflammatory and attention-grabbing headlines, many of which have later turned out to be false or without foundation. Although the website has broken news stories in the past, it is a site for rumors and tips, and is comparable in some aspects to Page Six of the New York Post, except not in a celebrity or style context. The language used is often hyperbolic and intended to shock. It is therefore misleading to imply that the source is, and it is not comparable to, the television ABC News.

I have retained all the original quotations, but have made the language more neutral, less inflammatory, and in conformity to the Wikipedia philosophy and guidelines. --Tkhorse (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the YouTube citations. They were misused and are not proper sources anyways, other to provide additional content on top of a reliable source saying that these remarks were controversial. The ABC News blog seems reliable enough as it's now gotten play on television and Obama addressed the controversy himself. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

--The current version is a great improvement, and I agree the changes. In my previous edit, I had tried to respect the additions by the previous author, and kept many of the quotes from the ABC website. But I agree that the current summary and use of selected representative quotes is much more informative and even-handed. --Tkhorse (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

--An Op-Ed article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, whose bias is well-known (as opposed to its generally even-handed news pages) by an author with known partisan views is not a reliable source. In addition, the sentence language is inflammatory and misleading, and therefore, is not in accord with Wikipedia principles. --Tkhorse (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

--There should not be unattributed quotations. "Citation needed" is not an acceptable way to contribute information. The concatenation of quoted phrases into one sentence is literally the definition of taking quotes out of context. --Tkhorse (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

--Fox News and Newsmax are sources with well-known bias, and are therefore unreliable as neutral sources. They do not meet the standards of reliability and POV neutrality of Wikipedia. Moreover, the quotes are taken out of context, and concatenated in an inflammatory and misleading fashion. --Tkhorse (talk • contribs) 00:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you say Fox News is "well-known" for its bias? Half the country says CNN and ABC are biased, the other half says Fox News is biased. The fact is, neither is biased as far as *hard news*; their editorial slants may lean one way or another. By excluding hard news quotations from the organization that is number 1 in cable news ratings and is rarely wrong in its hard news reporting you are showing yourself, rather, to be extremely biased. Jsn9333 (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to get into an extended debate about the bias of Fox News. I refer you to the Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality and reliable sources. I don't disagree with you that CNN and ABC are also often problematic. I have noted above that the ABC Blotter (Brian Ross) website has an especially poor reputation for sensationalizing rumors. It would not ordinarily be considered a reliable and neutral source, but it is cited in the entry because it "broke" the news (although the topic has been previously discussed in other publications).--Tkhorse (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the place, however, to debate whether or not Wrights words that, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." Are worthy to be reported to readers interested in "controversial" things Wright has said (that is the topic heading of the section, after all). In reality, the only reason "Fox News" vs. "ABC News" got brought up is because the user who deleted the quote said the reason he did it is because Fox is "biased". I'm not debating if Fox is biased (or if ABC is). The fact is that the above quote is probably the most controversial thing the man has said, and readers deserve to know about it without people denying them access to that knowledge because "ABC" is so much less biased then "Fox". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsn9333 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with Fox News as a source, but I found another source in order to get past this objection. I'm not so sure that this is the most controversial item since there don't appear to be that many sources talking in depth about it and Obama has only gotten asked about the 9/11 and "God Damn America" quotes. - Maximusveritas (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

--A Current Biography should only use reliable sources. A self-published source is not a reliable source. --Tkhorse (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

--Self-published materials which violate copyright should not be linked. --Tkhorse (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

- The parenthetical "(for its part, the Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright)" under Controversies is not cited in any way, and is misleading. That statement was made by Abraham Foxman, but in the same interview Mr. Foxman made it clear that he believes Jeremiah Wright's is a racist and called on Obama to confront his pastor about these issues. See The Jewish Week[2]. I think this parenthetical should be expanded to include the greater context, with the citation added, or should be removed entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sartzava (talk • contribs) 15:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is cited, just as everything else in that sentence is: from the NY Times article. It comes directly from that. And in that Jewish Week article you cite, it makes clear that after some thought Foxman ammended his remarks to say that he doesn't think Wright is racist, but just that he was celebrating someone who is (Farrakhan). So it would be highly misleading to present it as you are. - Maximusveritas (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

- MaximusVeritas, you need to stop sticking 'Conservative' in front of 'critics' in the controversy section. I hardly see Hillary Clinton as a conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs) 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Has Hillary Clinton accused his theology of promoting black seperatism? If not, you are simply incorrect. The source for that sentence uses the phrase "conservative critic". By removing it, it is you who is engaging in POV pushing. - Maximusveritas (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

--As has been stated numerous times, the Youtube video is a copyright violation of Fox News that has been self-published, and is contrary to Wikipedia policy. In addition, the sentence citing the video is obviously incorrect, because if the video had originally appeared on Fox News, then the Youtube video itself could not have been the medium through which the news was first disseminated. Please refrain from reposting this again and again. If you wish to link to a video, link to one that is not a copyright violation. For example, the Wall Street Journal carries videos of Wright.--Tkhorse (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Wright's ethnicity?

I notice that the WP entry never directly addresses Wright's ethnicity. The photographs that I've seen of him (notably the one run by the NY Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ) show a man who looks far lighter-skinned than Barack Obama. Can anyone shed any light upon Wright's ethnicity/parentage? Bricology (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

for all the non sence he preaches about white folks his background is made up more of european genes than black its obvious he is rapeing the one drop rule by being so black--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Theology?

Given the man is a minister with controversial theology might we speak about this in its own section and THEN show how it influences or could influence Obamma rather than assuming it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.178.253 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC) This comment was removed by an anon without explanation. --Gimme danger (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to discuss his theology, assuming that you can find reliable sources, but it is a different thing to speculate on how it might influence Obamma... remember, things have to have a NPOV and be verifiable. While radio personalities can speculate on how he influenced Obamma, Wikipedia cannot.Balloonman (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

***Artical said he was in the Navy.I may have heard or read that he was a Marine.Which?****  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.48.3 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 

Removed vs. resigned

Regarding his relations with the Obama campaign, I think it would be more accurate to state that he has resigned from the campaign rather than that he had been removed. The latter claim, one that is currently made on the Jeremiah Wright page, is one that is has not been confirmed by any major media outlet. 68.196.228.245 (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 1mpossible

Organization of article

The way the article is currently organized seems to be causing some problems. We have the section on his relationship with Obama followed by the controversy section. This causes confusion since there is overlap between the 2 sections and we seem to discuss the reaction to the controversy before we discuss the controversy itself. It might be best to simply merge these sections together, though the section would be fairly large. Any thoughts? - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

--I see your point, and generally agree with you. But given the media circus, any comprehensive reorganization will probably incite such a firestorm of recrimination and resulting vandalism that perhaps this can wait until things settle down a bit. --Tkhorse (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Union University

Virginia Union University IS NOT a seminary. The Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology is, in fact, the name of the seminary on the campus of Virginia Union University, which Dr. Wright did not attend.

Dr. Wright attended VUU as an undergraduate student (and later withdrew) but was never enrolled in STVU. I know this because I am a graduate of STVU and many of his undergraduate classmates can attest to his having been an undergraduate student but not a graduate student. Dr. Wright was not a student of the Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology hence I changed the word "seminary" to "university" in the article's opening. http://www.vuu.edu

-Secondly, On the Matter of Black/Liberation Theology- An earlier poster (who will remain unnamed) referred to Dr. Wright's theology as controversial. When, in fact, Liberationist theological systems are prominent all over the world, especially in Latin America as evidenced by the works of Professor Gustavo Gutierrez as well as a number of mujerista theologians.

Specific investigations of Black/Liberationist models are best found in the works of James H. Cone of Union Theological Seminary in New York in addition to Dwight N. Hopkins of the University of Chicago (furthermore, Dr. Hopkins is a member of TUCC).

However, actually researching data that you cannot glibly cut-and-paste for the purpose of launching a cyber-based hit job against an entire theological system might seem beneath the overwhelming majority of those who hold neither graduate nor doctoral-level training in theology or religious studies. (Please stick to character-assassination, as it suits you best, and leave the theological, religious and pastoral discourse to the professionally trained scholars, who are far more qualified that the intemperate, unprofessional quasi-intelligentsia, who are overly-obsessed with trying to denigrate a pastor and a congregation whose resolve will only grow stronger).

