Talk:Jeremiah Wright/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Non NPOV tag

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

The responses that are include have significant justification. For example, the first response asks the simple question, has any of the hyperbolic critics on cable TV and the Internet watched the full videos of the sermons in question? Anyone who has not done so, or who has just seen the snippets repeated ad nauseaum on cable TV, is not qualified to give an intelligent response. The responses of McCain and Obama are significant, because the controversy is in the context of the Presidential election. The responses of clergy members are meaningful because, again, they are from people who know the body of Wright's work and reputation, who are familiar with the language of sermons, and who are not screaming that he is the devil based on distorted caricatures. I can point you to tens of other ministers and clergy (many from very conservative congregations, most of whom are not black) who have come out publicly against the unfair caricatures of Wright in the mainstream media.--Tkhorse (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps when you trot out that dog and pony show we need to link to white guilt immediately.Then we wil , as you seem fond of pointing out, have the proper context for those comments.--Die4Dixie 18:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Slow down please

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

Agree: Revert to your last edit and lets talk. I wanted this for a minute now. Good luck getting certain ham fisted editors to join us--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I won't revert. We'll all talk. Or I'll ask (and receive) full page protection, but I'd really rather not have to go that far. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
to which edit would the protection work from?--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping one with fewer (or no) quotes from people who are irrelevant to the topic at hand. --DachannienTalkContrib 17:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The protection would be of the wrong version, as always. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

honorary doctorates and naivete

OK.

Martin E. Marty, an emeritus professor of religious history and holder of seventy-five honorary doctorates,[1]...

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

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

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

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

  • In that case, "professor of religious history" would suffice; you don't need his honors and awards. Also -- I'm not sure we really want to consider blurbs as reliable sources; they're generally marketing tools, not reference documents. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't ALWAYS do anything. I see that some editors seem to treat this article as their personal property with their fiefdomism .--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jpgordon on this - stating his title and where he used to teach would be more than sufficient, especially considering that honorary degrees are of even less credential value than Microsoft certifications.  :p --DachannienTalkContrib 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you ALWAYS tell your reader who is talking - didn't you learning that in English 101 in college, or did you go yet?
Replying to "Jpgordan": No way. That is like calling Michale Jordan simply "a basketball player". Martin E. Marty is a world-renowned religious history scholar and people ought be told that right up front so they know who is speaking.
Also, on another issue here, you have to assume your readers are literate on the level of about an 8th grade reading level - the national average - so it makes great sense to wikilink some words to the "Wiktionary".
CyberAnth (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If true, let's add that he used to hold an endowed chair, so we know exactly WHO he IS.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
And Wikilink to the controversy section about these dubious degrees.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That's like saying only that Michael Jordan played for the Bulls and leaving it at that. Martin E. Marty should be called "a world-renowned authority on religion and ethics in America"[1]. CyberAnth (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know - that seems like the sort of phrasing that begs to have "considered by some to be" inserted in front of it. Is there a better way to convey why he's notable in this context besides honorary degrees of dubious import or potentially POV assertions of authority? --DachannienTalkContrib 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is no disputing the fact that Marty is "a world-renowned authority on religion and ethics in America." Now, that doesn't mean that his interpretation is accepted by all, but you would be hard pressed to find a credible source that doesn't say this. To continue the Jordan analogy, there is no disputing that Jordan is a great basketball player. He is "considered by some to be" the best basketball player ever. Marty is an authority, and possibly "considered by some to be" the authority. But the article is making the claim that he is THE authority.Balloonman (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Book review clubs, trying to sell us things, even if it is the Harvard press should be discounted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Good thing that's not a book review club but Harvard Press. CyberAnth (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Who is trying to hawk us his books that THEY published. don't be dense.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You are showing your lack of life experience here. World-renowned academics become so through a long history of very important publications and collecting honorary doctorates in recognition of those and other qualities. The best way to handle the matter is to keep the current text: "a professor emeritus of religious history and holder of 75 honorary doctorates". Then people can make up their own mind how to weigh it. CyberAnth (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? This discussion isn't about me. Besides, you just got done saying that we should assume our readers are at an eighth-grade level, and most eighth graders (not to mention most non-academics in general) will probably give undue weight and inference to the mention of honorary degrees. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

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

Agreed--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Done, once it expires the 4 month semi-protection for the extreme vandalism needs to be placed back on it. Tiptoety talk 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much. Let's not let this time go to waste, by the way. We should at least try to achieve a consensus in principle by the time the protection expires. --DachannienTalkContrib 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

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

Controversy is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Meaning it isn't a controversy to everybody. Not everybody finds what he said offensive, as evident in the "Responses" section. Grsz 11 19:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
"Depends on what your definition of "is " is," as a great man once said.If if I find a source that says it was controversial, may I insert it, and you do the same for perceived? Can't get better faithed than that.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Libya

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

I have a problem with the black Hitler stuff--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Here are two competing paragraphs:

Relationship with Louis Farrakhan

In 1984 Wright went to Libya with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Wright has been quoted in the media: "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Muammar al-Gaddafi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."[2] Wright later awarded Farrakhan a medal on behalf of his church, and Obama has been criticized for refusing to denounce Farrakhan.

Wright's Masters Degree from the U. of Chicago Divinity School was on the topic of Islam in North Africa in the 19th century. Furthermore, according to an article in the New Republic, Wright was during that time a black nationalist and a Muslim, possibly a follower of Farrakhan.<ref: Trinity Church bulletin, July 2007; New Republic article March 2007 by Ryan Lizza>

  • and

Trip to Libya

A gaffe of Wright's has been quoted in the media: "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Muammar al-Gaddafi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."[3] The 1984 trip Wright was referring to was when he traveled to Libya and Syria on a peace mission along with an ecumenical body of ministers. Chaired by Rev. M. William Howard and led on the ground by Rev. Jesse Jackson who brought about a dozen other ministers including Minister Louis Farrakhan, the trip resulted in the freeing of United States Navy pilot Lt. Robert Goodman, who was captured after his fighter jet had been shot down over Lebanon.[4] [5] [6] [7] At a January 4, 1984 White House ceremony welcoming Lt. Goodman home, U.S. President Ronald Reagan stated, "Reverend Jackson's mission was a personal mission of mercy, and he has earned our gratitude and our admiration."[8] Wright has stated that his participation in the trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan’s views or Gaddafi’s.[9]

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

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

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

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

Change tile to Libya trip and remove mention of Obama? Also , claims of NPOV with out supporting reasons is not useful. I don't like it isn't good enough--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Watts1886 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
What a busy typer you are :). I think that to say Newsmax is not a reliable source of hard news while Media matters is ( and hence from a nuetral point of view by posit) is disingenious at best.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not "disingenious at best" to say that in a Wikipedia biography of a living person, an inaccurate "hard news" story from a questionable source like Newsmax.com should not be used a source (much less the only source) of an article subsection.Watts1886 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments after September 11

