Talk:Jeremiah Wright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
This is not a forum for general discussion of Jeremiah Wright.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
About archives

Contents

[edit] 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. Grsztalk 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. Grsztalk 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! Grsztalk 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)

[edit] Can I fix a mistake?

This isn't about Jeremiah wright's controversial parts, but on his birth day thing, the "born [month],[day[,[year] - age 66" implies he died at age 66. Can we just simply put the birth date byitself, sinc ehe hasn't died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerbilfyed4 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been corrected so it now conforms to the Manual of Style. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] How do we treat Jeremiah Wright on the Barack Obama page?

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

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

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article. On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (here, at least). Noroton (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring Photo of Wright with President Clinton

As had been previously discussed, the reason that the Wright photo that currently appears was Photoshopped and cropped was because it was felt by some that the inclusion of President Clinton in the photo was a POV comment regarding Hillary Clinton. But now that Hillary is out of the race, whatever implication might have been drawn from the original photo is moot. Therefore, the original photo, without cropping (which seems to be intentional distortion by omission), should be restored. --Tkhorse (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Bill Clinton's term in office is long since done with but that doesn't mean we should put the image of him hugging Monica Lewinsky into his article's gallery. POV-pushing doesn't have an expiration date. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As previously discussed, the reason for including the uncropped, undistorted photo is to show Wright's prominence as one of the comparatively few members of the clergy who was invited to a very important National Prayer Breakfast by a sitting President. --Tkhorse (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: If we actually had a free licensed photo of Clinton and Lewinsky, it might be a useful illustration, but no such photo seems to be free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the photo to the article. As noted previously, it is alas one of only two photos of Wright determined to be free licensed (what was believed to be a third was determined to be a private rather than Marine Corps photo and deleted). Again, identification of additonal free licensed photos or contacting photographers/sources asking them to please free license useful photos is strongly encouraged. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
And I have removed it, for reasons previously stated above. Whether or not an image is freely licensed does not supersede other Wikipedia policies such as adhering to a neutral point of view. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have zero interest in getting into any edit war about whether the photo should be in the article or not, but I wish to get my opinion on record that your claim that there is any Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issue to it is completely baseless. Were there text saying that Wright at the White House event was wonderful and somehow supports some sort of political viewpoint, or alternatively that it was evil and besmirches someone or something, that would be a NPOV violation, which Wikipedia rightly prohibits. As far as I can determine, the photo and the short description noting when and where it was made are a simple record of fact. I haven't seen any suggestion that the meeting did not actually take place, or that the circumstances of the photo different from those described, or that the photo is a forgery. If there is any debate about the authenticity of the photo or if the time, place, and people shown are not as described, please provide a pointer to it. Otherwise, the claim that there is some NPOV issue with it is 100% bogus. If there is some important issue here I am missing, please explain it. Thank you, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing else to say that I have not already said elsewhere in this talk page. The connotations of such a photo are clear, just as a Monica-Bill image or a Bill-with-a-cigar image would be. Tarc (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. Back it goes. I rather suspect you trying to promote some sort of political viewpoint. Whether you think that that Wright met with President Clinton somehow makes him look "bad" or "good" I don't know, nor do I give a damn. For most people, having a chance to meet a President of the United States is a special and notable occasion. It is therefore a notable event in the life of the article's subject. If you think otherwise, please give an actual explanation, or provide alternative free licensed images of even more important events in the subject's life. Thanks, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have given an actual explanation; endless repetition will not make it any clearer to you if you don't understand it by now. The mere fact that it happens to be a free image does not automatically merit inclusion into an article, and neither I nor anyone else is responsible for finding an alternative, as none is necessary. We already have other images of Rev. Wright in the article, so the reader is well-aware of the what the subject looks like. An image where Wright was one of many, many other religious figures to meet with the President in the White House that day does nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of the subject. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Replied to on your user talk page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)