P.S. - Reinhold Niebuhr's Love and Justice and The Irony of American History also formed Dr. Wright's theology in addition to the work of Dr. Samuel DeWitt Proctor (who conspicuously does not have a wikipedia article despite his prominent role in the Kennedy administration in addition to his contributions to the Civil Rights movement).

Shalom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrygrimes (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps with your postgraduate degrees and interest in the subject, you could be the one to make the article.--66.20.144.188 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tuskegee experiments

Many people on the news said that all of Wright's statements were false or anti-american.Why are the comments not on this page even with all of the news coverage? However I thought the syphilis experiments that happened to 400 black men happened? What about that town massacre during the 1920s was it Roseville, or did he talk about the other one?--Margrave1206 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tuskegee experiment did happen. But Wright said that black men were injected with Syphillis, and used this allegation to support his assertion that the government is involved in a conspiracy against black citizens. In actual fact, nobody was intentionally infected with Syphillis. Instead, a large group of males who were already suffering from Syphillis but had not been officially diagnosed were studied and monitored instead of being adequately treated. When some of these men were eventually officially diagnosed, they received treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.242.85 (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"chickens coming home to roost"

This quote about 9/11 is a major part of the current controversy, how come it is not included on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.192.94 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This video seems to indicate he was just quoting someone else with that statement: http://baldeagle08.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/cnn-msnbc-cbs-abc-fox-news-lied-about-pastor-jeremiah-wright-see-911-sermon-in-context/ Rossi27530 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

further reading

I would like to see a link to transcripts of his sermons. -tadpol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpol (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of deletions

Space devoted to Obama's responses to Wright's comments was twice as much as space devoted to the comments. Simple as that. This is an article about Wright and the section is about the topics of controversy, not a place to post every response Obama has ever made about the comments. Let's keep in mind that the section is not about the criticism on obama, but the criticism on Wright. So Obama's response is irrelevant in this article and should probably not even be mentioned — certainly not anything longer than a short summary sentence. Obama's responses are more suited to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, where the topic is focused on the criticism directed at Obama. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. I just made a couple small changes to reflect that the entirity of this controversy arose during the Obama campaign, not just this most recent flurry with the videos. - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo (search for United State with no "s"). I would fix it but can't be bothered to register. --196.40.10.254 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Segregated?

I read on a less reputable site that whites were not allowed to attend TUCC. If this is true it would be important to note. But it might have been that the person was merely confused as to what it means to be an African American church. I don't know. -02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a black-only church eventhough their literature states "We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian..." A white member, and minister at the church, Jane Fisher Hoffman, taped a video for YouTube explaining her relationship and experience at Trinity United Church of Christ:

YouTube video of a Jane Fisher Hoffman --Spencer leon (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

caption of Naval Medical photo is incorrect.

Wright is the second, not the third, man from the right and his face is obscured by the drip bag paraphernalia. 71.163.4.24 (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He is also incorrectly listed as a U.S. Marine Hospital Corpsman. Hospital Corpsman only exist in the U.S. Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.197.85 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Iran-Contra affair

"The government gives them the drugs [referring to the Iran-Contra Affair], builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people...God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

I am removing the parenthetical remark about the Iran-Contra affair per WP:BLP and WP:OR, because it is unsourced. It seems plausible that he was referring to this, but if it is not cited then I believe it falls under original research. Dforest (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."[3] 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 [4] and NY Times, JACKSON IN SYRIA SETS UP 3 MEETINGS [5]. 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 [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBlaz (talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 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)

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,"[7] 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.[8]

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." [9] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Most African-Americans have some European ancestry. See African American#Who is African American?. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:32, 4 April 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)

Ex:cept 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)

Okay, does silence equal assent? If so, I'll begin paring down the list of opinions to the ones that are truly notable in this context. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The miscegenist couples opinion doesn't seem to belong. It's kind of like the racist white man who says that he is not racist since he has a black friend. I don't think it belongs.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"miscegenist"? Is that word ever used by non-racists? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is descriptive only. I wanted to add some zest and mixed raced couple was becoming trite. My intention was not to offend. It still appears in my dictionary without any caveats. If the term is now offensive please let me know so that I can erase it from my lexicon.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this link would not lead me to think the term was ill used:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miscegenation

Your comment was of a great enough concern that I dusted off my dictionary and searched for definitions and social commentaries. I still have a tremendous respect for you, but a veiled accusation of racism is a little over the top, unworthy of you, and unmerited by me.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. I grew up in The Old Dominion. Loving v. Virginia was well within my lifetime. In my experience, it's not used for humans in any positive sense; it rings of race restrictions, of bigotry, of inhumanity. So: is that term in current use by non-racists when describing any contemporary phenomena? All I really see it used as nowadays is as a historical reference to the bad old days -- or on racist websites and such. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this still in contention? I made a good-faith attempt to resolve this issue during protection, went by the consensus achieved by those few who chose to participate in the discussion, and my changes are still being reverted even though my removals so far haven't been as broad-brushed as I indicated above. Worse yet, even more kitchen sinks are being added to that section. How long does this article have to get before the endless parade of spin doctors in that section becomes a problem? --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand the contention. It is not the inclusion nor non inclusion of the couples statement. It was the the comment about racists. As far as I'm concerned, a good faith editor/ admin will understand my exception to the question and its implications quietly and the issue is resolved--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you, actually, which is why I had de-indented that last comment. I was addressing the broader question of the panoply of non-notable opinions in the "responses" section. Sorry for the confusion. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:12, 5 April 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)

I've removed the honorary doctorates, and inserted a reference to Marty's bio to support the phrase "widely acclaimed" (which is both true and verified). There's a difference between providing context and an appeal to authority, and I think that this change puts us back on the right side of that divide. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed widely acclaimed, as the source does not say that. The characterization is original research.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses Section Is NPOV and doesn't belong here

If these individuals made these statements on Wright, then put them on these individuals entries, if they have them

What this is, is an ill-concealed attempt by Obama appologists to try to show why Wright is a great guy. These statements are irrelevant heresay - if the facts need to be excused then they aren't facts, are they?--Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 19:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it belongs, just as much as any other section. You're welcome to post other responses from reliable sources as long as they meet policy. The POV is your gang, who think it's necessary to point out he's moving to a white community. I don't know how you hope to argue that is more relevant than these responses. Grsz11 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've contended repeatedly that he, and others, are not welcome simply to post other opinions from reliable sources, because the vast majority of the ones already posted (and the vast majority of opinions on the subject that are out there) are non-notable in the context of the topic at hand. I'm still waiting to hear why, for example, Steven Weber's opinion is important enough to merit a mention in this article, and the same goes for most of the opinions mentioned in that section. On a side note, one might make the observation that, disagreeable as Fovean Author has been, he is correct that the assortment of opinions posted in that section all make attempts to mollify those who may have taken offense to the content of Wright's sermons. That's part of why I want to reduce the number of opinions listed in that section, because right now, they appear to make a synthesized political point rather than give a proper outlook on the impact of the controversy in the one arena where it is actually important: the presidential election. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And in this context, this section needs to go, replaced perhaps with one line, and the references for anyone who's interested. It is ridiculous for this appology to be the largest part of his bio --Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 01:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with removing the section entirely. If there's a controversy, there's going to be some fallout, with some people on one side of it and some people on the other. This article should reflect that. What we're seeing, though, is that the opinions being cited in this article don't really come from the people who are making or breaking the controversy. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the whole thing doesn't need to go - but no more than three lines and then the references for anyone who's interested in them.