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

Further detail could include:

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

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

I'm not sure exactly what you mean . How would you incorporate that into the article? What does this mean?--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any supporting evidence whatsoever? Grsz 11 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Just my incomprehension. It's a gut reaction, I can't source it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


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

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

The phrase "gave shorlty after September 11, 2001 appears not to be true. On March 21, 2008, Roland Martin posted "The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon" [2] In the post, Martin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Later on March 21, 2008, CNN journalist John King interviewed Martin on Anderson Cooper 360°. King noted that CNN staff could not find any evidence of Peck making the statements attributed to him by Wright and Martin.[3]

Here's the clip from the transcipt:

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

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

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

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

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

IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE POINTS:

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

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

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

I think the Wiki text should say that Wright cited Peck as "pointing out ... chickens roost". Wright did not attribute any other observation to Peck until the 11th paragraph. See Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon" [4] Thus, citing Hiroshima, etc seems inaccurate." Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The existing text is not accurate. To make it accurate, it would have to read that Wright said Peck "pointed out".Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The current text is not supported by the source (Martin, at CNN.com)[5], or by the transcript therein. Our secondary source (Martin) says Wright "quoted" Peck, not "paraphrased" him. And there is nothing in the embedded primary source to indicate that the quotation went beyond the line Wright took as his text, "America's chickens are coming home to roost". I am appreciative of the work Youngwarrenbuffett has done to examine the question of whether and what Peck actually said and to clarify the dates. The question of how to consult and use primary sources referred to (in this case indirectly) by secondary sources is not properly dismissed as WP:OR. Consult WP:NORN and its archives for more (much more) on this. All this business about driving out the Indian tribes and bombing Nagasaki and terrorizing Palestinians is almost certainly Wright's exegesis on his chosen text from Peck, not quotation or paraphrase. It's the kind of things ministers do all the time with lines from the Bible, so it isn't that hard to recognize the form. Andyvphil (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


RESPONSE TO Andyvphil:

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

http://youtube.com/user/TRINITYCHGO

which is linked to:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Improper source quotes Wikipedia article

{{editprotected}}

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

The bolded comment is improperly sourced and should be removed. The source given, an editorial [6] , quotes an earlier version of this Wikipedia article, [7]. Note in the editorial the comments "referring to AIDS origins theories" and "[referring to the Iran-Contra Affair]", which were not part of Wright's speech and originated in this Wikipedia article. This should be removed immediately as it is original research. Also, according to our source [8] Wright said "the drugs". The "the" has gone missing from recent revisions. Dforest (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

For AIDS/HIV origin theories, this source states:

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

TheslB (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dforest that the bolded statement is improper. The Rall article makes the supposition that that's what Wright was talking about, but that's pretty brazenly an opinion piece with no evidence that Wright was specifically referring to Iran-Contra. We should simply have the Wright quotes without intervening commentary, and let readers infer for themselves what he is referring to. --DachannienTalkContrib 13:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ON THE HIV/AIDS CROSS-REFERENCE:

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

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

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

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

Y Dforest's proposed edit is done, per WP:BLP. Not sure what all the stuff about AIDS above has got to do with that. Sandstein (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary of above Tkhorse comments: Link the words "HIV virus" to the Wikipedia entry "AIDS origins theories". Dforest had taken out the link. --Tkhorse (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's because he copied and pasted the text from the article itself, rather than viewing the source and copying it. The wikilinks don't get picked up in a copy and paste unless you are copying the source rather than just the article text. (That's why the [28] reference was plain text rather than a link to an actual reference.) --DachannienTalkContrib 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Or maybe not. To be honest, I'm completely confused as to how Dforest would be responsible for "HIV virus" not being wikilinked in the article. However, as long as it's being discussed, I think there's probably a way to link to AIDS origin theories that would be clearer to the reader in terms of what clicking on the link would take you to. See MOS:LINK#Form for more info. --DachannienTalkContrib 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with removing the link of "HIV virus" to AIDS origins theories. I was merely pointing out that the editorial linked as a source for the Iran-Contra comment, http://www.webcitation.org/5WeLkgUtU, was apparently plagiarizing an earlier version of this article by including the comments copied verbatim without acknowledgment, and is thus an improper source. Dforest (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with a source

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

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

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

Do either of these sources suffice? Predictions of God's damnation emanate from both black and white churches: "King delivered that speech the year Rev. Wright ended his six years of service in the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy, for which he received three commendations from President Lyndon Johnson, whom King was confronting." or The Lies and Distortions of the 30-Second Sound Bite: "[Wright] served six years in the U.S. Marines, much of that time as a hospital corpsman, and received a letter of commendation from President Lyndon Johnson for assisting in his heart surgery procedure in December 1964." TheslB (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the reporter used Wikipedia for the first instance as his source, and the second is probably the letter, which is not a commendation from the president, but rather a nice thank you letter from a presidential aid. To call it a commendation, especially in connect to his service, will only confuse readers and purposely mislead them. A commendation is a particular award/ decoration for service that entitles the receiver to were a specific ribbon or medal. Do you dispute that the thank you letter that appears in the picture with Johnson is not a presidential commendation?Die4Dixie (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
the second source is unreliable, as half of it is not true for sure, and the rest suspect. a Hospitalman/ corpsman is not a Marine, but a sailor, and clearly in the Navy. If this source cannot get what branch he was in right, what the hell will he know about commendations?--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the commendation letter reads, "The President thanks you for your help at the time of his recent hospitalization." Wright's biography at the The HistoryMakers reads: "Wright is the recipient of numerous awards, including three honorary doctorates and three presidential commendations." TheslB (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
is it you contention that a thank you letter from an aide is a Presidential Commendation? Also i find the "History Makers" to be suspect. they provide no cite for the info. I think we need the original source, the actual commendations. A thank you letter on behalf of a third person is not a commendation by the third person--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
How many letters does the President himself actually write? If it says "The President thanks you," then it means just that. Grsz 11 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Then let the article say , "Recipient of three Presidential Thank You Letters ." I get signed thank you letters from the president all the time for my contributions to the GOP. Can I start a page for myself and say that I have recieved Hundreds of Presidential Commendations over three administrations for that ? Die4Dixie (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
We have a copy of a presidential commendation and sourcing for the three commendations. What material would you like removed from the article? TheslB (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the sentence "Wright has also received three presidential commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson" redundant anyway? --DachannienTalkContrib 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If you believe using the term presidential commendation conjures up the results of your original research, what room does The HistoryMakers source leave you in believing Jeremiah Wright was not commended accordingly. TheslB (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You really want me to chase the rabbit here, don't you? Please just answer the question: Is a nice thank you letter from an aid a "Presidential Commendation" or is it still a thank you letter. If the letter said, " the president commends you on changing his catheter," or words to that effect, then I would be happy to concede the point. If when you wrote thank you letters to your grandmother when you were a child(or continued as an adult ) for a Christmas present ( and I'm going out on a limb and giving the benefit of the doubt that you were well bred) would it not seem strange to say that your grandmother received " Grandson Commendation" letters from you instead of the more usual you wrote a thank you letter? I really don't even like the passive construction in the article either.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No chase required. The source tells us Wright received three presidential commendations. No need to talk about hypotheticals. TheslB (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
One of those sources also lied about his service, while providing some oth the other information that the others used. A thank you letter is a thank you letter, not a Presidential Commendation--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