Funny how the people who believe that it SHOULD be there, because it's relevant, believe that drescribing his multi-million dollar retirement home, which goes against everything he preached about, is irrelevant--Fovean Author 07:55, 6 April 2008

The responses are ridiculously long. Most people in America were offended by this man's tirades and conspiracy theories and shocked that Obama would associate with him. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't mean that people can't become educated about it more than the crap they see on Fox. Grsz11 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, what is a self confessed agnostics predeliction for this clergyman and his church?--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, why is an editor's religious affiliation, or lack thereof, relevant when trying to write an NPOV article? You really need to lay off the various ad hominem arguments you've been making here and elsewhere. Please. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to start regarding Fox as an unreliable news source, I might have to start taking similar issue with the several Huffington Post references in this article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting how the most popular news outlet in the U.S. is an unreliable source, but a crank website is a quotable reference. Perhaps actions like these are why people are beginning to understand that Wikipedia is moderated by fascists with a left-wing bias? Should this article contain a link to David Duke as the goodly pastor Wright and David Duke agree on so many issues? 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I never said Fox was an unreliable source. I was responding to Carlos' statement that seemed to imply that because most people in the country "were offended by this man's tirades and conspiracy theories and shocked that Obama would associate with him," the response section shouldn't belong. Grsz11 13:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, pushing this discussion any further in that direction would bring us wildly off-topic, so I'll leave it alone. Suffice to say that, while I disagree with CarlosRodriguez's edits to this article and I believe that he's pushing a POV agenda, he does raise a good point (you just have to look through his tirades and POV-pushing to see it). The "responses" section has significant problems that I've already discussed numerous times on the talk page, but the editors who support the section in its current state are (for the most part) completely unwilling to even engage in a rational discussion on how to improve the section. I've been met mostly with stony silence for my efforts, and even when I try to force the issue by making changes unilaterally, the changes get reverted with nary a syllable uttered on the talk page explaining the reversion (and sometimes with an edit summary comment that demonstrates that the reverting editor didn't even bother to look at the talk page). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

While I personally agree with the scholars quoted in the "responses" section, I agree with Dachannien that the section is too heavily weighted towards Wright's defenders, and doesn't adequately explain the reasons why these sermon soundbites became controversial. In other words, we're doing well on providing the context of Wright's comments, but doing badly on providing the context of the controversy. And although most of the reliable sources writing about the controversy do so in the context of the campaign, that doesn't mean that the controversy, or the opinions of critics, are irrelevant to a biography of Wright.

I'd like to see some suggestions about notable negative responses from reliable sources. It would be good if there were a third-party article which noted, for example, how the criticism of Wright was pushed by people like Bill O'Reilly. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to search for such an article right now. But if we could find reliable sources talking about the criticisms of Wright, and noting where those criticisms were coming from, that would be a useful addition to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Question on Lawrence Korb

Korb is an Obama advisor. Is it appropriate for him to be quoted on his article? Grsz11 04:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but only if the article makes it clear that he is being quoted primarily because he is an Obama advisor (after all, this is why his opinion would be notable in the article's context). It doesn't currently mention him being an Obama advisor at all. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Responses

The Responses should be included, because the very fact that controversial statements from two of his sermons, picked out of the literally thousands of sermons that Wright has delivered over 35 years, are used to represent his work in his biographical entry, is already unbalanced. That's like devoting half of Martin Luther King's biographical entry to a few statements that he has made which in fact are very similar to those in Wright's quoted sermons. In a biographical entry, we should try to provide a fair portrait of a man and his life's work. The other reason to include the Section is that it presents information that is found nowhere else in the mainstream media, that is informative and of interest to many users of Wikipedia. --Tkhorse (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is the sole event bringing Wright to the fore of (inter)national media, so the article should have a significant portion devoted toward addressing the controversy. The responses, however, should be limited to those which put his sermons in the context of the controversy that was generated (i.e., the Presidential election), and they should not be cherry-picked to spin Wright's comments in the opposite direction from what he meant when he said them. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sermon controversy article and this page

Here's a link to a downloadable copy of the full so-called "God Dam America" sermon: http://odeo.com/audio/17890793/view Stagolee (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the creation of Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy, for lots of reasons (including concerns about undue weight in this BLP). However, I do think that now that the controversy article has been created, this page should have a brief summary of the controversy (in accordance with WP:SS), in particular as it relates to Wright as an individual (as opposed to Wright as Barack Obama's pastor). Anyone who wants to take up the challenge of creating that summary and wording it neutrally with appropriate citations gets kudos in advance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. I've got an idea concerning the summary paragraph - namely, draw it from other articles that make similar summary statements. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the current bit on Jeremiah Wright is rather biased and essentially covers the scope of what the media covered. It would be more beneficial, I'd think, for someone to add a more accurate summary under that point that encompasses the other points found in the controversy - the ones that also show his credibility. 05:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC) --David.aloha

Also, I noticed that the new controversy page doesn't have such sections as: During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Wright's beliefs and previous remarks became heavily scrutinized, due to his relationship with Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Critics have accused Wright of using Black liberation theology to promote black separatism.[21] Wright has replied to this criticism by saying that "The African-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history." [22]

In another sermon eventually published by the press, Wright ended his message with a blessing on all people, saying "All of God's children white, black, red, yellow, male, female, all together".

These very much supported the other side of Wright, and I think that they belong in the article. 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)--David.aloha

Actually, I would allege that your proposed changes are more biased than the current summary. Yes, controversies tend to be bad, and they tend to make people look bad. But merely reporting on a controversy doesn't mean that the reporting is biased. In addition, only the salient points of the controversy itself are being reported in the summary here, saving the in-depth analysis for the Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy article. You should probably check to see whether the information you quoted above appears in that article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the edits I just made (inventing HIV virus, God damn America, etc.), here is my reasoning. Wright did not just "question the government's role in the spread of AIDS," as the version I changed stated. That statement is so vague it could mean anything from, "the U.S. government has not passed out enough free condoms," to saying the U.S. government invented the HIV virus in order to kill off black people. We must have a good reason before being so intentionally vague, and there is no reason I can think of to be so vague when the exact quote that caused the controversy is not any longer then the overly-vague generalization. There is something to be said for writing a good summary, but if a summary is extremely vague and the actual detailed statement is not any longer... then just include the specific statement. Also, in reference to statements widely interpreted as anti-U.S., he did not simply "suggest the U.S. was partially responsible for 9/11." That could mean anything from, "America, God bless it, should have had better cockpit doors on its airliners," to, "God Damn America." Again, there is no reason to be vague if being clear does not create any length problems. In this case, the specific quotes do not add any sufficient length to the entry to cause concern. Additionally, the former version was so vague it was to the point of almost being completely meaningless. Jsn9333 (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dachannien, I removed the reference to single non-racist sermon in which no races were mentioned. The alleged racist remarks in the summary concern several sermons, one which refers specifically to the "rich white people" that run the country Wright has asked God to damn. It is irrelevant to say that in another sermon Wright doesn't mention race. Please discuss here before edit warring. Jsn9333 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? How does my making two consecutive edits, reverting some of your changes on only one occasion, constitute "edit warring"? Besides, my concern, that the section is yet again growing too large to be a summary now that the bulk of the topic now has its own article, remains completely unaddressed by your comments here. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life -- Childhood and Education

I want to increase the accuracy of the 'personal life' section of this profile. Investigation by Ronald Kessler of Newsmax reveals that Wright's upbringing is NOT one of poverty and discrimination, but of opportunity and privelege. So, much as the 'I love Obama' team wants to keep deleting it, I propose the following:

Wright was born and raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in a racially mixed section called Germantown. His parents are Jeremiah Wright, Sr., a Baptist minister who pastored Grace Baptist Church in Germantown, Philadelphia from 1938 to 1980., and Mary Elizabeth Henderson Wright, a school teacher who was the first black to teach an acadmeic subject at Roosevelt Junior High. She went on the be the first black person to teach at Germantown High and Philadelphia High School, where she became the school's first black vice principal for girls.

Wright graduated from the elite Central High School of Philadelphia in 1959. At the time, the school was 90% white students, at least three fourths of which were jewish. Other alumni of Central High School include Bill Cosby.

The 211th class yearbook described Wright as a respected member of the class.    
   
“Always ready with a kind word, Jerry is one of the most congenial members of the 211,” the yearbook said. “His record in Central is a model for lower class [younger] members to emulate.”    
   

His wife is Ramah Reed Wright, and he has four daughters, Janet Marie Moore, Jeri Lynne Wright, Nikol D. Reed and Jamila Nandi Wright, and one son, Nathan D. Reed. --Fovean Author (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out where this article says he had a life of "poverty and discrimination"? Grsz^talk 02:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. Newsmax is useful for opinions perhaps, but it's unreliable when it comes to facts due to extreme right-wing bias. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, unlike Wikipedia which is known worldwide for it's unbiased objectivity. LOL! PS Kessler has also worked for the Boston Herald, the Wall Street Journal , United Press International, the Associated press and the Washington Post. But I guess that doesn't matter since he's not a liberal, right?69.244.181.184 (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Fovean Author's point, Grsz - the material he wants to add doesn't allege that Wright had a life of poverty and discrimination, but rather the opposite. In any case, the source is probably not the best in the world. If a more reliable source can be found, my remaining problems with the passage would include the following: Use of the word "elite" to describe Central High School is POV (there are other ways to describe the school that rely on fact rather than opinion); the mention of Bill Cosby is off-topic; the mention of Roosevelt Junior High should indicate what city the school is in; the mention of the racial composition of Central High School lacks context as written; Central High School should be wikilinked to the appropriate school since there are dozens of articles by that title on Wikipedia. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 12:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was in the same class as Jeremiah Wright at Central High School (211) and there were about 200 members of the class. The percentage of Jewish students was about 50%, not what has been quoted in various comments. It was a public school, and required all As and Bs in Junior High (8th and 9th grades in Philly at that time). Your IQ was also tested and you need 115 on a top score of 150 scale to attend. Central was an all boys school with all male teachers. We won the all-around sports title among the 16 public high schools for many years. Most of our teachers had Master's Degrees and many had been there for decades. Our graduating class was awarded 24 National Merit competitive full paid scholarships. Some 92% of the class went on to college in 1959.

Black students were among the most talented in the school, particularly in music, art and sports. We had a defensive end who weighed 300 pounds (5'11") who could run the 100 in under 11 seconds.

Jeremiah came from a very good family. I knew his father when I published a newspaper in the 70s in Germantown and West Oak Lane. He came from a higher economic status than most of the students from Central. His father was a very well renowned person in the community.

The community today remains middle class and Black, just as it was in the 70s. When Jeremiah grew up, much of the nearby area, West Oak Lane, was Jewish, but they left in the mid 60s when Blacks moved in. So much for liberal leanings and proof of conservative reaction. There were many prominent Black people who came from this area, and I worked with many of them in my role with the local newspaper. Freddonaldson (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Retirement

Was this section discussed? Grsz11 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly this attempt at a source is laughably unacceptable. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll remove the section if a usable source isn't provided in a few hours. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I had mentioned in an earlier discussion that the AP reported on the house, although they certainly didn't apply the spin that the laughably unacceptable source applied. I'm torn on whether this is notable or not, though. I'd say it depends on whether it received more mainstream media attention (and the AP link took a bit of Google digging to turn up). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That source is unacceptable--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC). There are, however, others that are ( Newsmax for instance)

Newsmax is marginal at best. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

google will do nicely to find sources[10] CarlosRodriguez (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So, of course, I remove the objectionable section and, of course, Grsz deletes it again, anyway. Why? Because Grsz is an Obama apologist who is going to make DARN sure that this page represents Wright as someone who won't embarass Obama. -- Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 01:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, if I'd have been required to guess, I would have thought that Grisz was the opposite of an Obama apologist. He's helped me fend off questionable edits that make me think he's at least neutral. Smart Ways (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why? Because it's a deliberately POV characterization; please stop the POV pushing - you're not fooling anyone. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we present the facts, and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions about this. I'm not dead set on this, but I think there is a way to incorporate the information while skirting NPOV issues.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with dixie. The section should stay. Readers are intelligent enough to separate POV from NPOV if they have material to read. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How about you try a good faithed attempt here that we can all se and work on together before it is incorporated into the article. I tell you that it will have to satisfy some people who are dead set against its inclusion, so I caution restraint. Here is one source:http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/obamas-former-pastor-builds-a-multimillion-dollar-retirement-home/

and the learned man who is quoted is here: http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/cvs/awalshcv.htm He is not the Starbucks' girl , but he did make comments to a reliable third party source about Wright, which I believe that some editors have established as the bar for being included. Any objections to using these sources?

Die4Dixie (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's still trivia. "Oh the man's church provided him a nice house". Do we talk about the houses of other clergy? It's hardly news that churches own major amounts of property; it's one of the traditional investments (and I'm sure that's how this purchase was justified by the church; I hope for their sake they didn't buy at the top of the market, but churches also have patience with their investments.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an investment by the church, this is a gift from the church to Wright. This isn't 'provided him with a nice house,' this is 'thanks for the friggin palace' provided to a guy who spent a big part of his life telling people in Chicago's South Side (most of whom will never own a place 1/100th as valuable) (a) not to aspire to living that way and (b) not to live in neighborhoods like that. This is the guy who SPECIFICALLY decries black people who cozy up to 'whitey'.Fovean Author (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Reliable sources found it noteworthy, unlike the houses of other clergy. And lets be real, this is not an "investment" for the church. It would make a lot more sense to purchase rental or commercial property than this mcmansion. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a good investment. As far as "reliable sources found it noteworthy", their standards are different: they're selling eyeballs, we're creating an encyclopedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't an investment at all, so why are you trying to paint it that way? It's a CEO sized give-away, and its hypocritical of Wright to use his parishoners money on a McMansions, especially after telling them to keep slogging it out in the ghetto. It is very notable. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You really need to familiarize yourself with NPOV. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We recognize Hillary Clinton's amazing investment history with Tyson. If the church had not bought the property from Wright, It might be a little less notable. It has generated hard news stories, and if Rodriguez can calm down some, there might be a way to incorporate it. I'm not totally convinced, and I think we would have to be very careful how we include it. The policy page of WP:NPOV gives us a blue print of how to incorporate material like this into the article the "wright" way while maintaining a neutral point of view.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So it looks to me like we have a leaning toward reinstating this section? --Fovean Author (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the retirement meriting about one sentence in the article, but giving it a section of its own really seems like undue weight to me, and I'm not sure what section it would be appropriate to place it in. Perhaps at the end of "Career as minister and honors", we could have something like "After his retirement, Trinity bought Wright a $1 million home in the Tinley Park suburb.", with the appropriate citation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Did they buy him a house? Or did they buy a house and he's going to be living in it? There's a real difference there. But that's about the right amount of mention. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The sources ([11], [12], [13]) say that they're building a home for him. We could say, "After his retirement, Trinity built a $1 million home for Wright in the Tinley Park suburb." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It would likely not be possible to say much more than that anyway without creating a POV problem. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The POV problem is created by ignoring the issue. The statement is obvious and simple.

After years of work in some of the most impoverished neighborhoods in Chicago, Trinity rewarded Wright with a retirement gift of a $10 million home and control over a line of credit on the home. [14]

That's a fact plain and simple and has nothing to do with POV ... unless you're trying to hide something. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.233.224 (talk • contribs)

Linking the two ideas - philanthropy with the "reward" of the house - constitutes original research. Your cited article doesn't state that that's the reason why Wright is getting the house - in fact, it notes that TUCC refused to discuss the house with the media altogether. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 12:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So your edit is what? This?

At retirement, Trinity rewarded Wright with a retirement gift of a $10 million home and control over a line of credit on the home. This has raised some eyebrows because after years of railing against "rich white people" Wright is moving into a neighborhood full of rich white people. [15]72.219.225.42 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The source you cite doesn't say "retirement gift", "control over a line of credit", "raised some eyebrows", "railing against rich white people", "neighborhood full of rich white people." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To 72.219.225.42: I believe I rather plainly agreed above to Josiah's suggestion, "After his retirement, Trinity built a $1 million home for Wright in the Tinley Park suburb." --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why keep this fact a secret?

Secondly, is it worth noting that Tinley Park and Trinity could not be more different demographically? Don't most pastors tend to live near/among their flock? 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that makes this point and it might be a suitable addition. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that original research? Or, since it "might" be a suitable addition is it just a boondoggle for me to chase after, because the already sourced facts have not be inserted into the article yet. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably depends on the sources found. The source itself would have to make the direct observation concerning the demographic differences. The article can't, for example, say that the house is in Tinley Park, citing one source, and then cite another source indicating the demographics of Tinley Park, and then cite a third source indicating the demographics of the community near TUCC, combining them to form the assertion that Wright is "abandoning his people" (or other some such). Doing so would be synthesis, which is a form of original research. If one reliable source makes those observations together and reaches that conclusion, then it would be a more suitable addition to the article (although I'm sure there are other people around here who would disagree, some for POV reasons and some not). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 11:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"...this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church."