The HistoryMakers source tells us Wright received three presidential commendations. The December 19, 1966 letter of commendation is addressed to HM3 Jeremiah A. Wright, USN and begins, "Dear Hospital Corpsman Third Class Wright: The President thanks you..." I do not think we can ignore (not mention) the three presidential commendations Wright received or remove the letter of commendation he received. TheslB (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
An official publication of Wright's church is a reliable source. It contains Wright's resume in extreme detail. Only Wright himself or someone close to him could have provided such detailed information. Now, if you are calling Wright a liar on his resume, then you must have shred of some proof. Wright is widely respected, has received many honorary doctorates from respected seminaries and institutions, so if you are calling him a liar on his resume, then you are also saying those seminaries or institutions are fools. In summary, the source should be cited and the information in it presented.--Tkhorse (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Much to the contrary, Wikipedia policy states that a self-published source such as this may only be used in a BLP article if it was published by the subject of the article. I don't know where Corinthian Baptist Church is, but it's not Wright's church, and it's not Wright himself. On those grounds, this source, and all statements in the article that it supports by itself, should be removed in their entirety. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I object to calling a thank you letter a " Presidential Commendation". Are the letters that the Presidents Bush and Reagan sent me for my donations " Presidential Commendations"? What a peculiar--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC) thing to call them. I think, given the possessor of 75 honorary doctorates says the Black church in America is given to Hyperbole, this source is highly questionable.

IN RESPONSE TO above comments:

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

http://www.corinthianbaptistchurch.org/

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

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

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

The church's website is a self-published source. They set up their own website, and they put their own information on it. No third-party fact-checking, no presumption of neutrality. Self-published. We have no way of knowing for certain where the information on Wright came from, because they don't provide any information on where they got their data. As a self-published source, it is not valid for inclusion in a WP:BLP article. Furthermore, primary sources such as a person's CV are not trusted as much as a reliable secondary source, such as a newspaper article where there is a presumption that someone has done some fact-checking. CVs, resumes, and other documents intended to be self-aggrandizing are, in particular, of poor reliability, since they are frequently embellished. There is no need for a standard to establish the reliability of one person's CV over another's, because they're all inherently of poor reliability. As policy states, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And that goes extra for biographical articles. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Has the "History makers" established a reputation for fact checking, or do they only ask the self-aggrandizing person who has told them that a Presidential Aid Thank You Letter is actually -factually a.... drum roll please....a... " Presidential Commendation ". Such loose and fast playing with the facts is why no one past 5th grade can use it for a source for anything. We should be proud.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep capitalizing presidential commendation? TheslB (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to above:

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

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

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

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

One, don't put words into my mouth. I didn't call anybody a liar. The point is that there are rules on Wikipedia, those rules are very strict in the case of BLP articles, and the Corinthian reference is woefully inadequate in terms of reliability, whether it's true or not. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
Two, primary sources are not the best source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Even if we were taking material known to be authored by Wright himself, we would not be able to portray it as fact, because doing so makes a conclusion about the material unsupported by a secondary source. We could indicate that Wright states that he has these commendations, and we could display the photo of one of the letters, but we can't conclude on behalf of the reader that he has any more than one of them because that's all the secondary sources support.
Three, the permissibilty of self-published sources such as the Corinthian reference differs between BLP and non-BLP articles. Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself. Plain and simple. We don't know that Wright wrote that material, but even if you assume that he did (a point I'm not conceding, just stating for the sake of argument), then we still wouldn't be able to use this on its own, because there are further restrictions (such as the material not being self-serving). On the other hand, Autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses ... are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published. That's Wikipedia policy, and if other articles go against that policy, then yes, they should be edited for correctness when the problems are discovered.
I'm not making this stuff up as I go along. These are three Wikipedia policies, they're supposed to be followed, and so far, I've seen no compelling argument for why we should go against those policies. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you take issue with the Reverend Wright biography on the HistoryMaker's (an African-American biography publishing house) website, a third-party source? TheslB (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That one seems fine to me, although it's a bit difficult to dig up information about that organization due to the fairly generic name. This does, however, bring us back to the original question of whether the term "presidential commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson" carries unintended meaning. Uncapitalized, I think it's okay, although the presence of the word "presidential" in that sentence is still redundant. --DachannienTalkContrib 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I found this third-party sourcing about The HistoryMakers, and of course its own description (in particular, this). And another source, the distinguished alumni biography published by Howard University, for Wright's presidential commendations:

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

For the sentence in the article, I propose removing from President Lyndon B. Johnson since neither of the biographical sources mentions that specifically. TheslB (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Now three "Presidential Aid Thank You Letters" are now "several" Presidential Commendations? Is Howard Univesity now using the same hyperbole that the possessor of "75 honorary doctorates" has warned us about? I imagine that each of these sources is using Wright as their source without having verified it. If I say I have a pet dog, but really have a pet cat, then do I have a pet dog or a pet cat? Now if I tell you I have a pet dog,still only having a cat, and you tell your neighbor who tells his aunt that I have a dog, do I sill only have a cat , or is it now ... drum roll please... a Presidential Commendation a cat?What we have here is a Presidential Aid Thank You Letter". It even says thank you in the first line, and it is signed by an aid. How have we let this morph into a Presidential Commendation? Let's call a spade a spade, and a "Presidential Aid Thank You Letter" a "Presidential Aid Thank You Letter".--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, "several" is too inaccurate a term for our purposes, and all of the other sources mentioned above indicate exactly three. (I usually consider "several" to mean more than that, but hey, whatever.) Anyway, TheslB is correct in observing that none of those sources attribute the commendations to Johnson, although we do have other sourcing indicating that one of them came from Johnson (saying nothing about the other two). How that should be framed is (hopefully) a question primarily of style, though. --DachannienTalkContrib 04:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE:

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

Usefulness is trumped by policy. The source is self-publishing - I don't see how "published by oneself" and "self-published" could possibly be incongruous. And claiming that quoting policy is like blowing smoke is akin to claiming that citing a statute in a legal brief is an attempt to put one over on a court of law. Surely you can find a more reliable source for that information, such as this one. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Guess legislators don't have to worry about plagiarism. What a travesty. Include it it you must, I would be inclined to want to see Johnson named, as it gives the readers a more complete picture ( and sounds more like an indictment than something complementary for my part)--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Moves into gated commmunity on a golf course

Quoting this article here: [9] or any other number of articles on the Internet right now, Wright's church has bought him a $1.6 million dollar home, on a golf course, with a black population of about 1.9%, certainly not representative of his 'flock.' I believe that this is a legitimate addition to the man's bio under controversy - it is certainly becoming one, especially considering that this is the guy talking about greedy white people, and this money comes from members of curch community from a less-than-wealthy section of Chicago.