It's appropriate that the article notes Wright's assertion that the recent controversy around him is an attack on the black church. However, I'm wondering whether it's worth noting that some commentators, such as Eugene Robinson [16] and Melissa Harris-Lacewell [17] have challenged this view. Specifically, Robinson said, "The problem is that Wright insists on being seen as something he's not: an archetypal representative of the African American church. In fact, he represents one twig of one branch of a very large tree." Harris-Lacewell says, "Wright is not the totality of the black church, our traditions, or our sacred selves," and agrees with her fellow commentator Jack White that "Wright made a tragic mistake by equating the criticism of him with an attack on the black church as a whole." Bob Herbert calls Wright's claim to be defending the black church "gibberish". These are noteworthy views, but I'm not entirely sure how best to incorporate them into a BLP. I'm open to suggestions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If he served in the USMC, then he is a Marine

I'm surprised he isn't listed under Category:United States Marines. I'm adding him to the category. I'm not sure if this is controversial or has been discussed, so I'm making a note of it here.--Goon Noot (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his military history, I find it hard to believe. For one, enlisted military schools (such as Navy Corpsman School) do not have Valedictorians or Salutatorians. The reason I know this is simple, I am the Director of Training at an enlisted military school.

The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.

here

Perhaps, at that time, they did.--Goon Noot (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then provide a citation that truly supports the claim. The current citation is an op-ed piece and really fails to support the specific claim - it merely makes the claim. The claim should be removed until a better source is found. I have never seen the phrase Valedictorians or Salutatorians ever used in relation to any enlisted military vocational education. I also am unable to find another person who claims these titles in relation to the military. This makes the Wright claim unique and as such highly suspect. Jombl (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is pretty suspicious. There are tons of mentions of it on the Web, but as far as I can tell, the bulk of them come from the Wikipedia article. I found one other person referring to himself that way. Now, was he top of his class? Do we have any better sources than our own? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea about other sources, but even though the Chicago Tribune is an opinion piece, the author is someone with pretty solid Naval credentials (former naval officer, former professor at the Naval War College, former assistant Sec'y of Defense under Reagan). I suspect that he knows what he's talking about. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it strike you as odd that on the entire internets, there seems to be exactly one or maybe two valedictorians from corpsman school? I'd think it's something at least two or three people might brag about. Also...Korb might very well have gotten the information from Wikipedia, like so many of the other matches I found; the Korb article dates to April 3 2008, while the "valedictorian" language was inserted on March 23. The sourcing for the valedictorian language is iffy; a church service program isn't necessarily a rock-solid information source, so I'd be a lot more comfortable if the "valedictorian" term had some broader support. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Answers.com biography, which is taken from the Contemporary Black Biography compilation by the Gale Group, includes the information on having been valedictorian. Based on the online further reading links at the end, the biography appears to have been composed circa April 2004. TheslB (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You think? The "valedictorian" word only shows in the first half of that section, which is from Wikipedia. I think only the bottom part of the answers.com page is from the Gale Group compilation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The top part of the page is a 2004 entry from the Contemporary Black Biography and says valedictorian. (Everything from the Black Biography header down to — Kari Bethel is from the Gale Group.) The bottom part of the page is an October 2007 revision of the 2006 Wikipedia entry, with no mention of valedictorian. TheslB (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay so the valedictorian thing is disputed. He's still a marine though, right?--Goon Noot (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

From the Bill Moyer Journal interview on April 25, 2008:

BILL MOYERS: He served six years in the military: two as a marine, and four in the Navy as a cardiopulmonary technician. That's where our paths crossed for the only time.

That's Jeremiah Wright, behind the I.V. pole, monitoring President Lyndon Johnson's heart as he was recovering from gall bladder surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital. And right behind him is a very young me. I was the President's Press Secretary.

So, yes. TheslB (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Trip to Libya

The section on Wright's 1984 trip to Libya should be expanded to mention the reason for the trip. Wright was part of an entourage along with Jessie Jackson in which they traveled to both Syria and Libya to successfully secure the release of captured USAF Bombardier/Navigator Robert Goodman. The trip is well documented, and Goodman's release earned kudos from then President Ronald Reagan. Jemiljan (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so. Yes, there was a trip that you are thinking of (and Reagan expressed his gratitude). But this is different than the trip Wright went on. TheslB (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't eliminate your citation, but even so, cannot find any information that supports your position that Wright made a separate trip to Libya. Could you kindly provide a controverting source for this information, much as I provided them above?Jemiljan (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who added the fact tag to my comment (whoever did it, please do not edit other people's comments on talk pages in the future), but the part needing citation is the second sentence of the comment above to which I responded. If we could confirm that, it would be relevant and worth adding to the article. TheslB (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The entry "Wright has been quoted as saying: "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli [to visit Muammar al-Gaddafi] with [Louis] Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."[48]" is not supported by the footnote. Neither that quote nor anything remotely close to it appears in the NYT article referenced. 64.203.51.18 (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright

This link needs to be added for objectivity rather than just impure praise of the man:

• The Curse of Jeremiah Wrights —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.157.107 (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So am I right to assume the whole controversy section is only notable because of its media hype?.Its just that clearly from being in-context, there isn't anything really inflammatory, and if so are really diminished by the facts said in the full context.

"So am I right to assume the whole controversy section is only notable because of its media hype?" No. You are wrong. It is a controversy because this man was Senator Obama's PRIMARY spiritual advisor for 20 years and it turns out he is mentally disturbed hate cult leader. And I HAVE listened to his sermons 'in context.' Hours of them. Trust me, asking people to listen to MORE of his persecution-complex fueled brainwashing is not good for him! And I'll bet I've been to black churches more often in the last year than EVERY white liberal editor of Wikipedia combined. And that's a WHOLE lot of folks. lol 69.244.181.184 (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this not similiar to the other controversy that now really doesn't have any merit or notability?. Rodrigue (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is a controversy only because it was crafted as one for political reasons within the context of presidential politics. This needs tobe a real biography, which I plan to make it when I have time. I have argued that the non-amateur way to situate the controversy, chiefly, is to merge Jeremiah_Wright_sermon_controversy into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Because that is the context. Ewenss (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, do we really accept these articles of baseless controversies because of how much they're referenced?. Rodrigue (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Baseless" is a POV. The proper way to address the POV is to have an article discussing the points of view surrounding it (baseless versus merited), which we do. And even if it could be proven that the controversy is "baseless", there's still a controversy, and the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 12:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life -- Marital Situation

Should there be mention of reputable press coverage that Wright may have acted inappropriately in his capacity as a religious minister by counseling a woman about her marital problems prior to her divorce, and then marrying the woman, Ramah, himself? The story has been reported in the New York Post[18] and the (UK) Telegraph [19] at least. The articles report interviews with the woman's ex-husband and his lawyer. My feeling is that Wright is indisputably a public figure and this sort of story goes to the core of his professional competence and credibility. Wright denies any wrongdoing and that should be fairly noted as well, but once this is reported in the reputable press then avoiding any mention of the issue seems a mistake to me. On the other hand, I'm not willing to write this into the article myself and I'm happy to leave that task to someone else once consensus has been sought. --Zigamorph (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

no picture with Obama?