Sorry, but a blog doesn't constitute a mainstream "controversy". If we see this on CNN, etc., then we'll talk. Until then, it's just propaganda. Grsz 11 18:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this has been reported by the AP, although the conclusions given above are inappropriate synthesis of that report and a few other statistics about that community. --DachannienTalkContrib 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Type 'Jeremiah Wright Gaited Community' in Yahoo search and you get eleven pages of hits. I don't think that this is a flash in the pan. Especially considering that he SPECIFICALLY tells his flock (as we're calling it) to congregate with other African Americans and to avoid this sort of lifestyle (lot's of reference to 'middle classism' and avoiding rich white people, now his neighbors) I'd say that this makes fair commentaryUser talk:Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 00:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but Wikipedia is not the place for "fair commentary"; it's the place for encyclopedic, verifiable information gleaned from reliable sources. It's also small-minded chickenshit, but that's another issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
When I search for "Hillary Clinton death list" I get 20 million results. Should I start an article on this? Grsz 11 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Give me a break - the guy actually IS moving into a house, which actually IS on a golf course, which actually DOES cost $1.6 million dollars. He actually WAS a pastor for lower income black people who actually WERE told BY HIM that they should shun this lifestyle. It is donations from THOSE PEOPLE who make this home a possibility for him. How is this NOT a relevant comment for his entry? Tell me this - if were Pat Robertson, and the house were a gift from Bob Guccioni, would you put that on Robertson's Wikipedia entry?--Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oprah and Obama are low-income? Grsz 11 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In all fairness, Oprah actually left his curch when he started up on the 'I hate whitey' speech. Honestly, Grsz - are you SO deep in a hole for Obama that you see nothing noteworthy about this guy saying to his followers/parishoners/whatever, "White people created AIDS to kill people of color", and then when he retires moving into a million dollar home where all of his neighbors are white, and making those followers pay for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.218.135 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

From the churches site: "We are called out to be "a chosen people" that pays no attention to socio-economic or educational backgrounds. We are made up of the highly educated and the uneducated. Our congregation is a combination of the haves and the have-nots; the economically disadvantaged, the under-class, the unemployed and the employable." Grsz 11 01:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • His church owns the property -- or rather, owns a mortgage on it. What's the big deal? That a church is providing a nice place to live to a former pastor? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments after September 11 - revised

I attempted to revise this section as proposed. It was immediately reveresed. I show below my proposed revisisons, and explain why I think the revision improves on the current version.

In March 2008, ABC News broadcast sound bites[10] from a sermon that Wright gave shortly after September 11, 2001,[11] in which Wright attributed his remarks in part to the remarks of Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq under President Carter, former deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under the Reagan Administration and former U.S. Ambassador to a number of countries. [12]

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

Wright also said: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye...and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Wright went on to state: "Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people that we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."[10]

While Wright attributed some of his remarks to Peck, no independent evidence has been offered to document Peck making such remarks.



The edit was not intended to be biased. It is, in my estimation, cleaner and easier to follow exactly what was said by whom.

The edit I offered improves on the existing text in a few ways:
1. The Media Matters reference was eliminated as it is irrelevant in that does not provide the source comments. Instead it draws comparisons between the news coverage of Wright and Hagee.
2. It is clear, and verifiable, that Wright attributes his remarks to Peck. To assert that Wright "expands on" Peck, you would have to show the "base" of Peck's actual remarks from which Wright expanded. Wright does not say he "expanded on" Peck comments. My edit shows exactly what Wright said in relation to Peck.
3. Peck is identified for his service in Iraq under President Carter. Elsewhere, Peck's service under Reagan is noted, and thus the entry is incomplete to cite only Reagan and not Carter. 4. I show the direct Wright quotes, in the order that they are given by Wright in his sermon. The existing entry scrambles the order.
4. I note at the end that no evidence has been offered to show that Peck made the remarks. That is verifiable, not original research. If anyone has independent evidence that Peck said the remarks, let them add the evidence.


Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Please See: "Chickens come home to roost - Update" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.25.106 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Chickens coming home to roost

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

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

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

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

Here is the exchange:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given the context (referring to the above statements) the source tells us that "He [Wright] was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril." TheslB (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you show any evidence that Peck said these statements which are attributed to him? I am not attempting to include original research. I am challenging the verifiability of the quotes attributed to Peck. Simply put, no one, at this stage, has any verifiable link indicating that Peck made such statements.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Wright said he attributes things he is saying in his sermon to Peck. This can be verified by the source above or going to the original sermon. We do not know whether the attribution is true or false. We know that it was made and, thus, is verifiable. So long as it is clear Wright is attributing these things to Peck, discerning the truth value of whether Peck in actuality said these things is not necessary. TheslB (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Then the article should say that Wright claims to be quoting Peck, not that Wright is quoting Peck. The funny thing is, simply by us quoting Wright directly, we get it right, because Wright makes that claim in our quote of him. By expanding on who Peck is in this article (unnecessary anyway, given that we can just have a wikilink, Peck isn't directly involved in the controversy, and he might not even be the person Wright was quoting) we actually create a problem where it becomes unclear whether or not Wright really was quoting Peck or just claimed to be. That's why I removed that text. --DachannienTalkContrib 21:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • @what point do you think he stopped quoting/ Is this more hyperbole? Are you arguing that Peck did indeed talk about Indian tribes? I'm beginning to feel that with this example and the lycanthropic thank you letter that hyperbole is a very kind word for a most distasteful habit with the truth or lack thereof.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Update:

The link and quote below is from an article/blog written by Paul Kassener Sept 15, 2001 who witnessed Ed Peck on FOX News between Sept 11 and Sept 15, 2001. Kassener is a writer/satirist now posting blogs on The Huffington Post. Rev. Wright’s sermon of Sept 16th, 2001 quoted Ed Peck appearing on that show at that time. Below doesn’t provide the actual quote “Chickens coming home to roost" but it does carry some of the message and the type of things that Wright quoted him as saying.

http://www.flyingsnail.com/paul-one.html Nothing Will Ever Be the Same by Paul Krassner, September 15, 2001

For the past few days, I’ve been reading the newspapers, then checking the Internet to see what was left out of the papers, and then channel-surfing, from CNN (with their Americas New War logo, reassuring viewers that its not a rerun) to MTV (where one of the Beastie Boys advised: The last thing the terrorists want is for us to work together).

On the Fox News Network, Edward Peck, former ambassador to Iraq, was an unusually outspoken guest. He said the terrorists acted as they did not because America is a freedom loving country, but because they feel the U.S. has been treating them the same way throughout the years–bombing Iraq for the last ten years whenever they felt like it–and adding to the list (Take Panama, take Haiti, take Cambodia) before he was cut off and dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.25.106 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Time frame

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

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


UPDATE:

The link below is from an article/blog written by Paul Kassener Sept 15, 2001 who witnessed Ed Peck on FOX News between Sept 11 and Sept 15, 2001. Kassener is a writer/satirist now posting blogs on The Huffington Post. Rev. Wright’s sermon of Sept 16th, 2001 quoted Ed Peck appearing on that show at that time.

http://www.flyingsnail.com/paul-one.html Nothing Will Ever Be the Same by Paul Krassner, September 15, 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.25.106 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're supposed to take from this. We already have more reliable sources than this, and the article already couches the quote in the proper manner (by not directly attempting to attribute anything to Peck, but rather attributing the quote to Wright verbatim). If there's some change you think should be made to the article in light of what you've posted here, please say so. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To: Administrator

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

Begins with "In one of his sermons..." Grsz 11 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It is substantiated by the cite, or did you both not read it? I'm surprised Mr. Chang.Disagree. Clearly not vandalism.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That is, if you consider Rolling Stone a reliable source. Not to mention that these alleged sermons aren't in the mainstream and haven't be publicized, and aren't' part of the "controversy". Grsz 11 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is more complicated than that, though. One, how do we reach a determination of which sermons are and aren't a part of the controversy? This one has apparently received attention in one quarter (namely this article) - the article author was using it as an example of the fiery speeches Wright gives, so does that mean that it's synthesis to include it as part of the controversy, or would we be ignoring a valid source by omitting it?
Two, the cited article includes the emphasis, but of course, the speech itself was given verbally. That means that the emphasis was done subjectively on the part of the article's author (to reinforce it as a "fiery" example), so is it OR to omit the emphasis, or is it POV/inaccurate/unencyclopedic to include it?
Three, in terms of Rolling Stone's viability as a reliable source, I don't see an issue with including this reference as a purveyor of fact, but I would oppose citing Rolling Stone for analysis in this matter (mainly because doing so would be arbitrary - were this an article about music, things would be different).
Finally, if we do decide to keep the quote, neither Wikipedia nor the cited article is censored, so the word "shit" should appear without the asterisk. And on a side note, this was not vandalism. Remember to assume good faith. --DachannienTalkContrib 04:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Until a consensus is determined on whether to keep or remove the quote, it stays. Understand that the full-protection is almost up anyways. Tiptoety talk 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that neither of the two editors who were warned for their edit warring should be allowed to remove this until sufficient time has passed to build a consensus.It is difficult for me to assume good faith when people engage in that type of behavior. I would support a reversion to the present article and another full protection if they return to their formerly errant ways.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how you have the right to suggest who can and cannot edit Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Grsz11 05:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you are from, but where I live anyone has the right to suggest anything they want. Stalinism is so pas'e.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Please be civil. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have invoked one of the left's sacred cows injudiciously. I meant to say that I understood I could feel free to make any non-binding suggestion that I wanted to.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boy: "Hi, I'm a boy making some lame comment to you!"
Girl: "Oh my gawd, what a nerd."

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

"oh my gawd"
"gawd, don't make me come over there!"
"Gawd damn it!"

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

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

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

Oh my Gawd are you hurt!?
Gawddamnit, that was my last doughnut!

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

I disagree with your final conclusion that Rolling Stone in general should never be cited as a purveyor of fact. However, your argument (the one above the Urban Dictionary quotation), that the manner in which the quotation was presented in this specific article casts doubt upon its reliability as a source, seems reasonable. I'll support removing the quotation for that reason. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't clean up what Al Sharpton is quoted as saying on his page, nor should we edit his reported statements. It seems dishonest to accept the most questionable sources for every positive thing attributed to Wright, while protesting so vehemently every source that says something that you don't want to appear. I have no problem with including positive material, but it is duplicitous to call something that is a thank you letter something as grandiose as a presidential commendation.This can be included and credited to the appropriate source. In fact, this was an abuse of the template, as it was a good faith contribution that neither of you even took the time to verify. Before having misused the template, it was incumbent on you both to have investigated and at lease read the source. If presidential commendation can stand on much flimsier evidence, then this should be included as it is properly attributed.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I do, however, agree that "SHIT" should be spelled out, as this is what the cite quotes him as saying. I'm sure that all would have to agree , since others have rabidly fought that something musch less obvious ( and of which I remain unconvinced) was indeed a quote. Of this one, there can be no doubt.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that this section is perfect as it stands. Much as I strongly suspect that Grsz and Tkhorse would continue to worship under their shrine of Jeremiah Wright if he actually released his own video tape of 'Death to America' being tattooed on his ass, this is a particularly dispicable, racist excuse for a human being whose hatred of anyone not like him is only amplified by his actions. If Wright didn't want to be characterized as he has, perhaps he shouldn't have sold the CD's that did so? --Fovean Author —Preceding comment was added at 00:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ireinserted until a consensus has been reached for its removal.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think consensus should be made regarding if it should be there, as there was none in the first place, rather than the other way around. Grsz11 04:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It is cited and sourced properly. No consensus needed to add sourced material. I will concede changing the word to "SHIT" to keep it in line with the quote.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That is if you think a rock and roll magazine commenting on politics and religions counts. Grsz11 04:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The editor who removed the protection template also removed the quote as being inappropriate. I agree with removing. Thus, it appears a general consensus has developed and the result is remove. TheslB (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course consensus is needed. In the absence of guidance from other policies determining whether something should or should not be in the article (where policy represents a broader, pre-established consensus among Wikipedians concerning its content), consensus becomes the determining factor. --DachannienTalkContrib 07:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what, Wright gives no indication that this comment is even about the government. Grsz11 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus. Some people do not use their computers at work for personal gratification. I think if you are truly interested in a consensus and not your own agenda, then you should be able to wait. Give this some time for other editors to weigh in.I think we need to accurately quote the article and not clean up the quote. this source reports that Wright pronounced God in this fashion Die4Dixie (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Consensus does not equal unanimity. So far, you're the only person to hold that opinion out of several who have weighed in on the issue. --DachannienTalkContrib 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To: Administrator, pls add transcripts

{{editprotected}} Please add links to transcripts of the controversial sermons

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

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

I'd suggest not linking to the sluggy.net forum post, since forum posts are usually not considered acceptable references (and especially not in BLP articles), although in that post is a link to an audio file described as being a recording of the sermon in question (I haven't listened to it). --DachannienTalkContrib 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are these templates bing abused?--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Lawrence Korb remarks in article

Should be added as a reference for the Lawrence Korb quotation regarding Wright when article is unlocked:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0404wrightapr03,0,92000.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.57.31 (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Commendations

I'd like to put aside the Jesuitical parsing of the difference between a "letter of commendation" and a "presidential commendation", and ask whether the letters from President Johnson need to be mentioned twice. At the moment, they're in the article both under "Education and military service" (cited to Lawrence Korb) and "Career as minister and honors" (cited to the Corinthian Baptist Church bio). Now, it seems clear that the letters were given in relation to his military service, not his ministry (which began later). As such, I think it's slightly misleading to refer to them under "Career as minister and honors". I think that the mention of the letters in the military service section is sufficient, and we should remove the second mention.