why is there no picture with him and Obama, not only in this article, but in the "Jeremiah Wright political controversy?" While I've debated pics with Johnson and Clinton, being that his relationship with Wright may have the most far and wide impact and is currently having it, I see no reason to lack a picture. This may decide who the next President may be, in the form of Hillary Clinton getting the nomination, or McCain getting the White House, or it even being a huge part of a President Obama's journey? Why is there no picture with Obama and Wright? It is the one picture and relationship Wright is most famous for, because its not like it was just some prayer breakfast, where he was one out of hundreds or doing surgery, he mentored spiritually and morally, a future Senator, and most famous black man in the country currently, leading Presidential candidate, and possible future nominee and President? His sermon "The Audacity of Hope" produced Obama's book title, which was a best seller. He was also a big part of Obama's first book. Wright has sold millions of books through Obama, which is a bigger part of culture than a prayer breakfast or surgeon assistant. So why is the pic with Obama and Wright missing? I think it should be there, if it is to be fair. After all, Obama has said in speeches before, like his victory speech to the Senate that Wright made it possible. So in more of a sense, Wright has helped to bring Obama to the forefront of America politics. He made the guy. A copy, attributed to the Associated Press is shown here Tallicfan20 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "He made the guy"? Hooey. He made himself quite effectively, turning an 80-person congregation into a megachurch. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Agreed, there needs to be a picture of Wright with Obama. I mean, it only makes sense. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant Wright made Obama, if you take Obama at his word that Wright brought him to where he is today, as he said at his 04 victory speech, or when you read both of his books, which Wright is a huge part of. He talks about Wright all the time in "Dreams from my Father" and "Audacity" is NAMED after Wright's sermon. Wright made Barack Obama by these metrics. He also provided the political contacts and connections in the state senate district to get him elected.Tallicfan20 (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo is from a press agency (specifically, the AP) and so falls under Unacceptable use Images policy item 6 for Non-free content: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: example)." This is not the Miley Cyrus photo.TheslB (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It's trouble enough using it the church article around here. Ewenss (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read the non free content guides, and I know you can't put AP photos unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article and for all of the reasons I mentioned in the above post,IT IS. This picture IS "the subject of the sourced commentary" on Wright, and it also relates to Wright on the whole. It relates to the sourced commentary, being in the "political controversy" section, as on TV and in the newspapers, whenever the controversy comes up, the picture can is frequently seen, from TV segments and specials to newspapers and is now a symbol of their relationship and the controversy. The picture is not only THE ubiquitous symbol of the controversy, it also is significant to the article on the whole in relation to Wright's importance and influence. We know Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama's "moral compass" for 20 years, baptized his kids, and married him to his wife. That is much more notable, doing those things to a potential President and first black major party nominee than some prayer breakfast, being one amongst hundreds at the White House that you allow a picture to be up on. The picture symbolizes the relationship, as Barack Obama's books relate to the man, and their picture is indicative as a relationship, as it was taken in the church, it is NOT as you put it "just a picture of two people" as the "Audacity of Hope," the line which made Obama's 2004 DNC speech and helped sell millions of books comes from Wright's sermon, and the picture shows this relationship and symbolizes it. The same goes for the "Dreams" book, as the book mentions his first encounter with Wright and talks largely about it. As you put it "as pointed out on talk pages; please respond there if you think it is okay to use AP photos on the GFDL licensed Wikiepdia website" OF COURSE I THINK IT IS OK BECAUSE THE GUIDELINES CLEARLY say you cannot upload onto a page "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), UNLESS THE PHOTO ITSELF IS THE SUBJECT OF SOURCED COMMENTARY IN THE ARTICLE. This IS the subject of sourced commentary, so it damn well can, and should be in the article as it completely relates to it. If this picture is not relevant as you claimed earlier, why is the Bill Clinton photo so necessary? The content in that picture isn't even discussed in the "Career as minister" part, so it has ZERO relation to the segment, as opposed to my photo being in the controversy part, because the photo I posted IS subject of the commentary.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the picture is making its way into GOP commercials and could do so in the fall. All the more reason this pic should be in the political controversy section of the page. The picture IS the subject of sourced commentary on it, which makes it able to be posted per the fair use guidelinesTallicfan20 (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. Merely because the two subjects in the photo are being discussed in the article (or in the world) does not mean we have license (or a defense of fair use) to use the Associated Press's copyrighted photo. Other people licensing the photograph to use in their projects does not confer a right to do so to us. TheslB (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo itself IS the sourced commentary discussed in the article, as it is used everywhere from tv segments to newspapers when discussing the controversy and is universally associated to the controversy/relationship. It is in commercials, and the picture is universially associated with the controversy. No one can deny that. It also has far more relevance than the Clinton picture, as my picture relates to the subject at hand, and the Clinton picture has nothing to do with the article, and isn't even mentioned. Its just a hit job in the mold of "Clinton done it too" but Wright was Obama's 20 year moral mentor and adviser who married him and baptized his kids. The picture symbolizes the relationship, and the relationship is what is discussed in the article in the political controversy thing. Calling it "just a picture of two people" is as good as calling the Hart/Donna Rice one the same thing. There is a large story behind the picture, with which it is universally associated. Everyone knows the Wright story, and everyone associates the picture with it. Therefore, I can use the so called 'licensed" picture for that reason.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

lack of relevance on Clinton picture

I would like to know, why is that picture of Wright, being one of the hundreds of pastors there that day, with Bill Clinton on the site? I ask because I see no relevant commentary in any of the article to the picture. It also lacks significance, as it made no headlines, he achieved nothing but getting a letter and getting a picture taken, so why is this picture on the page? He was not his moral compass and advisor for 20 years, nor did he baptize Chelsea or marry him and Hillary. Why is this picture on the page? It has no relation to anything written in the article, and no real meaning, as their relationship didn't go any further than a picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallicfan20 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 May, 2008

Well, it was added to other pages such as Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton by a now-banned editor, Eleven Special. Haven't looked through the page's history here yet, but I would not be surprised if it was the same person. For the same reasons that it is no longer on either Clinton's page I will remove it from this as well. It more public domain images of Rev. Wright are desired, then surely some more compliant with WP:NPOV can be found. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The photograph with the President in the White House should be included because it relevant to his reputation and prominence as a minister. There are tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of ministers, priests and rabbis in the U.S., and only very, very few are invited to the White House and get to speak to the President. No minister in my town has been invited to the White House. Has your minister/priest/rabbi been invited to the White House? --Tkhorse (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW! Just because he happened to meet the President, didn't even make it important enough to mention it in the article. It was of no consequence. There were hundreds of ministers there. The only reason it is up is to ameliorate the Wright/Obama connection. I guess then that everyone who ever met Bill Clinton or Jeremiah Wright should have their images on their pages. We should find a picture with every famous person then by your standards that Wright may have met. You also in the edit history called Accuracy in Media a "reliable source" even tho it is clearly a conservative group. Moreover, by your standards, the Obama/Wright picture should be here under fair use, because after all, not every minister gets to meet a senator, and possibly the first black President. Also, you say "no minister in your town" but I bet many ministers, who live or work in NYC, where you work with your big Wall Street firm, and your Ivy league Harvard and Yale degrees have met Presidents and famous people before, as have ministers in Chicago like Wright. The difference is, this picture is of no consequence. You clearly are biased and are not very good at hiding especially because I found THIS Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because this article is about JEREMIAH WRIGHT's LIFE! Significant events should, if possible, be shown in pictures. It's inappropriate on the Clinton pages, yes, but is 100% relevant here, as it's his BIOGRAPHY, and not a page about his relationship with Obama. Grsz^talk 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed it once again. It is irrelevant because it is not just a simple "Here's Bill Clinton with some guy". In the current poisonous atmosphere of the Democratic primaries, it is pushing a particular POV, as detailed above by myself and Tallicfan20. Tarc (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about an election, or a campaign, or anybody's relationship with anybody else. You aren't making a fuss out of the LBJ picture, when it's no more relevant. It doesn't matter what you're opinion is on how the picture displays Wright and/or Clinton...what matter is that it's relevant to Wright's life, as this is Wright's biography. Grsz^talk 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this article would never have existed except for this campaign. Second, the meeting with Clinton was of no consequence, and the article text doesn't even mention the meeting at all. Thats basically admitting it has no meaning. According to your logic, lets find everyone somewhat famous or important that this guy has met and taken a picture with. The page would probably be filled up. That doesn't mean they all belong on this page. The pic is pointless.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't bother looking at the page history, to see that this article was created on 10 October 2006. If the fact that there's no mention of the Clinton meeting in the article is the problem, this can easily be fixed. If you still have a problem after that, there's clearly more you're trying to say then that it's "pointless". Grsz^talk 17:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Give it up. It shows Wright;s eminence as a minister - obviously. Ewenss (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This meeting took place because Clinton invited several pastors to the White House to discuss and pray about the Lewinsky scandal. Wright was there because Clinton wanted him to be there. He invited him for his spiritual guidance, it was not just some small-time, meaningless meeting. Grsz^talk 17:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

he invited HUNDREDS of ministers there. I guess they all should have wikipedia pages now and the pictures there, because I'm sure Wright was not the only one there. Wright was just there because he knew a lot of people who knew a lot of people. I suppose everyone who has met President Clinton is "preeminent" somehow. What about the picture with Obama and Wright? Why isn't that on this page, under the fair use rationale? Because under your idea that meeting a really famous person deserves to be on the page, Obama/Wright picture should be on hereTallicfan20 (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If they were notable for other events they should. Grsz^talk 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Clinton picture has no relevance. Clinton and Wright did not have a relationship of any significance. Including the Clinton photo in this article is preposterous, especially when the much more relevant Obama/Wright picture is not included. VeritasAgent (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As has been said countless times, find a picture with Obama that is Wikipolicy compataible and add it.