I'd normally go ahead and make an edit like this (removing redundancy, repetition and saying the same thing twice), but since there's been debate on the subject of the letters I thought I'd give other people an opportunity to comment first. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This should work. The two biographical sources provided in the discussion above on presidential commendations should be added since there has been some contention as to factual accuracy. To quote a previous editor's statement: "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." — a sentiment I wholeheartedly disagree with. TheslB (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The sources have been added. TheslB (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's great (the more sources the better, especially on a controversial topic), but it doesn't address my question, which is why we need to mention the presidential commendations twice. I think that the mention under "Education and military service" should be sufficient, and we don't need to mention them again under "Career as minister and honors". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Good observation. --DachannienTalkContrib 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, this should work was meant as my assent. We are in agreement that the mention under "Career as minister and honors" should be removed. TheslB (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Please allow me to respond. I based the above linked statement on those of W.E.B. du Bois and his principles of Afrocentrism. I also have seen other examples of this type of compensation in the HistoryMakers.I'm certain if the above editor has read de Bois and his statements, he will understand my healthy skepticism.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome to your skepticism as a personal matter, but we now have four sources saying that Wright received "letters of commendation" from the White House or "presidential commendations". I think that attempting to draw a distinction between the two phrases is splitting hairs. Even if you doubt the Corinthian Baptist Church and the HistoryMakers site, the Howard University alumni page is unarguably a reliable source, as is the Lawrence Korb column. Are you still trying to question this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I had already bowed before consensus above; however, I do believe the sources are circuitous.As you can see, the linked statement was from before a consensus was made. Please insert the information as you seem fit.I'm certain that "Jesuitical parsing" might be offensive to those who have taken their vows in that worthy order as well as to devote catholics. Imagine someone referring to "Jewish avarice" or of some other equally offensive stupidity and you can see how the phrase reads--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that this is going to sound like "lots of my friends are Jesuits", but I have known and been taught by several members of the Society of Jesus. That said, I probably picked up the use of the term "Jesuitical" from my tutor, the late Brother Robert Smith FSC, who liked to tease his coreligionists of the Society of Jesus. I'm not Roman Catholic myself, but as an Anglo-Catholic I have deep respect for Catholic intellectual traditions, and as a graduate of St. John's College it would be historically short-sighted of me to slight the creators of the Ratio Studiorum, one of the founding documents in establishing the Western tradition of liberal education.
What did this have to do with Jeremiah Wright, again? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Pax vobiscum--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton response

Okay, so we have this "responses" section that, so far, has been all about a huge variety of people giving their two cents on Wright's sermons. We have opinions from a retired religious history professor, a professor of religious studies, Wright's church, the senior minister of the Clintons' church, an evangelical activist who is also white, two writers for Time Magazine, a former Reagan-era Assistant Secretary of Defense, Barack Obama, and, oh yeah, that guy from Wings (TV show).

These people all have one thing in common: Their opinions listed on this page have all rushed to Wright's defense. None of them - zero - have viewed this controversy in a negative light. Aside from that, they're all across the spectrum of humanity, and while I welcome diversity in education, the workplace, and elsewhere, I have been begging people for days upon days here to explain why, for example, Steven Weber's opinion means jack compared to what my next door neighbor might say on the issue.

Nevertheless, I try to introduce one comment, relevant to the controversy at hand, relevant to the reason why it has received so much media attention now instead of in September 2001, that stands in opposition to Wright's statements and opinions. And it's not even from the vast right-wing conspiracy. A quote I include, spoken by Hillary Clinton and sourced by CNN, gets reverted in under 10 minutes with the edit summary, "purely presidential campaign politics".

So apparently, in other words, it's a worthy addition to the article to have a quote from the senior minister from the Clintons' church defending Wright, and it's a worthy addition to quote Barack Obama, and we can even quote some guy who's in a lot of TV shows, but we can't quote Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps the editor who reverted my edit would care to explain his reasons in significantly more than four words? --DachannienTalkContrib 03:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote is about Obama, not Wright. C.m.jones (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, to quote Daffy Duck: "Aha! Pronoun trouble." Perhaps you'd like to explain to me exactly who "he" is in the Clinton quote. --DachannienTalkContrib 04:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Clinton is making a claim about Obama pertaining to his church and the church's former pastor. For neutrality's sake, at least some of the response in the news article cited for the claim needs to be present. More of the response could be added, but I do not want to weigh down the article about Wright with any more of the nominee campaigning. TheslB (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The New Republic article--Wright a Muslim?

The National Review Online: Putting Wright in Context has the following information about Wright (emphasis mine), but I haven't seen it elsewhere:

After many lectures like this, Obama decided to take a second look at Wright's church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for "Buppies"--black urban professionals--and didn't have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity's guiding principles--what the church calls the "Black Value System"--included a "Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.'"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.135.1.91 (talk • contribs) 21:03, April 10, 2008

Obama says about that:

“He had grown up in Philadelphia, the son of a Baptist minister. He had resisted his father’s vocation at first, joining the Marines out of college, dabbling with liquor, Islam, and black nationalism in the sixties. But the call of his faith had apparently remained, a steady tug on his heart, and eventually he’d entered Howard, then the University of Chicago, where he spent six years studying for a Ph.D. in the history of religion. “

But of course that's going to be a biased telling as well. So: what are the actual facts? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Obama plus one other source is sufficient. It makes sense, Wright has gone on junkets with Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan as well as awarded him a medal. His Muslim periiod is probably when the twoo became acquainted. Interesting detail, thanks for bringing it up. CarlosRodriguez (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We need more reliable sources before this information could be added. Carlos' comments clearly indicate his bias: "His Muslim period is probably when the two became acquainted." So let's wait a bit and see if more proof can be brought to the table. Grsz11 03:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Going on "junkets" doesn't say anything about someone's religion, either."Probably" is useless. "Makes sense" is useless. What we think makes sense is irrelevant. What we think "probably" is so is irrelevant. Verifiable information from reliable sources is the only thing that matters; where is it? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not the job of Wikipedia to arrive at its own conclusions, even based upon synthesis of reliable sources. And in this case, we don't even have that much. --DachannienTalkContrib 16:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Consideration of Social justice, Praxis, and other definitive themes of Rev. Wright's sermons