Photo is very important because it shows Wright is an important minister who has had political recognition from important people. Clinton specifically invited and he was chosen from hundreds of thousands of ministers from around the country. We don't need to depict the others that came, except in their own articles and if photos of them at the prayer breakfast are available. Note that this is Tallicfan20's third attempt at getting this photo removed, see talk Archive 1. Please stop trying to bowdlerize the article. CyberAnth (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats bs. He had political recognition with other important people too, and I'm sure he took pictures of them at events they were invited to as well. Its not like he helped operate on anyone, like in the Johnson picture. Why not get pictures of him with other "important people?" A lot of other people "specifically" invited him. WOW, from "hundreds of thousands" of ministers, but we should then make pages for all the others at the meeting, because then they were also as important as Wright to have pages and pictures like this. This picture is clearly pushing a point of view, and its not like I'm the only one who believes it. Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep photo, until Tallic can come up with something better than "It's not fair." Grsz^talk 02:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what gives you the rather false notion that this is up for a simple majority-style vote. As it has been said several times over, there is a clear context to using a picture of Jeremiah Wright together with Bill Clinton; Wright's connections with Barack Obama are a source of major controversy in the current primary election. This image exists in this article as a clear attempt at POV-pushing, since if it can be shown that Wright has appeared linked with Clinton, the husband of Obama's current opponent, then it lessens the controversy of Wright-Obama. Its like a politician being found guilty of some impropriety, and his side goes out to find examples of their opponent's own improprieties, for a "see, they do it too!" defense.

Now if we wish to show the popularity of Rev. Wright and his connections to famous people, then why wouldn't an image of Wright and Obama suffice? For pretty much the same reasons as the above. So perhaps in an attempt to reach some middle ground here, could we find images of Wright sans Clinton or Obama? Surely these aren't the only two he's ever posed with.

Tarc (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, it isn't about what pictures we use, it's about what pictures we have. Obama-Wright pictures have been deleted several times because the uploaders fail to give copyright info, like Veritas' version now, or the photo is copyrighted and isn't compatable with Wikipedia's fair use policy. You fail to see that this article is a biography about Wright, covering his entire life. It isn't necessary, and is infact inappropriate, for the entire article to focus on the Obama link, which is essentially what you are trying to argue for. The picture isn't here to say that Clinton somehow believes whatever he says...it's here to show that Wright was a prominent figure before the "controversy", etc. As was argued in a similar issue awhile back, the picture proves Wright existed long before March. Grsz^talk 04:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded the Obama/Wright photo AND I followed the fair use rules, in part using a rationale with your argument of the "pre-eminent minister" and they didn't take it. There is clearly a bias amongst some editors here. I and others know that it is a copyrighted photo, but the Fair Use rules say that we can use it if its subject of the sourced commentary, and unlike the Clinton picture, it IS, because the Wright controversy is discussed in this article, and being that the Obama/Wright picture is clearly part of that, the photo should have been acceptable. But it is obvious that there is a bias from some of the editors. ThesIB is the one who kept taking it off, under the bs argument "its just a picture of two people, and decorative." THEN so is the Clinton one I guess. The Wright/Obama photo is protected under the fair use rules, and it should be up if the Clinton one is up. Its part of his "pre-eminence as a preacher." This makes it Wiki compatible. Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

All of these "nay" arguments ultimately boil down to noise without substance. This is a bio and the photo is important to show his eminence as a minister. BTW, if you can find a free recent photo of just Wright, that's be great. I've tried and cannot. But none of that will have any bearing on the photo under discussion. Ewenss (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Its just more "Bill Clinton done it too." Again, with your logic, we should find every picture with every famous person he met, and we should also find out every other minister in this country who met a President, and make a page for them. The picture has no place, and there is also no consensus, which some are claiming there is around there. If people are divided on Wikipedia about it, there is no consensus, so the picture should be gone.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that to justify this one photo that shows his eminence we must also undertake a exercise to find each and every photo that shows each and every minister similarly, plus we must find and include each and every photo that depict Wright's eminence. That's plain silly. Also, a vocal minority making silly arguments for exclusion of a photo does not equate to consensus. The photo stays for the reasons already articulated. Additionally, you have in the subtext, and in many places in the plain text, said that people who have political reasons for controlling this article, such as yourself, should be allowed to. That's called POV pushing around here and that you have been doing it for some time is very transparent. Ewenss (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ewenss, you, calling us a "vocal minority" is ridiculous. We are not some small fringe group who thinks the photo should be off; many people think it should be off as on. There is no consensus on this picture. It is obviously divisive. You're the one POV pushing, to push the idea of "Clinton done it too." Its obvious. If he's so important, than Wright can be found in other pictures. Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The only POV-pushing here is by those trying to jam this thing in. It's pretty simple; find something else. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My uninvolved take is that the picture was probably added as a result of the Jeremiah Wright Controversy (since it was probably added after this event took place). WP shouldn't advance one agenda or the other, so you would include a BO+JW pic and a Clinton+JW pic, or neither. Just adding one, especially after the recent controversy, should be avoided unless everyone can agree on a way to do it. The issue could also be revisited after the media frenzy has died down, or a picture at the White House without Clinton standing in it could be added.--69.210.8.93 (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Clinton photo does not show Wright's eminence as a minister. Wright was only one of a very large number of ministers who passed through the doors of the White House during the Clinton years. Make sure I am counted as an editor OPPOSED to including the Clinton photo on the basis of total non-relevance. VeritasAgent (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I ditto VeritasAgent, I am OPPOSED to the photo as well. It really is just a picture of another one of the hundreds of Chicago ministers at the meeting.Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo compromise

Is there any way that we can find a compromise in the question of the JW/BC photo so the article can be unprotected? I think both sides present reasonable arguments so instead of just continuing the fight perhaps we could find a solution that everyone thinks is acceptable (if not perfect). How about moving the photo to a less central position (the awards section?) or leaving the photo out of the article until the president election is over? Any other ideas? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It really is not that important to the article, because the meeting had no consequence in either American society, or his career itself. He was just one of hundreds of pastors invited to the White House. The Clinton/Wright picture is mostly a partisan Obama supporter talking point used to ameliorate the Wright/Obama controversy by saying "the Clintons met him too" conveniently leaving out that the Clintons didn't attend their church, get married by, have their kids baptized, or call a moral compass and spiritual advisor for 20 years like Obama. It is always used as a partisan talking point, and many of the people who put it on the page are either Obama partisans or conservative Clinton-haters. This picture is divisive, and there will never be a consensus, and because of the picture's lack of consequence, I don't just see why we don't just keep it off. Its not like the contents of the picture were ever mentioned in any of the paragraphs of the article anyway. Not having the picture in no way diminishes the article, and thus should be kept off.Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Several editors disagrees with you and think that the photo brings something useful to the article. Lack of consensus does not mean that it should be left out, it means we should find a different solution. If you are interested in improving the article further I'd encourage you to find a compromise. Would it be acceptable for you to put the photo back in once the democratic nomination race is over and the Clinton/Obama situation has calmed down? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Several editors also agree with me, that the relevance is little to none of the picture because the meeting and the picture was of no consequence in :the career and life of Jeremiah Wright, or events in the world. Not every picture of Wright and someone famous matters. A lot of people met the President that day, so should we make them all a page, and put the picture there? I don't think so. Its not partisanship, but he really was just one of the hundreds of big city megachurch pastors to be at the event. The picture really is also used as a talking point to ameliorate the Obama situation, and if you go around the internet, you can see it. its not even like the article mentions the meeting with Wright, and that is testament that if the meeting isn't sufficient to mention in the article, than neither is a picture to be posted.Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems wholly inappropriate...because if the only reason they can come up with as to why it shouldn't belong is because it's trying to hurt Clinton, then they have no valid argument. Grsz^talk 00:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean, this is an encyclopedia that isn't based in the present, but is all-encompassing. To say that this photo doesn't belong now, but is okay later seems really off-base to me. Grsz^talk 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why isn't the Obama/Wright picture allowed? Its as relevant, if not more so than the Clinton picture. The Obama/Wright picture not only has a story behind it, but the story is that of the most well known work Jeremiah Wright has done in his life, to be a moral compass to Obama, baptize his kids, marry him, and be a spiritual advisor on his campaign, and thus is extremely relevant to the sourced commentary on the page, which mentions the controversy which arose from their relationship. Your argument, of that as a photo, it "it shows his pre-eminence as a preacher" in my fair use rational for non-free images to upload it, and some editors still got rid of it. The photo was absolutely the "subject of sourced commentary" as the article not only talks about Wright, but the controversy, which he is most famous for, and has made him a house hold name, and this makes it eligible to be a non-free press photo on the page. I sense an extreme double standard, as the Clinton photo doesn't even get mention in the article, thats how insignificant it is, but still gets a picture.Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the photo doesn't belong, I'm just trying to find a workable solution so we can unprotect the article and get back to editing. Other ideas or suggestion are certainly welcome, the protection will stay until there is reason to believe that the edit warring won't continue. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, just because you do not agree with the "because it's trying to hurt Clinton" position, does not make it an invalid argument. A little more respect for opposing points of view, please. I have removed it from Bill Clinton's page for that very reason. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Pax:Vobiscum, I strongly disagree the Clinton photo adds anything useful to the article, but I am willing to compromise. My sentiment is that we should include both photos. Tallicfan20 has explained numerous times why the Obama/Wright photo is OK to add. VeritasAgent (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, but it seems to be hard to find a free photo of the two together. I'm no expert on the inclusion of pictures (so take this with a grain of salt), but I think that the problem with the deleted photos were that they were not actually the subject of the discussion (we are discussing the Obama/Wright controversy not the actual photos). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of being able to put a non-free picture there is because the picture WAS subject of the discussion, as the page discussed the controversy, and the picture of Obama/Wright is always used whenever they have a special or segment of the controversy on TV, and the picture illustrates their relationship. It was even used, and may be used in the future, in political commercials. The picture clearly relates to the discussion, therefore, the non-free image should be able to be put there. An obviously biased editor or moderator ThesIB kept deleting it. The poster also used the rationale in the non-free image rationale that of the Clinton picture "it shows his pre-eminence" as well as the story behind the picture and what it illustrates as the rationale for nonfree image usage, which is required. The Obama/Wright picture should, and can clearly be on the page.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TheslB is not an administrator so he could not delete it (only remove it from this page). You should take this discussion with the deleting admin and ask for a more detailed explanation (if you haven't done so already). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The photo at the White House is, as far as I can see, one of only three free licensed photos of Wright so far identified. As the other two date back to the 1960s, it is by far the most recent. As we have very few free images of the article subject, I suggest we use all three. Effort to identify &/or create a more recent free licensed photo of Wright is encouraged. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tallicfan20, please read up on Wikipedia, this is a project to build a free content encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Free content should be used instead of non-free content whenever possible as part of Wikipedia's most basic mission. Non-free content should be used sparingly in limited circumstances with specific rationale needed. Political arguments should not enter into it (there are no shortage of other places on the Internet where we can argue and discuss such things to no end); see Wikipedia:NPOV. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have cropped Wright's face from the 1998 White House photo and put it at the top of the article. My intention is to illustrate the article with a much less out-of-date free photo of the article's subject. (I am sure I will soon be condemned as acting under sinister political motive and that this somehow either boosts or defames some important politician or other. Anyone finding fault is encouraged to put their energy into locating or producing better free licenced NPOV images.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, I agree that more free images should be found, but this should clearly not be a lead picture in this article. People know where the picture comes from, and it is clearly a political move. I know that Wikipedia should be as free as possible, but there are reasons that non-free photos can get on. Even if the Wright/Obama photo has trouble getting on, there must be a better photo that can be gotten for the lead of the page. Even if it is not free, there are rationales, and this page deserves a photo of Wright people can see, even if it needs a non-free picture. The lack of free pictures also doesn't mean that the Clinton/Wright one, or any cropped variant should be on. Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait...are you seriously bitching that it's a cropped picture of the one that you don't like, saying that it's pro-Obama propaganda! Get a fucking life! Grsz^talk 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't like the job I've done? Please spend your energy doing better. There are some decent photos of Wright on Flickr-- unfortunately not free licensed, but sometimes photographers will allow relicensing if you ASK them nicely. Start trying that. Try contacting Trinity United Church saying Wikimedia has a sad lack of relevent free licensed photos (be sure to carefully explain what Wikimedia's licensing requirements for free use are). Use your imagination and inititaive, and get us some better illustrations. Thanks! -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The cropped photo of Wright at the 1998 National Prayer Breakfast is a good compromise for now, until Hillary Clinton drops out of the race. At that point, the complete photo of Wright speaking with President Clinton should be restored. It would no longer be POV, as whatever political point that could be inferred would be moot.

The complete photo would then illustrate Wright’s prominence as a minister in the US prior to the current controversy. We need to put the September 1998 National Prayer Breakfast in historical context—it was held at a time when Clinton’s Presidency was at perhaps its most dire during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, right after the release of the Starr Report. Thus, this was not any routine White House event, but one in which President Clinton reached out to the most respected members of the clergy in the US. Out of approximately 130 attendants, about 100 were ministers, priests and rabbis. Vice President Gore attended also (also seen in the photo).

Now, 100 may seem like a lot and not exclusive enough, but according to the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are approximately 404,000 persons who work in the clergy in the US. Of course, not all are ministers, priests and rabbis, nevertheless, to be among the top 100 members of the clergy, out of over 400,000, to be invited to have breakfast with the President and Vice President during a crucial time for the survival of the US Presidency is something that is significant, and that should appear in any person’s Wikipedia entry. --Tkhorse (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

Why does it not speak of all of Wright's comments? It mentions only "god damn America" but not allegations that the U.S. government created the AIDS virus to give to blacks, etc. Is there a good reason these are omitted? 24.253.229.85 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To respond to you, discussions of the AIDS remarks were originally part of this entry, but have now been put into a separate Main Article entitled "Jeremy Wright Controversy", for which there is a link at the top of the Section. It was felt that one or two sound bite phrases from years ago spliced out of 30+ years of thousands of sermons were not representative of a minister's career, and should not dominate what is a summary biographical entry.--Tkhorse (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not exactly true. I think we need to get another consensus about this since the last one was tainted by cyberanth and his puppetry. It should be mentioned and linked. I think that the forking of this article is inconsistent with forking policies here. I will investigate and return to work towards that consensus.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"It was felt that one or two sound bite phrases from years ago spliced out of 30+ years of thousands of sermons were not representative of a minister's career, and should not dominate what is a summary biographical entry." How can you make the assumption that his whole career didnt include that kind of talk? Just from the tapes Trinity Church sells alone theres hours of "US of KKK" talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.124.49 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AlRonnfeldt (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)I wholeheartedly agree that these other remarks should also be included. While I understand that the authors don't want to turn a Wikipedia article into a personal attack on a person, some of Wrights sayings were much more controversial than the "God Damn America" phrase, and they were not taken out of context. Intentional or not, the this part of the article seems to be trying to downplay, almost whitewash (no pun intended) his record. The Wikipedia article should also include his other views, good and bad. Furthermore, while the remark may have been made 30 years ago, in a question - answer session on April 28, 2008, he repeated his belief that AIDS was engineered by the American Government to exterminate Africans, and that America was the worst terrorist organization in the world. Al RonnfeldtAlRonnfeldt (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin Marty Article

How about a link to the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed written by Martin Marty, a teacher and renown church historian at the University of Chicago http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i30/30b00101.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centropia (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)