It is sad that biased POV is preventing proper desciptions and understanding Rev Wright, and his ethno-centric theology. His church's emphasis on Black liberation theology, and the themes of Social justice, "Praxis" (see Praxis school), and Precarity are significant. Also, the obvious links and historical roots of Marxism, Liberation theology, and Black liberation theology should be included. This is significant even without mentioning the current importance of Jeremiah Wright as mentor, Pastor, and friend to the large church congregation which includes Presidential Candidate Obama's family. The historical record should be clearly spelled out regarding these concepts and relationships. It would be best for all of us, for educational purposes if nothing else, to attempt NPOV and objectivity regarding these subjects. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite so — as long as the provision of this context is derived from reliable sources. Sadly, most of the recent coverage of Rev. Wright in the media has been on a very superficial level, and would not help with the provision of such context. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Marxism?!? Jeeze, what century are living in? Regan is dead, a whole generation has been born and grown up without the Soviet Union, and China is the corporation's paradise. No, the days of McCarthy are dead and buried. No need for obvious speculation and original research in an already contentious article. --Dragon695 (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Should the following site be used as a source: http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com? I don't think blog's with personal opinion should be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewschools (talk • contribs) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Former Muslim?

Barack Obama provides a brief biography on of Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. in his book “Dreams from my Father”, page 282. Dreams from my Father, page 282: “He had grown up in Philadelphia, the son of a Baptist minister. He had resisted his father's vocation at first, joining the Marines out of college, dabbling with liquor, Islam, and Black Nationalism in the sixties.” Rev. Wright got his Masters degree in “Islam in West Africa” http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/4d8a42cb-ede8-499e-b737-df7a0682f19c http://infidelsarecool.com/wp-content/uploads/WrightOnProgrMuslims070807.jpg

Although blogs reference this, The information is in a best seller book from Barack Obama Please do not delete, verify it for yourself with Obama's book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigbopper5000 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please verify it with a reliable source before adding it. Grsztalk 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


added reference to "Former Muslim" from the "New Republic" magazine http://www.pickensdemocrats.org/info/TheAgitator_070319.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigbopper5000 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This was also chronicled in the New Republic Magazine"

But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”–included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.’”

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a74fca23-f6ac-4736-9c78-f4163d4f25c7&p=8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigbopper5000 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it you take "dabbling" in something to mean adherence to something? Ewenss (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like The New Republic interpreted dabbling with Islam as having at one time been Muslim. Without further sourcing to confirm this claim, I do not think it can be added to the article. Right now it is much too tenuous. If substantiated, it will need to be given proper weight and context within this biography. The recent edits are totally unacceptable in that regard. Wikipedia's biography of a living person policy is applicable and should be reviewed. TheslB (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention New Republic is an opinion publication. Although it's not a conservative one, it still isn't a reliable source for a BLP. Grsztalk 04:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of the sources Thebigbopper has provided, most are not reliable sources, and of the sources which might be considered reliable, only the New Republic article actually says Wright was a Muslim. Obama says Wright "dabbled in Islam", which could be a very different thing from actually being Muslim. (When I was a kid I studied Hebrew alongside other kids studying for their Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, which someone could describe as my having "dabbled in Judaism" — but I was never Jewish.)
The wording used by Thebigbopper was definitely not NPOV (and the categories in particular were POV-pushing), but there might be an argument for including a neutrally worded sentence about Wright's "dabbling" with Islam. If anyone wants to go further and say that he actually was a Muslim, the main question would seem to be whether the New Republic article is a sufficiently reliable source to include. Personally, I think that The New Republic is a reliable source in many circumstances, but in this particular case there seems to be too much ambiguity around its claim. Since Rev. Wright is back in the media, there's a good chance that we'll hear more about his past in the days and weeks to come. I suspect that in the near future we'll hear more from reliable sources about whether he was or was not a Muslim in the '60s — at which point we can add the facts to this article. I think that until then, per WP:BLP, we should be cautious about making a definitive claim. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me say that, in the 60s, many blacks "dabbled" in Islam. It came with there being two branches of the civil rights movement, one led by King and another by Malcolm X. Moreover, If one looks at the Trinity United Church of Christ article, they will see that Wright at university actually argued against black nationalism, including the Islamic flavors of that, particularly where it insisted that being black and Christian were inconsistent. Thebigbopper is just doing drive by politically motivated stuff without really thinking. Ewenss (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As I suspected, there's more coverage of Wright's religious journey in the popular media today. For example, this Time article titled "How Jeremiah Wright Found Religion". If Wright had actually been a Muslim in any meaningful sense of the term, I'd expect it to be mentioned there (especially since the article discusses how black liberation theology was in part a response to the challenges posed by the Black Power movement and the Nation of Islam). But there's nothing. Occam's razor tells me that the author of the New Republic article misinterpreted Obama's "dabbled in Islam", as Thesl suggests above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the ref section

There was a dangling open ref tag that was causing the ref section to display garbage, so I did a content-neutral repair over 4 edits. I did not add or delete anything other than to fix the dangling ref.[10] If you think that other bit should be deleted, make sure to properly close the ref tag. Thank you. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I was wondering why the Neutrality tag was up. Some investigation revealed: "22:42, 29 April 2008 Neil Brown (Talk | contribs) (31,716 bytes) (Do NOT remove these flags until the conditions are corrected. This is among the worst and most biased articles I've seen on all of Wikipedia.)" I really don't see it as all that biased. But that's just me. I checked the current version vs. the particular version Neil Brown was protesting, and they're not terribly different. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Shostie (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, much more biased than say Expelled 72.205.37.144 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wright Quotes

1. " http://www.bumpshack.com/2008/03/18/pastor-jeremiah-wright-controversy-quotes/ --Ssjkriccolo (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.254.58 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to see the Wright quotes be a little more substantive, maybe including a couple of the sentences before the inflammatory remarks. That way people can judge for themselves whether the controversial statements are being taken out of context or not. For instance, the full quotes could look something more like this:

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

and this:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God damn America, as long as she pretends to act like she is God, and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent."

It just seems more intellectually honest, even if it is bulkier to quote him in full. 68.13.79.4 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,"

It appears that this quote as the impetus for Wright's military service is unsupported. The citation is to an op-ed piece which merely makes the claim - it does not support the claim. The usage in the op-ed may just be editorial hyperbole, is there a secondary source?

One would expect that any young man that drops out of college and joins the Marines at Kennedy's request would highlight this devotion, yet it seems to originate with the opinion piece and gone viral through it's inclusion in Wiipedia.

It is suspect. Does ayone know Wrights date of enlstment or graduation dates from military training? I know the picture of him graduating from boot camp had a date from before Kennedy's speech, but I have no faith in the date I saw so I won't formallly offer it to impeach the Op-Ed claim.Jombl (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Military/Wartime Service: U.S. Marine Corps, private first class, 1961-63; U.S. Navy, hospital corpsman third class, 1964-67. (Biography at Answers.com). John F. Kennedy gave his inaugural address on January 20, 1961. (Online book at Bartleby.com). TheslB (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You've just used the Wright Wikipedia entry as a citation to support itself. Please notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the Wright entry at Answers.com, it states: "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)" Jombl (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The section from Wikipedia, at the bottom of the page, is below the Wikipedia header. The Military/Wartime Service is from the top part of the page, above the header. This part is an entry from the Contemporary Black Biography by the Gale Group, as previously explained on this page. TheslB (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I see the separation now. However the upper half looks to be signed by one "Kari Bethel". Most importantly it does not contain any mention of Kennedy's speech as his motivation for joining. Please understand that there is no doubt about his having honorably served as a Marine - I'm not sure where that started, but it's clearly not true. My objection is to the attachment of unsourced motivations. Not even Wright himself has made this claim - it does not seem to appear until very recently and may be dated directly to the op-ed piece referred to earlier. His military career was quite successful - especially considering the era that it occurred in. There is no need, nor is this the place, to embellish it further with unnecessary historical ornamentation. Jombl (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Military Service

There was no automatic educational deferment during Wright's enlistment period. Educational deferments became more or less universal in with the Selective Service Act of 1967 and the three year existence of the Draft lottery. In Wright's time he may have taken the Selective Service College Qualification Test (SSCQT) and been scored, ranked, and then possibly granted a formal deferment. The act of attending College was not in and of itself an automatic grant of exemption. [11] Wright makes no claim to having possessed an exemption and no support for him having taken the SSCQT has been presented. This was also a time of low draft induction and a low armed forces totals post Korea and before the Vietnam call-ups. Also no transfer mechanism exists between armed services. One enlistment ends and the next begins. That phrasing was also corrected. Jombl (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not having any luck in finding your assertions about Wright's student deferment in the 70-page, poorly-scanned PDF document. Could you point me to the particular page numbers and sections of text? It would also be helpful in general to know where your various claims originate. See Wikipedia's no original research policy for why it is important. TheslB (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I will not be able to prove a negative. I can only point out that a single test and competitive system existed to gain an educational deferment from the draft at that time. Wright makes no claim to having applied for a deferment, taken the SSCQT, or been granted a deferment. It appears that an assumption has been made that mere enrollment in College automatically granted a deferment. This was never true. 75.58.37.204 (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, it would be helpful in general to know where your various claims originate. I am not asking you to prove a negative, but to support the arguments you have proffered to discredit the sourced statements about Wright's military service. TheslB (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made no claim. I have pointed out that it does not follow that a College student of that era would have received a competitive deferment from the draft automatically from enrollment. The claim that was made was that the student had applied for a competitive deferment, been granted the deferment and subsequently gave up the deferment. It is this claim that is unsupported.Jombl (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
How do we know what a college student of that era would have received? Who made the claim you reference in your last sentence? Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. Sourcing so I may verify the claims underlying your arguments is a first step in this process. TheslB (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The SSCQT and the laws regulating the Selective Service tell us. It's a simple fact. Simply provide a source that states that any enrolled College student received an automatic student deferment from military service before 1966 and the conversation ends. I've provided an overview of the Educational Deferment program and the SSCQT that includes a detailed discussion of the program, it's purpose and the process - there should be no remaining doubt that military deferment for college students was not universal but a competitive process granted to a select few before the changes to the system brought on by three year existence of the Lottery Draft from the Selective Service Act of 1967.Jombl (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wright's local draft board would have been the ultimate grantor of an exemption. Statistics on the % applied for and number actually granted may be available, you may find the %100 number you're looking for there. A formal deferment would need to have been granted - none has been claimed. It appears that the op-ed is the basis for this unsupported historical hyperbole.Jombl (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I'm proposing a merge of the recent controversy's article into this article for two reasons:

  • The controversy article has a tendency to become in violation of WP:NOT#NEWS in the next few months, when the media furore dies down and this becomes as forgotten as the Muslim rumour or the John McCain lobbyist controversy, only brought up when the election comes around.
  • More importantly, this article is becoming a content fork, with many bad things said about Wright and not a good thing in the article. I think a short summary in this article may be all that's needed to discuss this in comparison to other political controversies that've happened this year.

Thoughts? Sceptre (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose for many reasons: The controversy is relevant and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The controversey extends beyond simply Jeremiah Wright. There are good things said about Wright in the article, including justifications of his comments offered by professors, although per WP:NPOV, both sides arguments need to be included (and this is surely not a reason to merge the article). The controversy article is 33kb readable prose and 55 kb total, so placing all the content in this article would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. And this has been proposed before. Happyme22 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: In the interest of disclosure, Happyme22 created the controversy article April 10. TheslB (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I can be perfectly NPOV even if I did create the article. Anyway, there are plenty of other "controversy" articles on Wikipedia, including those that are rarely mentioned anymore in the news (as Sceptre argued that this won't be in the future) including the Santorum controversy and Bill Clinton pardons controversy. Happyme22 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Both of which I feel can be adequately merged into the subject article. Sceptre (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. it deserves it's own article. tlatseg

*Support - It really is nothing other than a content fork that divorces this from its context. I prefer it be merged into the 2008 Presidential campaign article. This affair has turned out to effect Hillary Clinton just as much if not more than Obama. CyberAnth (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Above user blocked for abuse of multiple accounts.

  • STRONGLY OPPOSE - This merge proposal has already been discussed in depth within the last three weeks on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. Many editors addressed these issues and others and the merge proposal was rejected. Sceptre, were you aware of this when you re-proposed this merge? Please review the previous proposal. [[12]] Thanks, IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Protect Requests

{{editprotected}} Typo under primary picture of Write The "Corps" in Marine Corps is misspelled in the caption of Wright's primary picture. Someone please fix this because I don't have an account and I'm unable to edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.246.21 (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the picture should be just deleted, this isn't a family album and it's just irrelevant.
I just made the spelling change; more discussion can follow about whether the picture should be deleted. --CapitalR (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Correct Senior Pastor tense in first sentence. Change to read "is the Senior Pastor" and delete retired. Wright has retired as Pastor and given up daily responsibilities, but he is the current Senior Pastor. Here is the link to his current title:[13] 75.58.42.131 (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I've made this change because the official website doesn't say he's retired. Though is it possible that they just haven't updated their website in a while? --CapitalR (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)